The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-28
THE DENOUNCED MARRIAGE.

PROCEEDINGS N COURT os TIRE CASE OF +. e.
TANNING, or CHELSEA, AGAINST FATHER
MGLEw FoR sLANDER-THg GREAT CUES
TON, rs MARRIAGE 4 SACRAMENT
BosroS NAY =, 1873.
The case OF Robert Q. Tanning, 81 Chelsea.
against Father James McGlew, III wmch me former
SEEKS 70 recover $4,000 damages TOR SANDER already
alluded 10 III tue HERALD was resumed III the
superior Court Ii this city ro-lay. Il eScltes me
utmost interest among ull classes ~ the COM
muuity, aud tue court rooia has been crowded %
is lull capacity during the progress q the pro
reedinga me facts ia the case, n
bnef are as follows:-That the siutin,
while member u FatDer McGlews
mock, contracted marriage VITA catherine
Murphy, outside Of the parlsn me ceremony was
performed by magistrate, Ia accordance wlth
our state laws. The pastor subsequently and on
several OCCASIONS in the presence of hs congreGa-
tion, denounced Tanning Tor his action. stating
that be unlawfully married ana nying ID !
state Of mortal sin. me counsel for Mr. Tanning
10 opening the case alluded 10 It's Importance and
the great interest manifested ana sald that any
communication, IN order TO be privileged, must pc
made by the priest or teacner Of congregation
IN regard 10 any member or the congregation
In the course or some hearing, where the party
spoken OF has an opportunity 10 be heard n
MS own behalf This Is rhe point whsrela this
case offers rom any otner similar case n the
past. Previous cases nave established that Div
ileged Communications or tins kind relate 10 lnves-
legations or hearings only.
the POINT or THE CASE.
Tho case may turn upon tnls question, ether
the law Of the land takes precedence over law
ana usages Of cnurch, ana counsel apprehended
that the Court would hold the l4w or the land
was the supreme power over all It's citizens. TIC
counsel SAID he should Snow tnat the defendant
had been for years hostile 10 the Whple family Ol
the pldlntln; Lnat on various occasions he mad
dispiayed an accountable Nlndlcupeuess. Tue
palntin had been reared good ana faltnul
CaghOlc. lie never preferred to uc married out
~ me church, but tue conduct ~ his priest
toward MN mad led lim Cu believe that ii np went
10 uim to be married ne would BE spurncd. There
fore liz went under tue law 81 toe land
20 magistrate and had his marriage
soleunZed. on this question 81 hostility ne
would prove that Q sister cf plaintiff Va one oc-
cason mad ueen tod BY Ehs priest. when about 70
bury ner husband that II she dldn't discharge
Ifoteslant uhcerlaker "hom she Nd ehGased
and engage Catholic her deceased husband
should De denied the rites Of burial II woulu AZ
pear that IN this case the priest gave ~ warning
o any of the family, or ans sOhcl atlUn 10 40 any
tnlng which would be considered a reparation lor
tue alleged oHeuce. lie Wonl- SHOW Iiso that
plantln, IN accordance with the teneta 81 the
church, vent 10 a confessional snd Obtained an-
solution also that before the SANDER he went ana
p4riOOk OF the sacrament ne question they
we're 10 try was whether q citizen, Avlug under
the laws ana legally married, was alncnGbie only
10 the laws, or 20 men who, tnrougl malice ana III
VIII might assume rlgnt 10 why hIn. These
points thus clained by the counsel hi Mr.. flaming
were subsequently sustained ~ the witnesses
VINO appeared on his side, All the witnesses were
members or the church in walch the alleged SLAM
der we're uttered, ana some or them were rela-
tlyes 81 the plaintln.
Charles 4. UOnuelY. counsel iof Father Nc
GleA, ~ ms opening, said mat the question they
were about 10 try was whet1er ne defendant
with toe intent aheged; and whether they we're
IA the course 81 privileged conmuni.
stated that the paries we're hylng together
without marriage, but been married out ~
the Cnurcn Now, the plainun alleges mat he
was accused q iornicatloD. wnen tnestatemeat 81
ueiendant was simply that be had gone ana got
married. lie wond prove ~ Catholic priests
and ~ the teachings VI the Catholc Ihuren
that ID was Tor Cathoncs 10 60 OUTSIDE Of
The Cnurcn. and tie would snow That It was the
rlgnt or the pastor To reDuke MS Pensioners FOR
this sin. Inc catholic Churca teaches Iuat a mar
rage by magistrate is IN this srY, perfectly
wand bat TnaJ the party 90 tuus contracts mar
Il at DIS own peril, and i subject to pun
shment. Tney should claim ana prove hat
parties VINO were IN q state u dlsouedencr, not
Fannng alone. Tut otners with MIN 70 come ior-
diner from hundreds " cases which had been
brought. Inc principles governing II we're setted
years ago. the only principle beng tnat wnerc
party injures another by slanderous statements,
be Is liable Tor damages. There Is no important
principle or new RUE 70 De settled mere, ana =
great amount OF undue publicity anu promi.
nence mad been gwen % tnis case N the
newspa 9ers. He old NOT DeiieNe rule
had ever been nxed tnat psstor vas
limited 10 hearings or investigations IN wncn
70 Tebuke oT Glide poTisnloner, o. tnat ne could
not SPEAK from me altar The counsel said he
expected 10 prove that tue Catholic CHURCH looks
UPON marriage a. an indissOlLDle union, which not
even me head 81 the Churcl could DreaE, ana
tnCre Is probably tx Church moro lJeral Ia regard
% the celebration 81 marriage vows. IL allows
hat 10 caGe or necessity where there Is no min.
lsteE or magistrate, parties can marry them
selves, beng themselves TIE celebraDts, Uut IN
celebrating Il where there Is clergyman near
by, u 10 inetr duty 70 20 before MIN.
EVIDENCE or FATHER N'GLEW.
Among the witnesses examined this afternoon
was Rev. Father McGeW himself. He said that he
was ordained priestin Dublin mad spent Jour or
i've years among the HndOos, out Tor the past
eight years nad been pastor 81 ~. Roses cnu-eh IL
Chelsea question Of counsel as 70 wnai the
law II toe Church was As 10 partes VnO married
outside the church was objected 70 and ruled out
the Court statIng thaf IL was admitted there was
iaw relative - marriage ana that was SUFFICIENT
Tor toe purposes of this case, - not
necessary for the defendant 10 prove tnat
the plantin was living 10 violation %
Law or the church. witness testified
that what ne said about the marriage Or the plain
iii on the afst occasion vas that he had married
out 81 the Church. violating the sanctlty Of matri-
myny, ana that " was Ms duty 10 speak 81 II, or
rsk expulsion FOR allowing scandal n his
parish: that the parties we're bound 10 come lor-
ward and make TeparatiOn never ~ Any time
SAID tnaI the marriage was iny&lid; he woIid not
Dare 70 say sucn tning; don't TecOliecg
using the word "bastard? have no hostility,
and never haa, 10 the defendant. on cross
examination witness stated on the hrst Occa-
sion That he said 10 MS congregation thaE
sucn marriages we're valid; don't recOliect having
used tue phrase, sweep Oi the town. may have
ssid ne was married by some buckle beggar;i
'buckie begsar' y magistrate ia t0e Old Coun-
don't Know q flaming having psTtaken Of the
COMMUNION between the ume Of Ills marriage and
here are some thirIy witnesses 70 be exam
inea and tne tFial may possioly last several days
THE VACANT BENCH.