Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1878-05-17
SECRECY OF THE CONFESSIONAL.
An Important Legal Decision in Massa-
chusetts.

A case of much interest has recently
been decided by the supreme court
relating to the right Of a Roman
Catholic priest to exclude from the room
the wife of the keeper of an almshouse
while the priest was administering a sacra-
ment of the church to a sick person. The
Boston AdrertiseT reports the case as fol-
lows: "The suit was brought by Rebecca
Cooper against Peter M'Kenna and others in
the superior court for MiddleseX county. 1t
was an action of tort for an assault and bat
terry, and the defense was general denial of
liability. At the trial of the cause, there was
evidence tending to show that the assault and
battery, if committed at all, was committed
IN an effort to remove the plaintiff from a
room In the almshouse, or which the plant
iii s husband was keeper, and of which she
was in charge at the time, in Marlborough,
where the defendant, M Kenna, a Catholic
priest, and a resident of Marlborough, was
endeavoring to administer the sacrament to a
sick woman named Hogan, who was
ment essential to her, and was an
inmate of the house, and had requested
him to administer it, and which admins
tering required entire secrecy between
M 'Kenna and the sick person; that the plant
if had refused to leave the room after being
requested to retire, and that only a sufficient
and proper amount of force was used to
compel her to leave. The defendants asked
the court to instruct the jury as follows: If
the jury are satisfied that the defendant
M'Kenna went to the almshouse at Hogans
request, to administer TO her the sacraments
of her church, and violated no rule of the
house, either written or otherwise, and did
not interfere with the proper discipline of the
house in obtaining access to her, then, if the
sacrament of penance to be administered, as
understood by M Kenna and Hogan, required
secrecy between the parties, and the plaintiff
persistently remained in the room after being
requested to retire, and for the purpose OF
interfering, then a sufficient and proper
amount of force might be used to remove the
plaintiff from the room where the sick person
was while the sacrament was being admin
lstered.' The court refused to instruct the
jury as requested, for the reason, among
others, that no justification had been set up
IN the defendants answers. A verdict was
rendered for the plaintiff, and the defendants
alleged exceptions The supreme court
has now overruled the exceptions which
were taken by the defendants, holding that,
under an answer making a general denial
of the plaintiff 8 declaration, the justifca
ton set up by the defense was inadmissible.
But the court also found, independently of any
question of pleading, the supposed justifca-
ton insufficient. The opinion is by Judge
court says: 1t appears from the bill of ex-
ceptions that the plaintiffs husband was the
keeper of the almshouse, and that she was in
charge of it at the time of the difficulty. She
was rightfully in the room at the time 1t hap
pened, and the defendant was mere visitor.
Whether it would have been reasonable and
proper, under the circumstances, for the
plaintiff to have left the room on being re-
quested, is question not for us to decide,
and upon which we need express no opinion.
There was nothing, however, in the priestly
character of the defendant, or in the offices
of religion which he was about to perform,
that gave him the control of the room. or
any legal authority to exclude or remove from
it by force any person lawfully there. The
case presented to US raises no question except
as to the strict legal rights of the parties,
and We are bound to say that the facts relied
upon by the defendant in justification of his
conduct do not, as a matter of law, fur
nish any defense G. A. Somerby appeared
for the plaintiff and L. H. Sweetser for the |