The New York herald., 1879-09-23

| to ouote cases where it decided that the next
! OF kin had precedence over all others
! Mr. Deveiin-Thesc Coppers brothers are no more
next OF kin. so long as Denis Coppers leIt churen'
than they his hers in law. The main question:
after all who is there in this court that can com
pc the that piece OF property Tor tue
burial OF Coppers body. That is really 'ho iss"e 70
! be tried
Mr.. Brooke then began the argument on oehaiI OF
the relatives contending that the adult relatives OF
! Mr.. Coppers the proper persons TO prins tnls
action He argued that the right OF the decedent 10
be buried in the plot OF ground purchased by MIN
| in calvary Cemetery absolute and indefeasi-
bic right no matter what the quality or character OF
his tile-whether the title vested in him III fee
| simple or whether he the owner of q mere
ease ent or usuructuary right. such as is incident
10 pew owners in the church of religious corpora
tjon The only evidence OF title is the receipt OF
December /, 1873. for SIS. for "Pot ID. graves o. O.
| E" 1t was claimed that the ground being described
chase money and the land surrendered at the time OF
the grant. there could be no other proper and
equitable construction of such evidence OF title and
the intention OF the parties thereto except that
it intended to be conveyance Ia Zee simple. IL
was further claimed by Mr. Brooke that unless there
Was some express covenant restricting and lessening
the and quality OF ITS grants in the deeds
or evidences of title delivered to the grantees. the
estate granted must OF necessity be determined to
be AN estate in simple. He denied that there was
any such restrictive covenant in the evidence OF
title delivered to Copper and he claimed that there
fore the Court could not lessen restrict his title.
Under ordinary circumstances Mr.. Brooke ad-
mtted that title to cemetery plot was mere
| III.
corporation the creation Of particular private
statutes defining its powers and functions it has no
life and authority than that given to 1t by the
proper construction OF the law upon which its ex-
istence depends. Under the general law Mr..
Brooke admitted that the tendency and current OF
the decisions had been that u cemetery plot was
not an in fee simple, but claimed that even
under the general statutes the question was not
clearly determined. II the Court should determine
that the estate granted is an estate in fee simple
that would end the case OF the defendants aud re-
spondents: but if less than fee simple-s mere
in fha law a
OF himself aud his heirs or kindred. then he asked,
what alternative has the Court but to decide that
upon the death of the grantee that such decedent Is
absolutely and properly entitled to be therein
! inferred H. claimed that it was the duty OF the
Court enforce such right II it was refused upon
| proper application. The osition or counsel was
that in either view Of the law the right equally
indefeasibe. In either case all the incidents OF an
| estate i'll fee are concomitants OF such ttle
FRLEMAsoNRY AND THE CHURCH.
| The second point in MIR. Brookes argument was
| the refusal to allow the body to be buried in the
plot because the time of the purchase and ut his
| death Coppers was Free Mason. 1t is alleged. he
said that embership in such Order Is obnoxious to
the religion OF the Roman Catholic Church and pro-
scribed thereby, and that the deceased having died
| III such membership and communion with said
| Order he forfeited whatever right he might have
! possessed to be buried In ground consecrated
| and set apart sacred by the Church. These con-
siderations, he claimed, cannot properly have the
slightest weight III determining the legal question.
| With matters of religion or denominatonal tenets
or faith doctrines the Court can have nothing to
do. To sustain this position vast arrav or author
| tiles quoted.
AS his third point Mr.. Brooke argued that even If
| the Court has the power TO determine the right Of
the decedents burial in accordance with the eccle-
sastca canon laws, still the assumption that such
law in this country commanded the refusal OF such
| interment in consecrated ground is not well
founded. The DEGREES against Freemasonry and
| Free Masons were made during the seventeenth and
! eighteenth centuries; they induced by
| causes which political with the Church.
| and were directed to conditions and circum-
stances that existed in countries and under govern
| mens where the temporal and spiritual power OF
! the Church predominant. After referring to
the occasion Of the exercise OF OF TINS power Mr..
condemnation OF the Order by Clement XlL and Ben
edict XIV
THE AMERICAN CHURCH NOT OPPOSED TO MASONRY.
This history, he claimed. showed that that reason
| for the antagonism Of the Church was based upon
| the assumption that the societies toward which it
| was directed were in league against religion and
| against her own spiritual and temporal power. The
reason had its origin and existence in
| tries 1t could never exist here. and
therefore the Church has adopted distinct legisa-
tive powers and government for this country. He
then quoted the law OF the Church. referred to the
| fact that the enactments were approved and con-
rmed at Rome, and claimed that the decrees OF for
! eign councils in matters of faith in the Church are
nor in force in this country because OF the inappc-
ability to own institutions and form OF govern
ment. He then spoke Of plenary councils in this
| country and claimed that under the decrees OF the
second plenary council, held at Baltimore in 1865,
| Free Masops are nowhere mentioned. In conclusion
Mr. Brooke referred to the uuibord case analo-
| gous and asked similar Judgment.
Finally. Coppers will. directing that the religious
| formed by Protestant Episcopal clergyman. was
made point in the case, Mr.. Brooke claiming that
IL Coppers Catholic he is entitled to burial
in the lot where his wife, children and mother
| inferred.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Bfooke's speech it was
too late to finish the argument before the adjourn
ment of the court and in consequence it was deter
| mined that Mr.. Develin Will be heard in reply on
| Monday next.
TOOK A MASONIC DEGREE.
| During the progress of Mr.. Brooke's argument
| Judge Westbrook interrupted him by saying. cit
has III "A r
| gument that twenty years ago took degree in a
Masonic lodge myself"
YES" retortet Mr.. Devein; 'but Your Honor,
perhaps, does not want to be buried i'll Calvary Gem
| etery just yet.
This gave rise to ripple of merriment. in which
the Judge himself Joined and then said, II only
made the observation in the light that 1t might in.
| capactate me from sitting in this case.'
"Oh, Your Honor need not have any scruples on
that score" said Mr.. Develin. ''as far
cerned. We are perfectly satisfied to have you pre-
| side"
$50 we." replied Mr.. Brooke. and the matter
| ended.
| HELPING THE STRIKERS