Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1879-11-13
CAN CHURCH DISCIPLINE INTER
FERE WITH A MANS BUSI-
N E,Ss p

CAN CHURCH DlSClPLlNE INTER-
FERE WITH A MANS BUSI-
NESS
The ease which was noted in our dis
patches few days ago, in which a
Holvoke hickman brought suit against
Rev. ANDRE Il. DUrRESNE, aprieSt OF the
Catholic Church, OF IIolyoke, Mass, for
$1,000 damages, ON the ground that the
de'en liant used his ecclesiastical author
ity TO break up the plaintiffs business,
has resulted in ayerlict OF $, 433 for the
haCkman.
As the case has attracted very general
attention, rs the first Of the kind occur
ing i'm this country, and is of unusual
Importance by way of defining the legal
limits OF ecclesiastical authority, the ex-
act character OF the issues involved are
Of interest to the public.
The facts at issue were simple and in
great measure acknowledged by both
parties. They are summarized by the
press rs follows:
Parker was a hackman at Iolyoke in
December. 1873, when Father Chinlquy,
a French Catholic priest who had been
converted To Professionalism, came to
Holvoke to lecture about his change OF
creed. OF course he was obnoxious to
the RomaniSt clergymen, who warned
their people against attending Chlni-
uuv'S services. When IL came 10 Father
Duiresne's ears that q number of his
parish had heard the renegade, he called
upon them % give him their names.
Later 10 appeared that Parker attended
the services and dil not acknowledge
his error. and ne was accommodated
from the church. Then, according to
the plaintiffs declaration, the priest
"iraudulcutly, wiltully, violently
AMI maliciOuSly intending To inlure
the plaintiff i'm his business,
spoke "to a large number OF people as
srmhlrd I'm his meeting house rs fol-
lows. Il forbid any person belonging
tn this church having or using any
hacks belonging % that hackman that
has been % Chiniuuy'S church, and, If
Won 10 employ him, ] shall turn you
ont of the church, also, on another Oc-
caSion. he said 10 larger company, III
ANYBODY hires the hacks of that man
that goes to Chiniquy'S church i will
turn him out OF the church, also, ut
vet another time, the priest did "hin-
der. deter and interfere with the plain
tiff i'm the free exercise oil his business,
as follows: IL forbid any OF my con-
grrgation from employing any hacks
Of that man that goes 10 hear Chiniquy
preach. and ii they do shall turn them
ont of the church. Ii YOU do hire that
man / shall not baptiSe your chll-
drcn. attend Your funerals or marry
Won" The declaration further saws that
"A CERTAIN funeral party went 10 the
church with Pdrker'S carriages and the
priest turned them away, saying, when
YOU know better than % come IN those
hacks I will 10 your work, and not be-
fore. and that the priest also said 20 his
parish. II forbid all members ot this
church from hiring the hacks or car
riageS of Joseph Parker, or using them,
ON the pains of communication from
this church. To this declaration Du-
irrsnc made answer that il It should APP
ltrlr that he uttered the words alleged,
-uch acts "werr committed i'm the prop
cr exercise Oi his pricStiy duties and au-
tI1ritv as "a duly settled and installed
us,ror of the French Roman Catholic
church ui which the plaintiff was 4
member" and he denied that they were
uttered uulawiullv or mallciOuSly To
iuiurr the plaintiffs business, but I'M
fIr lawful exercise ol his authority
aforesaid. and for the proper regulation
amt discipline of his said church and
the congregation wOrshiping therein,
anil bv the authority AMI consent Of his
ecclesiastical superior, and in the proper
discharge of his duties and functions
The ease was brought into court last
March. and continued 10 allow the
plaintiff To amend his declaration, which
Wrs done bv anneNing a long schedule
of persons who, he claimed, were intim-
ilatcd from dealing with him. \ long
array of witnesses testified IN behalf OF
both parties as TO the facts alleged, and
the amount or absence OF damage.
The above facts being substantially adj
mitted by both parties, the issue pre-
srntei was the broad question as to
whether ecclesiastical discipline can be
carried so far rs to interfere with a mans
civil rights. The judge, in his charge to
the jury, explained that the case rested
upon the principle OF law which gives
man redress il another interferes with
his lawful business by fraud or by
threats and intimidation, and so in
lures it.
He exhorted the jury to try the case
not as members Of any particular COM
munion, but as American citizens under
a solemn oath TO 10 that which Is right
between the parties, Irrespective OF