The New York herald., 1879-08-23
CALVARY'S. DISPUTED RIGHT.
Legal Proceedings to Compel the 'Intsrnsnt Of
Denis Coppsrs Remains
EXCITEMENT IN COURT.
Grounds on Which the Dead Mason's Rela-
tives Base Their Claim

| Such dense throng as crowded Supreme Court.
Chambers. its opening yesterday. has rarely been
witnessed in that courG The occasion of the un-
| usual assembiagc was widespread eagerness evi-
| IDENTIFY to listen to the expected argument on the
question of making permanent the injunction
granted by Judge Van Brunt prohibiting the Calvary
Cemetery authorities from removing from its receiv
ing vault the body OF Mr.. Denis Coppers the circum
stances connected with whose attempted interment.
the part his brother and others next of kin and
the forbidding OF such burial by the cemetery
! officials. have already been fully detailed in the
HERALD. Mr.. Charles W. Brooke appeared on behalf
OF the friends OF the deceased and Mr.. John T. Dew
elm represented the cemetery. Various unimportant
cases being argued during which the crowd
remained with very little show Of impatience This
patient waiting however, did not extend to all the
counsel. us the proceedings given below will in
dicatc.
| PROCEEDINGS COURT.
eff Your Honor peases." at length said Mr.. Devc
| lin addressing the Court. after elbowing his way
through the press of lawyers in attendancejn other
cases. II that the matter OF Mr.. Coppers is the
last motion upon the calendar. have but recently
been called in the and have had opportunity
as yet, read the papers, much less put myself in
readiness for argument. l would respectfully ask
therefore. adjournment to tho first Monday Of
| September"
II have objection" said Judge Van Brunt. '.if
| the other side does not oppose the application"
'As to the application for adjournment said Mr..
Brooke. II do not desire to interpose any objection.
provided that the preliminary injunction granted by
Your Honor in this matter remains in full force and
tho order. which is in tho nature of alternative
mandamus. be continued in the meantime"
"Of do-not object to that" in.erposed Mr.
Doveln.
al wish that the counsel for the cemetery a
diton of adjournment should stipulate that all
cessary measures be taken for the preservation of
remains and that the relatives of the deceased be
permitted to contribute what they may deem proper
to this end"
Counsel has only to make the suggestion to meet
with full compliance my part with his Wishes"
said Mr.. Develin. ''Everything is being done now
that can he to preserve the body. They about
to put It in leaden coffin Everything that is ne
| cessary will be done"
Everything being satisfactorily arranged then
and understood" said Judge Van Brunt. "the argu-
ment is adjourned until the first Monday of Septem-
| ber"
Upon this announcement the large crowd present
speedily Withdrew from the court room. with widely
diverging comments upon tho merits Of the case.
| BIooKE's LAW POINTS.
| The HERALD representative subsequently called
upon Mr.. Brooke at his Office to obtain outline
| OF his proposed argument when the comes up
for hearing in the courts. Mr.. Brooke met the
porter with his usual aability and stated frankly
taat he perfectly willing to give the required
information. as he had no fears Of showing his
hand" to the other side.
"What is the chief point upon which you base
| your arguuoentY asked the reporter.
"rhe leading point" answered Mr.. Brooke "as in
dcated by facts set forth in the papers that un
less there is special covenant in the Decd in
fDff haQr
| the right to use the ground for the purpose which
induced it's purchase, there being no recognition
under law OF the rules regulations of rel-
gious other organization. the party his legal
Representatives entitled to make such Of the
ground in any event as was within the contempla-
ton of both buyer and seller at the time the title
conveyed
as there any other legal point involved in the
caseY'
..In the event of the Court incnng even to enter
tain any suggestion Of the rightto prevent the
OF the ground for the purpose for which it was
purchased. shall contend that according to the
theological authorities the refusal TO permit this
terment In consecrated ground not in accordance
with any prohibition OF canon law OF even doc
trinal prescription. This believe about exhausts
the law on the question"
'.Are there any precedents upon which you pro-
| pose to base your action ip the premisesY"
| POINTS WHICH THE PLAINTIFFS RELY
which might superfcially considered. be at all ap-
pcabie to the case and neither of them is directly
in point, and. in fact, is scarcely sufficiently
yzed to be urged as authority to the Court. One Is
the we'll known of Joseph Guibord. in Montreal
, |
was not Freeniason. but was member of L'Insti-
tut Canadcn. liberal literary and social organiza-
ton. which had in its library certain books. the
reading of which interdicted by the Church
The Church communicated. formally. the mcm-
bers of the society body. after notifying them
its decision concerning the character OF the books
In question. Guibord was printer by trade and
death the Church refused to allow his body to be
buried in consecrated ground. 1t was. however.
there o after long OF bs and bitterly sontss.s0
before the Privy Council of England force OF
police AMI military escorted tho body to tho place of
burial and protected the persons engaged in the in
terment, the coffin being set in largo bed OF ce-
ment underlying the grave In Gubord's case the
decision governed by the principles of the
ecclesiastical laws of England and tho Anal dotor-
mnation made subject to the fact that the es:
tablisled Church the country moulded and
shaped the laws concerning the question.
A SOMEWHAT SIMILAR cAsh-
\ srhe other tho one i'll Cleveland, Ohio in
which Bishop Gilmore, of that diocese the te-
spondcnt. In this the evidence OF the ttlo
| famed an express covenant that the party should
forfeit the right to burial consccrated ground IN
the event OF the happening OF certain contingencies
therein enumerated. One OF such contingencies had
happened in this particular instance. and therefore
under the covenant IN the title the appellate court
decided that the party had forfeited his right to
burial in consecrated ground
s there any thing further to be said. tho reporter
finally asked, .'in connection with the legal points
involved in this ciscY'
..Not that l think of at this moment" replied Mr.
Brooke. III have Indicated the basis of my proposed
line OF argument. OF course there may DO points
r Used on the other side which cannot now antici
pate-though don't see how there well can bc--and
entertain no fear OF being ablo to promptly meet
them. thus candidly furnish you with statement
of position for the that II the law OF the
land gives to tho body of this ccedcnt the right OF
burial in the spot in good aith purchased by him IN
his lifetime. aud IN which Inferred his mother
wife and children, we intend to have that right a.
serted IL the law does not accord us that
right We purpose to have the Court specifca ly
declare that fact and the reasons which prompt the
denial of what assume to be his right Ii Is. In
fact, q question to whether in State and
country any religious organization or denomination
demand tho substitution OF It's rules and regula
; | 10 a d
WHAT Mr.. DEvELIN sAID.
A reporter also called upon Mr.. John Il. Dcvelin the
chief counsel of the Calvary Cemetery Association
In response to inquiry to his future course In
the matter Mr.. Develin said.--
81 have not yet had any intimaton from my sid'
as TO what they have said done, or intend to do
have had no conversation with any one except Mr.