The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1879-11-11

4 CATHOLIC PRIEST MuLcTED By A MAssAcHU-
TONER'S TO pArRoNIzE AN ExcoMMuN1CArED
LIVERY STABLE KEEPER.
[BY TELEGRAPH TO THE HERALD
SPRINGFIELD, Nov. 10. 1879.
The suit Of Joseph Parker. Hoyoke livery stable
keeper against Andre b. Dufresne. French Catholic
priest for $4,000 damages. because the latter told
the people Of his parish not to hire hacks of the
former, as he had disobeyed the commands of the
Church. resulted to-day in verdict for Parker in
the Superior Court. II appears that Dufresne
warned his parishioners against having any
thing to do with an out-o-town French Prot
estant preacher, who visited Holyoke and
called upon those who had already heard him
to acknowledge their repentance. Everybody did
10 except Parker and for disobedience Dufresne
communicated him and ordered the people to keep
clear Of him. Parker claimed that his customers all
left him aud that his business was broken up Wit
nesses testified that before the priests injunction
they had employed Parker and that afterward they
gave up doing So His daughter testified that the
priest refused to baptize her infant, because was
brought to the church III Parkers hack, and the
plaintiff himself swore his business fell on one-hat
In consequence of tho priests hostility. Father
Dufresne testified that he had authority as priest
to forbid his people havu dealings with recall.
citrnut member OF the Church.
THE JUDGES CHARGE.
Judge Bacon's charge to the jury was explicit az
defining the extont to which ecclesiastical authority
can 40, la threat aud intimidation, upon subjects
when such threats and intimidation undermine
another persons business. He charged that tho
exact words of intimidation alleged In the complaint
must be proven and II these words were uttered
only as threats they to be considered ~ MALI
cious In law and II uttered In fact malicious in
fact and they entitled the plaintiff in either case to
verdict. The law Of this country. said he. does not
allow ecclesiastical Interference with mans bust-
ness after he had been communicated from the
Church, which is the extent OF the punishment
which ecclesiastical authority can infict; nor Is
ecclesiastical authority allowed to interfere with any
one to deter him from giving his patronage to that
business. IL tho defendant only forbid the custom.
Of the plaintiff from being brought to the church
OH the plaintiffs hacks he did not exceed his eccle-
siastical authority; but IT, after the excommnica-
ton Of Parker he prevented the employment OF his
hacks for other than church purposes. then the
plaintiff is entitled to verdict and the damage was
not to be limited to the mere loss Of custom en-.
tailed but to all losses which have occurred there
from Tho Judge stated emphaticaliy that no eccle-
siaical authority ought to be In existence that at
tempted the injury Of any mans business.
EXCEPTIONS ALLOWED.
Before che charge counsel for the defendant offered
exceptions to Judge Bacon's anticipated rulings to
the jury, but they not dwelt upon nor allowed
because affecting with the judges ideas OF the case
The charge Is considered being decidedly
to the plaintiff The jury after two hours OF deiD-
Grafton. returned n verdict for Parker OF sS'aSS'