Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1883-03-01
CHURCH PROPERTY

an InlpoTtdHt OuOtCtdI DectStoH ne
stricting Property Of the Cath
Ollie Church.
One OF the most important cases
ever tried in this circuit, if not in this
State, was up for hearing, in the Cir
cult Court last week. The case was
noted, on the calender, as Archbishop
Heiss VS.. JOS Vosberg and, in which
the plaintiff sued for damages, sus-
tanned by the action of the defendants
in tearing down a Catholic church,
situated on ground st. Clara Aead-
envy, on Sinsinawa Mound, in the
southern part of the county. 1t ap
peared, from the testimony before the
court, and from the statements of
others cognizant of the facts in the
case, that the old church on the
Mound, which had been occupied by
the congregation since 1874, had be-
come SO dilapidate6 as to make the
erection of new building preferable
if not necessary. Accordingly repre-
sensations were made to the Archbis-
hop, and he sent his vicar general
down to the Mound, to look into the
matter and decide upon the site, as, in
tho meantime, tive factions had arisen,
one wishing to build on the old site,
and the other on new location, about
three-fourths of mile away. 1t is
alleged, by those who wanted to re-
build, on the old site, that they had
raised some money for rebuilding;
but were informed that it was not
enough, and the Bishop could not
allow them to build until they had
money enough to build good church
without his being called upon for aid,
as he had been in many other instan-
ces However, he afterward gave
his permission. The party who ia
vored the new site, having raised the
necessary amount, prevailed upon the
Archbishop to change his mind in re-
lation to the site of the new building
and select the spot chosen by them
out on the prairie. He did SO, and
a schoolhouse was erected and school
started, while those members of the
congregation who were interested in
having the building erected there,
went industriously to work. and hav-
ing subscriptions enough IN hand to
put up a fine looking building, the
church was erected on the new site
This did not meet the appreciation of
the party who chung 10 the old site.
They even went so far as to secure a
strip of land adjoining the old site, so
as to allow of the erection of large
and handsome building, the deed of
which property was sent to the Arch
bishop, hoping thus to secure his con-
sent The latter, however, would not
revoke the decision in favor of the new
site, and finding nothing further was
to be hoped for in that quarter, about
ifteen or twenty men assembled on the
morning of the 18th of last March
and began tearing down the old struct-
ure, preparatory to erecting new one
on the old site. Father Jacobs, the
priest in charge, commanded them to
desist and showed as further proof Of
his authority power of attorney Civ.
en- him by the Archbishop. The
leaders refused to listen to either
entreaties or commands and continued
their work until the last timber was
torn away, then selected a building
committee and had let the contract fol
the building of new church to firm
of contractors, when work was stopped
by an injunction granted by the Cour
Commissioner This Injunction wa:
dissolved by Judge Cothren on the
general ground that anybody had {
right to erect a church if they wanted
to. The case was appealed and is nov
before the Supreme Court for decision
The suit is brought by the Archbishop
for damages sustained by the tearing
down of the old church, he claiming
the same as his property, the deed o
which he holds. The defense claimed
that he held the property simply as ;
trustee for the congregation. On Thu
pivotal point namely, in whom was
the title vested, rested the whole suit
1t was claimed that if the Archbishop
did hold the property as bis own per
senal property then it was taxable Xix
any other private property, while if h
held it simply in trust for the eongre
CATION he had no right to bring suit
The hearing of the case occupIe,
about day and half and wa
brought to a rather sudden close by a.
argument on an objection raised b.
the plaintiffs counsel. Judge Gle
mentson in ruling on the question he'll
that the property in question belonged
personally to Archbishop Heiss, an,
was at his entire and individual dispo
sal. That he could sell or convey i
to anyone to whom he saw fit. tn
Court even going so far as to say tina
# the property in question was offere'
for sale by the Archbishop he shOul
have no hesitancy in purchasing
should he desire the land whateve
might be the opinion of the congrega