The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1884-11-29
District Court.
The Celebrated Church suits on Trial

I OtuCF Ot1StS 10Hbluef6ue
| Judge Dnffei held court on Monday,
| Tuesday and Wednesday of the past week,
| and most Of the time Of these sessions was
taken up with the consideration of the two
locally celebrated suits growing out Of the
controversyefor possession and control of
| the property and revenues OF the Catholic
Church in charlottesville.
On Monday the exception Of no cause of
action filed by defendants in the original
suit entitled President and Board of
sWardens of the Congregation of the Roman
Catholic Church of Ascension u.s. N. J. Per-
che, Bishop, ct ais, was taken up and tried
Judge st. M. Beirault and Hon. Joseph T..
| Brent appeared for plaintiffs in exception,
Judge r. N. Sims and q. N. Pugh, ESQ.,,
for defendants. The efforts of these
IgeEtlemen we're Of character that fully
sustained their respective regulations for
eloquence, ability and legal learning, and
were .listened to BY large audience of
persons either directly or indirectly
interested in the determination of the
important controversy at issue. The
argument of Gen. Brent was rendered
! especially entertaining from the fact that,
although practicing attorney in Mary
land for many years, this was his first
professional appearance in an Ascension
court. Judge Duffel took the matter under
Amusement until Tuesday morning, when
he read the following opinion and decree
foverruling the exception:
| Plaintiffs alIege that certain landed prop
erty was donated many years Ego to the
| Roman Catholic Church Of oh Parish Of
Ascension for the use and benefit ca said Cath
to-wit: in 1917, the Legislature of this State
granted to said Catholics charter for the
government and administration of said prop
| erty Tor the benefit of said Catholics; that by
Acts Of the Legislature of 1924, 1885 and 1855.
said charter was revived and extended and
was to continue to the year 1881.
That some time IN the year 1874 the then
Church wardens transferred the usufruct of
said property to the diocese of New Orleans for
certain certain specific purposes and under certain
said wardens had no authority to make the
transfer and that the conditions of the transfer
were not fulfilled by the Archbishop OF said do
als fh acting Ct o
sion and as the representatives of the Catholic
community of said parish, they formed corpo-
ration by pubic act and took control of the
nifty, and they prayed for and obtained d writ
Ct Injunction, enioining said diocese from inter
iering with them IN the enjoyment and admin
Istratlon Of said property, upon various
grounds fully set forth in their petition and
which would be too tedious here to enumerate
defendants lnterpose the exception of no cause
Of action, which being fixed for trial on 2lth
instant was accordingly tried .ontradctorily
The facts alleged under oath by plaintiffs are
admitted to be true f. for the purpose of decid-
structlon of these facts must necessarily fall
under consideration when the case is tried on
its merits. ~ " No>-
Therefore, we are called upon to decide
whether the allegations of the facts contained
IN plaintiffs petition would entitle them to
institute the present action and to stand in
judgment. And whether Judgment rendered
could be pleaded in bar as res adjudicata. It
Is admitted on both sides that any single
Roman Catholic or any number Of them,
belonging to their community would have the
undoubted right to appeal to the courts to
prevent misuse or misrepresentation of the
Ghurch property or Its revenues. If such be
the case, why should this right be denied to
eighty Roman Catholics of this parish. simply
because they have chosen to band themselves
into corporation? They have not lost their
Individuality as Catholics; they the con
for the other Catholics Of the parish, whom
they allege they represent, and the greater con-
tains the lesser.
II every Saehoiic OF the parish had to be
made party to this suit, the suit would never
be instituted. or if instituted would never be
brought to an issue. The death of any one of
the Gtigants, and there would be thousands of
them, would cause delays to make new parties
and this would work a denial of Justice.
We know Of no law by which any Catholic of
the parish could be compelled to take an active
premises. II so. then any one single Catholic
who chooses to hold aloof could come in at any
time and allege that he is not bound because
he ne has not participated in the organization.
There must be an end to litigation. The law
abhors multiplicity Of suits. Here eighty
Catholics have formed corporation. 400
more have endorsed and approved of it. War
Tor themselves and in the name of the other
Catholics of this parish, assert their unalien-
able right to the property of the Catholic peo-
pie of this parish, and demand that the diocese
be enjoined from interfering in their admins
trat1on OF 1t. The question of the administra-
ton is presented fairly and squarely for adju-
t alcatlon by them and the law and the vital In
terest Of the whole Catholic community de-
mand that the question be fairly and squarely
met and settled definitely.
1t Will not do to say that due notices were
OF the parish to form the new corporation It |
will not do to say that majority of the Catho |
hes OF the parish did not participate in the for
nation mat h OF this corporation nor that it could
coastdt that anything better could have been
organized. Non constdt that the majority has |
acGulesceu IN one organization. or are perfectly
Indifferent, in the matter, for since the year
1874 there has been no charter. The very day |
that the old Church wardens signed the action |
donat,ng the usqfruct to the diocese. they
ter of 1856 was defunct-desd and buried before
1881, its term of existence as fixed BY law. The
facts which are alleged in plaintiffs petition
are ample and sufficient to give them stand
ing in this Court. aud l consider that a iudg
ment rendered between the parties in this suit
and on the pleadings herein will settle forever
the unfortunate differences which divide the
Catholic community Of this parish, and viii
form bar TO any other action on the same
subject matter between. the diocese and the
Roman Catholics OF this parrish.
DO not think that plaintiffs have attempted
to be put IN possession Of real estate by
means OF the Injunction. / consider that the
ownership and the possession of the Church
property Is and has always been vested in the
catholic community, and to be used exclusively
for Its benefit and for the advancement of the
Catholics OF this parish. The only issue pre-
sented is the one of the administration Of said
Defendants argue that the usufruot
expired when Archbishop Perche gave up the
ghost, or BY the Limitation of ten years. If SO
he has no interest in urging his exception and
SHOULD allow Judgment to go by default.
sented SO ably by counsel on both sides can
work no harm. 1t may be the means of effect
1aiiy quletlng the .dscorlant elements now
munity. After this Court and the Supreme
Tribunal Of this State shall have passed upon
.hls case, the clergy and the laymen will bow
20 the law and peace and quiet will once more
reign among the distracted Catholics OF this
parish.
With this hope and believing that defend
lnts, objections are more technical than sub
'tantlal the exception of no cause of action
herein filed is overruled.
In open Court ASCENSION. % Nov. 1884.
HENRY l.. DUFFEL, Judge.
The case was then taken up for trial on
he merits and the work of adducing EVIL
ience is now pending. Several witnesses
AVE been examined and some twenty
pages of testimony have been reduced to