The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1884-12-20
AscENsloN's CAUSE cELEsRE.

4
1 enterprise.
| AScENSlCN'S CAUSE CELE5RE.
Judgment Rendered sby Judge Duffel In
/ the Church Suit.
| We present herewith the full text of the
decision rendered by our District Judge,
/! last Saturday, in the noted case of the
President and Board of Church Wardens of
| the Roman Catholic Congregation of Ascen-
SIGN Us. Rev. N. J. Perche, Bishop, ct ais:
This case has consumed six days in its trial,
and through it all has received the close atten-
ton of the court. The different points of it. as
| they arose. we're ably argued by able counsel on
each side. As the trial proceeded. the plead
first applied to them by the litigants. New is
| sues, new constructions and new mterpreta.
tions were beng continually brought forward
and argued lengthily The court IS reluctant to
attach to the long continued trial long and
possibly a disconnected Judgment, but as 1T
has followed laboriously the different phases of
the suit, and had, again to wade through the
voluminous record, and to recall and review
the many arguments delivered in the case, it
| may now be the best and most convenient way
to take up one by one the points made, and dis
pose of them.
Plaintiffs allege that in their corporate Ca
pacity they represent the Catholic Inhabitants
| Of this parish, who owned long, previous to
| CHURCH property That the Roman Catholic
! Congregation Of the Parish of Ascension was
/ incorporated by an act of the Legislature ap-
was renewed by act Of 1924. and again by acts of
| the Legislature of 1885 and 1855, and was to ex-
pire by the limitation of the act of 1856, on the
| first day of March, 1881, and did then expire,
/ They further represent that they formed a
| corporation by notarial act, dated 18th FebFu-
ary, 1888, and took under It the control AND adj
! mInistration of the common property. They
averred the utter nullity of the action Of the
then church wardens under the charter of 1856,
to-wit their resolution of seth hIay, 1874, and
the notarial act Of 18th june 1874. by which
said wardens undertook to transfer to the
Archbishop, N. j. Percbe, the administration of
the church proderty and its revenues. They
averred that said Archbishop did not even full
fill the conditions of the pretended donation or
man date, and pray that he and his curate and
nasT as eerae be
from Interfering with their administration OF
said property. ETC., etc, etc.. and that said
Archbishop ard curate be cited to answer etc
Defendants filed their exception of no cause of
action, which, after having been argued during
six hours, by five attorneys, was overruted. for
| the reasons adtluced in the written opinion of
! sci admitted that the charter of act of 1885,
| amended by act of 1856 had expired, ard also
| that the donation of 18th June, 1874, had be-
| come extinct by the death of the usufructuary.
I They argued that plaintiffs were fighting
| against wind-rills that defendants were not
| in court; that there were no defendants In ex-
istence that the curate could not represent
| Judgment was asked for by plaintiffs, and that
it was time and labor lost to try this cause.
After reading the exception. and defendants
answer which followed Ito be considered in
case the exception be overruletl), aud after
hearing arguments of defendants counsel. the
| court seriously considered whether judgment
could not at once be lecreets IN favor of plain
tiffs. At this point OF the trial it appeared to
have been admitted by defendants that they
we've not in court, nor in existence; that they
| were not threatened with any money judH-
nent; that they were not seeking to regain
possession Of the property OF its revenues or be
| maintained IN possession, and that they simply
charter of 18th February declared null and
void. Two days afterward. and when plaintiffs
had introduced five witnesses to prove the
the progress that had been, made on the new
church, which defendants had bound them
selves to build the forfeiture OF the property
for the taxes. which defendants had promised
to pay and other matters concerning the adj
ministration OF defendants, all Of which testi-
mony had been ia ken IN presence OF counsel for
defendants, and without, objection. they
moved to strike out several pages containing
said testimony, on the grounds that they were
irrelevant and foreign, and not necessary to the
decision Of the case. The notion after long
fused without hearing plaintiffs attorneys fo1
J the reasons assigned IN tho written decree
thereon.
In the argument in support Of their motion
defendants counsel reiterated that which they
had stated previously, and this SO perssstentlg
that the court interrupted then, to ask what
person they represented IN the case? Surely
not the carate T. K. Ceuppens, whose princi-
pal, the Archbishop, was dead and not at all in
court, according to their admission, for how
then could this agent. the curate, stand In
iudgment5 To which they replied that the
agent was obliged to continue to administer,
Notwithstanding the death OF his principal un-
til relieved purqni dc droit. SO that throughout
to this phase of the trial the curate, as the
agent was bearing the burden of his principal,
the Archbishop who was defunct and who, &C
cording &c counsel's theory, was not IN court
When plaintiffs had closed their evidence. de-
PENDANTS PLACED on the witness stand one OF the
defeHdants, Father T. Z. Ceuppens, and offered
to prove by him the mode and manner Of the
formation of the charter of 12th-February, 1888
objected, because defendants by their general
denial had admitted the existence of said cor
poratiou because they had interest IN dis
putting it, because as they had admitted that
1881, and as they pretended to no claim on the
church property, and as they had never been
authorized to represent other Catholics of this
community, they could not be allowed. as their
proche dmss. much less as dnelcst cnriGe, to
question the validity OF the act of 18th Eebru-
ary. 1885, and to ask of this court decision on
touched them. Thereupon, for the nrst time,
counsel for the defendants stated broadly,
squarely and unequivocally that although
Archbishop Perche was dead and not IN court,
although Archbishop Leray had never accepted
his succession. and had washed his hands of the
! whole matter, that one of the defendants, to-
wit: Father Ceuppens, was still IN court ind
uidmally. if not ss curate and agent; that he is
O RonaGr Catholic and a resident OF the parish
OF Ascension, and as, such that he was cham
plcnlng his own individual interests IN on
curing into the validity of the said Act of 18th
February, $685. incorporating plaintiffs, and
had standing in court and could, stand in
judgment, although no other Catholic of this
parish had joined him IN this suit SO far.
This position a new one and antagonlshc
to the stand and admissions already made but
for fear that an exclusion of the testimony
might delay, the tinai termination OF this case
before the Supreme Court, and the further fear
that the exclusion might be prejudlciai to
Francois Xavier Ceuppens individually nnd as
resident Catholic of this parish, the evidence
| The court therefore considered that at tile
| stage Of the trial, no one stood opposed to
plaintiffs, except +. 4. Ceuppens individually.
| who rel fzecessifate must represent the whole
Catholic coInalnity of this parish and atand
III judgment for them, else 1T would bs vaIll
and idle thing to prosecute the present suit to
eided again between plaintiffs and every other
individual Catholic OF the parish, who, like +.
4: Ceuppels. would desire 10 test the legality
of the notaTial act of 18th February, 1885, in
cooperating said plaintiffs.
! In the fnal arguments in this case defendants
leyeled all their objections solsly against the
legality of said act of incorporation of 18th
February, 1883, concentrated their force against
| said act, denying taet it in conformity
with existing laws that it was a religions assoc
citation. and asserting that it was manufactured
secretly IN corner, and no publicity given
prior to its formation, They ayerred, not that
they hold any title CT right or possession over
| the property in contest. or its revenues but
simply that plaintiffs have no right of action.
| cannot represent any but Themselves, have
not the exclusive right to manage said property.
| and to forca other Catholics. N spite OF them
selves. to become members of the new corpora
ton, or to submit themselves to their admins
| tratlon, and pray that their prstensions be re-
! iected. So that unt,er these pleadings on the