The Donaldsonville chief. [volume] (Donaldsonville, La.) 1871-current, 1884-12-20

|
| for which defendants contend, the body OF the
act and its whole tenor demonstrate that the
| congregation Of the Roman Catholics of the
parish of Ascension have formed corporation
/ for religious purposes, for purposes of worship
and the welfare and benefit of the Catholics of
| this community. It is difficult to conceive how
! differently the act could have been worded.
! Under said charter equal rights to all Catholics
| arefully guaranteed. The dolngs or SAID cor.
| poraEion, their acts of administration have
never been attacked. No body of Catholics
1 body corporate. and all that has peen SHOWN
here was that after the formation OF SAID char
ter a certain number OF Catholics pro5estesd
that the charter of 1888 be null and VOID, INTO
whose hands would fall the property and Its
revenues2 IL plaintiffs here have enlolned de.
| PENDANTS from the further administration OF
said property and the injunction be dissolved,
| then necessarily the administration, the reVe-
nues fall back in the hands OF defendants, al
though the naked ownership of the property
itself be in the Catholic community OF thus
| parish. The defendants have already asserted
! that they were the trustees OF the Cathohcs or
this parish, and entitled to control as such the
| property. They have said here in their Plead
| ings and in their arguments that their usufruct
expired on the first day of March, 1881, and not
| withstanding that solemn admission, notW1th-
standing their reiterated essegeratIons that
| the property reverted to the Catholics OF this
parish since LIST March, 1881, still have they
| Continued to enjoy its revenues, amounting to
| $500 a year, without III sny way attem pting
or offering to account for them to the rightful
owners.
These reasons are not given on the ground OF
expeaiency: they are founded on facts proven In
the trial Of this case, and the court Is seriously
asked to declare. as utterly null and VOID and OF
no effect, q bona tfde compact, entered honestly
into by large number OF respectable Cathollcs
of this parish for the management OF their prop
ertr 80 that its control may again fall IN the
hands Of those who do not own the property,
who 80 acknowledge the fact who have already
;eopardized said property. who have violated
every condition OF the contract unoer Whlch
~ Ii eSaInv NJ M
have here stated in open court that 1t never was
their intention to comply with sand conditions!
Under this state OF facts, and the record SO
reads the act of 18th February. 1889, would have
to be most glaringly illegal. most UNJUST unrea-
| sonable and obnoxious for this court to set 1t
aside, But nothing of the kind was shown. 1t
was simply urged that the act of incorporation
| was not properly wordsd, that no publicity was
| given OF its intended formation. and that 1t
| could not include the Catholics who had not
! partici pated and a wide scope IN verbal crit
| cism was INDUCED in As before stated the act
| is in legal form, intended for religious pur-
| poses violates no law, and as the lncorporators
| have possession, and have administered hon
estly, and as no counter corporation has been saI
| formed to dispute their rights, said act OF 18th
| February is legal and valid.
1t WAS stated by defendants that their case
would stand or fall with the decision on the
validity Of the act of Incorporation OF 18th FEB
| ruary 1892. and it might possibly be SAID that
| this court need not go further II Its Judgment.
| But as defendants have put at issue every ale
| cation of plaintiffs, and as It cannet row DC
| surmise:, What view the Supreme Court may
take on, the other points OF the case or what
| course defendants may adopt before said TIL
/ hunal it may be well for this court to ad?udi-
| cate further. The act of donation of 18th June,
| 1871, was void. The wardens were not author
,zed under their charter to pass that act; they
| were not evea authorized by their constituents
to do SO, the signers of the petition addressed
| TO them and on which they predlcated said act
OF donation.
These constituents, the Catholics of Ascen-
| sion. coald not, as conteuaed In argument by
| defendants, divest themselves OF the property
even by revolutionary action, The property
was donated for certain purposes by the original
grantor; the confirmation of the grant was made
by Congress for the same purposes, to-Wlt: the
| benefit of the Catholics. The donor dedacdted
! the property fer certain Catholics and succeed
ing generations Of Catholics. An abandonment
of that property would cause its reversIon to
the donor. The wardens had no authority to
transfer the whole administration of the tenn
poralities of the church to agent; the charter
made them the agents. The donation gave
| tration, FOR he had to apply the revenues exclu-
siyely for the benefit or tho donors. Inc dona-
ton was never perfected according to the pro
visions of the civil code. and under these facts
/ defendants may we'll be regarded as trespassers
| from the moment they took possession.
If at all valid the donation expired with the
term IF Office of the wardens. and their term
| expired on the day OF the DONATION the same
| day that the act of 18th June, 1874. was signed
and said donation fell stillborn., Or it expired
on 18th June. 1884, the ten years having elapsed.
| LIST March, 1881, whom the charter ran out. 1t
became extinct again by reason OF the non full
| hllment of the conditions. the forfeiture for
taxes. the mortgage of S25o:0G and as the con,
| ditions were never intended to be filled aud
| were not. it died at its BIRTH
! The venerable Judge Martin said in a some
| what similar case that the Bishop had no au-
| thority except spiritual one. but here he de-
/ slres to control the Temperatures he desires
to purchase at a tax sale property which be-
| longs to the Catholics, for the purpose of re-
\ turn Tn The law marrlfnliy
/ vldes that SO much only of the property be sold
as will suffice to pay the taxes. but defendants
block that they may buy it, for what purpose?
tend that plaintiffs not the Catholics to
whom they would have returned the property.
| 70 whom, then? They have never been ap-
| pointed shareholders, the judges to settle dis
| pptes, if any exist Courts of justice alone sit
to enforce civil obligations, they meyer attempt
to coerce the performance of those of a spiritual
| character They are jealous OF their jurisdlc-
ton and will tolerate no usurpat1on OF their
| functions.
as acting in good faith since the extinction of
the charter on LIST of March. 1881; they not
claim that they have acted in good faith as usu-
! fructuarles agents. and when they come
| plaintiffs. they should have clean hands them
| selves. There 10 not a redeemlng trait IN their
defence spolla,tion from begl,nning to end END
| the revenues Of the church, 80 as to share them
| themselves. They mortgaged property which
| did not belong to them, they attempted to dlvest
| the rightful owners by a tax sale of their prop
| erty. They do not attempt to Justify them
| selves under the gravest charges and strong
| evidence in their support They simply con-
| tend and have been contending since nearly two
| years in this court that they are not accounta-
| BILE to plaintiffs, and 1t would seem to no one
else. They do not stand on the strength of
their case but on the weakness OF their adver-
/ saries. Fortunately for plaintiffs, they have
proven that they have to the best OF their
| knowledge and ability striven to do what was
| legal, honest and just, and that all that can be
| said against them is that they might have done
| better With defendants it will be said from
! the record that they could scarcely have done
| worse.
The law. TIE evidence and equity are all on
the side of plaintiffs, and stand arrayed against
| PENDANTS demands and grants those asked by
| plaintiffs.
Wherefore it is here ordered. adjudged and
| decreed that plaintiffs herein do have judgment
| In their favor and against defendants, and that
| the injunction herein sued out be maintained
! and perpetuated plaintiffs quieted in the pos
session and enjoyment of the property de-
scrlbed III their petition, and that defendants
! pay the costs of these proceedings
| Given, read and signed. III open court parish
Of Ascension, December 49, 4. d. 1884.
HENRY L. DUFFEL. Judge.
AS we reported last week, defendants
moved for a suspensive appeal to the Su-
preme Court and it was granted, the appeal
bond being fixed at $500.
|
! sCl,an7Ss Esjs