The daily morning journal and courier. [volume] (New Haven, Conn.) 1894-1907, 1897-11-22
SERIOUS QUESTION OF LAW
METROPOLITAN OOURT, ARCH Do
CESE OF BROOKLY, DEFENDANT.

The Plaintiff is the Rev. j. S. Baxter, "a
Priest, and the Question is Whether the
Adjudication by Court ofthe Holy no
man Catholic Church of n Controversy is
"a Bar to Action in Regular Courts.
Albany, N. Y, Nov. 21.-There comes
before the court of appeals one of the
has had to deal with in some years,
namely, whether the adjudication by
court of the Holy Roman Catholic
church, of which a controversy is
bar to civil action In the regularly
constituted courts of the state Of New
York. In the case to be considered
both the lower tribunals, the supreme
court, special term, and the supreme
court, appellate division, have decided
that such religious court is, in its
nature ecclesiastical only and has no
jurisdiction to determine the civil rights
OF parties and is no bar to action even
by priests of that church in civil
court.
The question comes UP on the appeal
of the Rev, ]. S. Baxter, priest of the
Roman Catholic church in the diocese
of Brooklyn, from a decision of the
Metropolitan court of the archdiocese
of New York, presided over by the
vicar general of the Holy Roman Cath
olic church, rejecting his application for
reinstatement to his parish and for an
award of $6,665 salary alleged to be
due him and also from the judgment of
the apostolic delegation at washington
affirming that decision.
The Rev. Mr.. Baxter was assigned
by Bishop Laughlin to duty in the
mission church at Babylon on Septem-
ber 10, 1885, at the usual salary Of $1,000
were turned over to the bishop, who, it
is alleged, guaranteed payment of the
salary. In 1892 Baxter, because of
physical disability, was relieved from
duty and at this time there was a
balance due him of $3,SS2. In December
of the same year, recovering somewhat
ne was assigned to duty at st. Mary's
hospital, Brooklyn, with a promise, as
he alleges that he should retain his
pastors salary and be sent back to
his old charge.
In 1896 the Rev. c. E. Mcconnell hav-
ing succeeded Bishop Laughlin, he
brought his case to the attention of the
Metropolitan court of the archdiocese
of New York. The complaint asserts
that while the case was IN this eccle-
siastical court and while he was still
suffering in health he was induced by
the vicar general, who presided, to sign
a release Of 1,500 Of his entire claim
of nearly $1,000. Upon his signing he
was given the money, but was not re-
stored to his parish He appealed to
the apostolic delegate =. Washington,
but the appeal was dismissed.
He then carried the case to the state
courts and the defense interposed by
the Roman Catholic prelates was that
the plaintiff, who had admitted that
such Metropolitan court had jurisdic-
ton over him and that being member
of the Holy Roman Catholic church
and subject to the rules, laws and dis
ciplines of that church, he was subject
to the Jurisdiction and adjudication of
that church.
The supreme court, special term, held
differently however.
Upon this decision the Rev. Mr.. Bay-
ter was allowed to bring action in the
civil court and from this Bishop Nc
Connell appeals to the court of ap-
peals.