Dziennik Chicagoski. [volume] (Chicago [Ill.]) 1890-1971, 1899-07-21

church in America to-day knows that
he his an communicated priest Of
the Roman Catholic Church, and
that he is fake bishop.
~MR. GEETING: Under the Con.
stitution of our State there are no
fake bishops.
THE COURT: There is vari-
ance between the facts and the arti-
Gle, but it is an immaterial variance.
1t being a fact in the case that he
was at one time priest of the Ro.
man Catholic Church, and that his
connection with that church is Sc.
vered, and that he assumes rightfully
or wrongfully the position of bishop
itself not in unity with the Catholic
the rest of this article is only the or
dinary ecclesiastical language appl!-
cable to church d fferences.
MR.. GEETING: We have here
the Charter of the Polish Catholic
Church Diocese, showing that he is
the bishop of the Independent
Polish Catholic Church of North
America.
MR.. DAVID: We object.
THE COURT: Let it be consi.
dered in evidence.
THE COURT: 1t is admitted that
he was at one time a priest of the
Roman Catholic Church, and that
his connection with the Roman Cath
olio Church has ceased, and that he
has established himself, with or with.
out cause as a Catholic Bishop, not of
the Roman Catholic Church, but Of
the Independent Polish Catholic
Church. What is there libelous if
the fact is so? Is there anything be-
yond an ecclesiastical dispute?
MR.. GEETING: That is the
question. l would like to call your
attention to the words charged in the
bill. If they ara qualifying words they
become argumentative, and are not
libelous. 1t is held that by preaching
in the Polish Catholic Church he is
misrepresenting the church; that
might not be libelous, but here is
where they simply charge him with
being miscreant, and seducer.
THE COURT: The words are
"traitor, seducer and renegade.
MR.. GETTING: 1t is not always
sufficient to prove this, what l call
technically, but it must be proven
that it is true, or by justi6able proof.
Under our statutes libel is that which
tends to render a person Infamous,
and contemplate before the commu.
nifty. Here are epithets used, which
have their popular meaning, and
which cannot, without considerable
stretch of the Imagination be drawn
into the line of being argumentative.
We know what seduoer is. Suppose
it had said this misoreant, this mur-
derer, simply because they say he
was preaching doctrine, which they
believe was false, would that justify
calling him murderer9
THE COURT: 1t would depend
upon whether they meant he was a
murderer of the body or of the soul.
MR.. GETTING: If they mean it
in qualified sense the article should
so state.
THE COURT: Not necessarily.
MR., GETTING: When they use
language which has general and
accepted meaning, it must be taken
in its general language. What infe.
renee would person naturally draw
by reading that. The inference was
this: That he was disreputable
man, but after preaching different
doctrine in separate and distinct
place, they say he is misoreant,
traitor and seducer, and one or two
other epithets'
THE COURT: Those terms are
all commonly used in religious con.
troversies.
Mr.. GETTING: They may be
used in some religious controversies,
but they are not used,-they are not
q nroner part of the RELIGIOUS argu.