The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1900-07-12
BISHOP TALBOT SUED.

Talbot has host of friends IN Sun.
bury and surrounding towns, he being
pronounced one of the most popular
of divines. The charge lodged against
the bishop is that of trespass, with
conspiracy alleged. The plaintiff in
the suit is the Rev. |. II. w. Irvine,
former rector of St. Johns Episcopal
church at Huntingdon. The Rev.
Mr.. Irvine names Alexander Elliot
and his wife, Emma ID. Elliot, OF
Huntingdon, as defendants with Bis.
hop Talbot. The summons to appear
to answer the prosecution brought
against him was served on Bishop
Talbot, while on the train near Ty-
rome, on Friday.
This suit like others that have been
instituted between the parties named,
is the outcome of the trouble which
originated in st. Johns church, at
Huntingdon, year and half ago.
Mrs. Elliot was accommodated by
DR.. Irvine as a divorced woman on
the strength, he says of this letter from
Bishop Talbot:
Diocese of Central Pennsylvania,
Bishopsrue, South Bethlehem, Pa.
My Dear Irvine: The woman to
whom you refer is by the canon ex-
communicated. cannot believe she
will have the presumption to present
herself at the holy communion. If
you think there is any danger of her
doing so it would be better for you in
some kind and gentle way to intimate
to her her true condition. Ofcourse,
you have no discretion in the matter.
If she should present herself before
you can speak to her and you think
she does it in ignorance then you can
speak 10 her afterward. There is no
reason in this case to make a row if
the thing is managed quietly and
firmly. Affectionately Yours,
ETHELBERT TALBOT.
Mrs. Elliot lodged information
against DR.. Irvine in March 1890,
charging him with forgery, the allega-
ton being that he signed her name to
letter addressed to Bishop Talbot.
For nearly three months previously
the relations between DR.. Irvine and
Mrs. Elliot, a parishoner had been
much strained, and Bishop Talbot was
cognizant OF the difficulty between
them. At the preliminary hearing
accorded DR.. Irvine on March II,
1899 it developed that the plaintiff al
legged that the criminal charge made
against him was the elimination of
conspiracy entered into by the three
defendants, and he sought to sub
stantiate this assertion by quoting
from letter written by Bishop Talbot
10 the Elliois, in which the latter are
urged to have Irvine indicted and
convicted. This letter read in parts
81 cannot find anything to try DIR.
Irvine on for violation of morals and
canons, but if you prosecute him and
have HIM convicted in a court of re-
cord 1 will unfrock the Shiny fellow
for YOU"
The grand jury found an indict-
ment charging the clergyman with
forgery, but when the case was called
for trial the court sustained the de-
PENDANTS demurrer to the indictment
and nothing more came Of 1t. The
charge was subsequently withdrawn,
the plaintiff paying the costs. DR..
Irvine contends that the presence of
Bishop Talbot at the counsel table
when the forgery case was called for
trial was evidence of the bishops de-
signs against his subordinate. Other
allegations are that the bishop de-
signedly conspired to ruin the pros
poets of the plaintiff in his conduct
since the disposition Of the forgery
case. 1t is alleged that he called Dr.
Irvine to appear before the standing
committee of the diocese, in Wilkes
Barre, in June of last year, to dissolve
his pastoral relations with ST. Johns
church without canonical authority,
and because of being restrained In
this by the Luzerne county court he
sent committee of three inquisitors
to Huntingdon to inquire into the
moral conduct of DR.. Irvine. The
committee made an adverse report.
An ecclesiastical trial was ordered by
Bishop Talbot. DR.. Irvine was ad-
judged guilty by an investigation COM
mlttee of which Col. c. Nj. Clement,
Of this city was member, April IS,
1900. His deposition from the min
istry was publicly announced in ST.
Luke's church, Scranton, by Bishop
Talbot.-Sunbury Democrat.
Bishop Talbot's action in this mat
ter is claimed to be strictly in accord
ance with the canons of the Episco-
pal Church, and in pursuance of the
findings of an ecclesiastical court le-
gally constituted. If this be true, 1t
is not likely that the civil courts will
;p,arfara