The St. Louis Republic. [volume] (St. Louis, Mo.) 1888-1919, 1900-06-30
BISHOP ACCUSED
OF CONSPIRACY.
Former Rector Gets Summons on
the Right Reverend Ethel
bert Talbot.
NAMES TWO OTHER PERSONS.
Doctor Irvine Charges That the
Three Plotted to Bring Il
Criminal Charge
Against Him.

Huntingdon Pa. June 29.-After wait
ing for three months. the Reverend / n
". Irvine. former rector of ST. Johns Epis-
copal Church q This city. has succeeded
In having a summons served upon the Right
Reverend Ethelbert Tai5o-. Bishop Of the
Central Pennsylvania Diocese. as defend
ant In trespass suit. in which conspiracy
Is charged. The other defendants are
Alexander Elliott and his wife. Emma ID.
Elliott, Of this place.
The summons was served on the RiShoD
while he was riding on a railroad train
between Tyrone and Vail. This suit ike
the Others which have been instituted be-
tween the persons named. is the outcome of
the trouble which originated in 81. Johns
Church year and half ago.
Mrs. Elliott was excommunicatel by Dos
tor Irvine as divorced woman. en- The
strength. he says. of this letter from Bishop
Talbot:
Diocese of Central Pennsylvania Bishop
ric, South Bethlehem. Pa.-My Dear Irvine:
The woman to whom You refer is by the
canon cNCommunicated. / cannot believe
she will have ;he presumption to present
herself at The holy communion. II You
thirk there is any danger of her doing So
II would be better for yOu In some Kind
and gentle way to intimate to her her true
condition or course. you have no discre-
ticn In the matter. II she should present
herself before you. you can speak to her
and You think she does II in ignorance,
then you could speak TO her afterwards.
There is no reason in this case to make any
row II the thing IS managed quietly and
firmly Additionally yours.
"ETHELBERT TALBOT"
Mrs. Elliott lodged Information against
Doctor Irvine in March. 1893. charging him
I.. al ha
signed her name to a letter addressed to
Bishop Talbot. For nearly three months
previously the relations between Doctor
Irvine and Mrs. Elliott. a parshiOner. had
been very much strained, and Bishop Talbot
was cognizant of the difficulty between
them.
At the preliminary hearing accorded Doc
tor Irvine on March Il. 1899 it developed
that the plaintiff alleged that the criminal
charge made against him was the culrnina-
ton of conspiracy entered into by the
three defendants. and he sought to substsn-
tate this assertion by quoting from a letter
written by Bishop Talbot to the EIliotts in
which the Eliiotts are urged TO have Doctor
Irvine indicted and convicted. This letter
read In part:
II carno. find anything to try Doctor
Irvine on for violation Of morals or canons.
but IL you prosecute him and have him CON
yicted in a court of record l will unfrock
the Shiny fellow for you"
The Grand Jury found an Indictment
charging the clergyman with forgery. but
when the case was called for trial the Court
sustained the defendants demurrer TO the
indictment. and nothing more came OF Il.
The charge was subsequently withdrawn.
the plaintiff paying the costs.
Doctor Irvine contends that the presence
Of Bishop Talbot at the council table of
the prosecution when the forgery case was
called for trta' WIS evidence of the Bishops
designs against his subordinate.
Other allegations are that the Bishop de-
signedly conspir'd 10 ruin the prospects of
the plaintiff In his conduct since the dispo-
sition of the forgery case.
Ii is alleged that the Bishop called Doctor
Irvine to appear before the Standing Com
mittee of the diocese in Wilkesbarre, In
June, last year. to dissolve his pastoral re-
laticns with St Johns Church. without
canonical authority, and that. 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 Doctor Irvine. This
committee made an adverse report.
An ecclesiastical trial was ordered By
Bishop Talbot. Doctor Irvine was adjudged
guilty. and on April 25. 1900. his deposition
of the ministry was publicly announced in
ST. Luke's Church. Scranton, by Bishop Tai
bot.
This makes the third suit instituted by
Doctor Irvine against Mrs. Elliott. none of
which has been tried. She IL the defendant
in a criminal libel suit. civil suit for dam
ages and now the conspiracy suit.