Omaha daily bee., 1902-02-07
OMAHA NATIONAL BANK CASE
Supreme Court Sets it Dswn for New
Argument in March.
MeUaLNTs IN sARTlEY Bond MATTER
Contention of Bishop BOnacum At
Armed In Controversy over So.
Andrews Church Property
mt Tecumseh.
From a stan Correspondent.)

~ ~ 11oAN kAAN1
at the request Of Judge sedgwick the case
Of the State against the Omaha National
bank will be set down for new argument
at the FIRST sitting in March. This action
Is taken upon the courts motion and
for the reason that the personnel of the
court has changed since the case was
taken under consideration last year. Chief
Justice Norval having retired and Judge
Sedgwick having become q new member.
Al the last sitting, in January. the court
was asked by John L. Webster to order the
case for new argument. but his prayer was
in the nature Of an informal request and
was not ofncially acted upon.
The case Ia the one which arose from
the defalcation Of former Treasurer Bart
ley and is to recover 1901 900 lost through
Bartley's transactions with the bank.
Case of BARLEY Bondsmen.
The case Of the State against the bonds
men of former Treasurer BARLEY was ar
gued and submitted to Commissioners Old
ham, Pound and Barnes this morning.
Norris Brown appeared for the state. while
the interests OF the bondsmen we're pro-
tected by General Gown. Frank T. Ran
som and Robert Ryan.
81. Andrews Church ~OntrOvers
IN the case OF 81. andrew 3 CHuTCu OF
Tecumseh against Michael Shaughnessy,
Michael Murphy and others. an action arls-
ing in Johnson county from a controversy
over the possession Of church property,
the supreme court has affirmed the de-
cision of the lower court. which was In
favor of the contentious Of Bishop Bona
cum Of Lincoln. Judge Sedgwick. in the
opinion, holds that upon appeal in an ac-
tion in equity the supreme court must take
the evidence as It is in the record and
determine whether the decree appealed
from can be supported upon the ~pleadings
and evidence as taken In the lower court.
Further, Judge Sedgwick says: "a
minority Of the members Of a corporation
organized under the act Of 1888. entitled.
An act for the incorporation of churches
and parishes and religious societies. have
no right to retain possession of the COR
porate property as against the corporation
itself for the purpose Of compelling the
corporation to recognise their rights as
members"
The court states the case as follows:
This action was begun In the district
court Of Johnson county by the plaintiff,
st. Andrews church of T~ecumseh. to en-
Join the defendants from intermeddlinK
with the church property and from hinder
4 Ahb Tux HA1AhNAl GnoANh III kAO ClAAO .
comprising the plaintiff corporation. in the
enjoyment of their rights and franchise
and from interfering with the right of the
pastor of the church to use and occupy
the parsonage and to occupy the pulpit OF
the church and from excluding the plain
tiff and the members OF the plaintiff corpo-
ration and communicate from the church
building and from interfering with them In
celebrating divine worship in the church
and to require the defendants to surrender
to the plaintiff the key to the. parsonage
and church building and all other prop.
erty OF the plaintiff In their possession
with a general prayer for equitable relief
The answer admits that the defendants
hold the property and exclude plaintiff
therefrom and attempts to Justify so do
ing. There was a trial by the court and
general findings for the plaintiff and decree
granting the relief prayed. The de.
PENDANTS appealed to this court and the
judgment Of the lower court is affirmed. T.
Concluding the court says: "Th prop.
erty in question belongs to the corpora
ton and is committed to its custody ant
control. Under the organization of thil
church corporation the appointment ant
removal Of its local or parish priest Il
committed TO the bishop. The priest 81
appointed Is a member Of the corporation
and, with the consent of a majority Of tn,
members OF the corporation. is the author
lied representative OF the Roman Catholi,
church. Under the evidence in this rec,
ord the Ave members Of this corporation
OF a majority OF them. are responsible 70
the care and custody OF the church prop
erty and It's use as contemplated in &C
~cordance with the ussges OF the Roman
Catholic church"
Ejectment Case Dismissed.
In an action In ejectment, arising from
the same controversy and begun by III,
bishop, the judgment OF the district cour
is reversed and the case dismissed, Judg
Sedgwick as commissioner writing tn,
J opinion. The court holds that an action Il
ejectment cannot be maintained during tn
tendency Of a prior action in equity be
tween the same parties. In which plaintiff
alleges that defendant w%rongfully with
holds possession OF the same property from
the plaintiff. and asks to enioin the de
PENDANT from excluding the plaintiff there
from.
: Telephone Company Loses.
The court denies the application Of th,
Plattsmouth Telephone company for a wri
Of mandamus to require Judge Fawcett 4
hx the amount Of . supersedeas bond Il
an injunction suit arising from Its at
tempt to extend It's system into the city o
South Omaha. On an ex parte showing
! enc Of the district judges issued an orde
restraining the city Of South Omaha an,
Its ofhcers from interfering with the plain
tin In the transaction Of it's business
1 either by cutting its wires. removing IL
Instruments, arresting its employees OF Il
4 any other manner. Afterward defendant
. filed an answer and cross-petition. and th,
& court entered an order allowing a TEN
porary injunction. substantially as praye,
: in the cross-petition. The plaintiff, pro
ceeding on the theory that the second or
) der wa q dissolution or a modification o
the hrst. then asked the court to Ak I'll,
} amount Of a supersedeas bond, whereof,
the injunction first issued would be kept ii
full force and effect until the nnal hear
ing Of the cause. The request was denIe,
In the trial court.
The court says: TT is conceded that /
the injunction granted on the prayer Of tn
defendant dlssolves or modihes tina
granted on the prayer Of the plalntin, th,
plaintiff, who Is the relator In this pro
eeeding. is entitled to an order fixing n,
amount OF the bond required to keep N
injunction in full force and effect, pend
Y ing q hnal hearing In the district court