Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1902-10-15
CHURCHCOURT DECISION
ACTION OF LOWER TRIBUNAL IN
WILLIAMS CASE REVERSED.
Court Of Appeals Upholds the Conten-
ton Relative to Ecclesiastical
Trial Findings.

The Court OF Appeals late yesterday after
noon handed down opinion, written by
Mr.. Chief Justice Alvey, in the case Of the
bishop of Washington of the Protestant
Episcopal Church, appellant, against Rev.
Gilbert f. Williams. The decision Of the
lower court Is reversed and the cause re-
manded with directions that the petition of
Rev. Mr.. Williams be dismissed
The Supreme Court of the District Of
Columbia had directed that the bishop of
Washington transmit to it the record of the
trial of Mr.. Williams before an ecclesiasti-
cal court, result of which Mr.. Will
Jams was expelled from his Office as a priest
of the church. The bishop thereupon ap-
pealed to the Court of Appeals, which sus-
tains his contention that the action of the
ecclesiastical court should not be reviewed
by the civil courts.
1t will be recalled that Rev. Mr.. Williams
was formerly priest in the Episcopal
Church, diocese of Washington, and had
charge of an important parish in the south
eastern section Of the city. He was charged
with conduct unbecoming minister of the
church and was tried before board Of
clergymen and laymen convened for the
purpose under the canOns OF the church.
The trial resulted in the conviction Of the
accused and he was dismissed from the
ministry of the church
The petition of Mr.. Williams was partly
based on the plea that the court which
tried him for his offense was illegally con-
stituted. The Court Of Appeals takes the
view that ecclesiastical court is COM
posed of a body Of men organized for the
government of church, with full power
to act in the same The canons of the Epis-
copal Church in this country provide that
a court to try ministers for certain offenses
enumerated in the canons Of the church
shall be composed Of seven members. Of
whom part shall be laymen and part
clergymen. The petitioner claimed that he
r;a a,-o hioh ole tod 81 hr,f
six members. and that, therefore, his con-
viction by such court was illegal.
In the opinion of the Court of Appeals,
however. according to the canons Of the
church five members Of the court can try
any case brought before them. The two
questions that arose in the consideration of
the case were whether the charges on
which the petitioner was convicted by an
ecclesiastical court were within the jurisdic-
ton of temporal court and whether tenn
poral court has Jurisdiction to review the
proceedings of an ecclesiastical court.
The Court of Appeals goes on to say that
this question Is of more than ordinary i'm
portance, and in regard to which there is
some diversity of opinion though the great
preponderance of authority Is against the
power and jurisdiction of the civil courts
to entertain application such as the
present.
1t is further set forth by the Court of APP
peals that in England where the ecclesiasti-
cal and temporal authorities are more close
Iy related, the civil courts interfere only
when the ecclesiastical courts assume au-
thority which does not belong to them. In
this country there have been many deci-
sions, but there is no uniformity Of deci-
sions. The cases that have been on trial
show, however, that the procedure followed
strong preponderant against the right of
the civil courts to intervene, and the ques-
ton Is therefore hardly left open to doubt
The question brought before the court by
the petitioner seems to relate to charges
upon which the accused was convicted in
the court of the church. but which would
lay him open to conviction in a temporal
court The Court of Appeals decides that
this has little bearing on the case, the great
question being with regard to Jurisdiction
which, the court holds. is clearly decided
in favor of the bishop of Washington.