The Columbian. [volume] (Bloomsburg, Pa.) 1866-1910, 1903-01-29

Elliotts to have him convicted.
The bishop positively denies that
he advised the conviction of DR..
Irvine for that of1ense.
"If this minister of the gospel
was guilt of forging that letter,
we fail to see why the bishop should
be criticised for advising that he be
tried in court of justice, which
was the very place to try him for
forgery, if he were guilty of for
gerry. Prosecution for the forgery
was advised by Mrs. Elliott's
attorney, ex-Judge Williamson,
reputable member of the bar, and
Mrs. Elliott commenced the pros
ecution. I believe that Mrs.
Elliott was the prosecutrix, al
though it is not very clearly shown
in the case. A preliminary hear
ing was had before a reputable
justice of the peace of this town on
the 18TH Of February 1899 lie
heard witnesses to substantiate the
charge. DIR. Irvine produced none,
neither did he testify in his own be-
half, denying that he was the author
of that letter. Bishop Talbot, who
received the letter, and Mrs.
Elliott, whose name was attached
TO it, were necessary witnesses at
that hearing.
"The justice decided that DR.. Ir-
vine should be held tor trial at
court. The grand jury returned a
true bill. When the case was call
ed for trial. DR.. Irvine's counsel,
made technical objections to the
sufhcieucy of the indictment by de-
murrer 10 it, which, after hearing,
were sustained by the court. With
that decision the forgery case ended
and is not again heard of in any of
the proceedings which followed,
which resulted in the deposition of
this plaintiff from the ministry. 1t
cuts no figure in the subsequent
/ proceedings. 1t does not appear to
have any influence upon the tribunal
which subsequently tried DR.. Irvine
1t is quite probable that in view of
the relations which existed between
Mrs. Elliott and Dr. Irvine, hei
pastor. she desired his removal from
St. Johns church, and it is equally
probable that the bishop, in view of
the rumors rejecting upon the moral
conduct Of this rector appointed by
him, desired that the pastoral rela-
tions should be dissolved. Both Of
them had the right to use all lawful
means TO accomplish that end with
out being guilty of conspiracy.
There is no evidence that either of
the defendants used any other
means.
"Dr, Irvine having been found
guilty of conduct which was TN
becoming a clergyman by the court
OF the church, duly constituted for
the purpose of trying the charges
preferred against him, with the
judgment of the court that he be de-
graded and deposed from the minis
try, there was nothing left for the
bishop but TO impose the sentence,
which was clearly his right as we'll
as we think, his duty. The imposi-
ton of this sentence is complained
of by the plaintiff and laid in his
statement as the sole ground of his
claim for damages in this case. We
do not see in the evidence any
ground to sustain the allegation that
the deposition of the plaintiff was
the result of conspiracy between
these defendants, and we may fuIth-
er say that there is no evidence of
any attempted combination to pro-
duce it. AS we said before, it is
quite probable that Mrs. Elliott
wished to have DR.. Irvine removed
from the rectorship of St. Johns
church and that Bishop Talbot de-
sired his deposition from the minis
try if the rnmors which were ahoat
rejecting upon his moral character,
were true, which he took the proper
course to ascertain, but there is not
scintilla of evidence in the case
which shows or from which it might
be inferred there was any unlawful
combination between these parties
to accomplish that purpose. 1t fol-
lows that the verdict must be for
the defendants, and we so instruct