, 1903-01-27


Irvine with conduct u~nbecoming a
clergyman \ copy Of this present
ment was served on Dr. Irvine by al.
]rection OF the bishop and it was re.
ferred to the standing committee. who
proceeded as directed by the canon to
create a court for the trial OF Dr
lrrrle on the charges against him con.
tanned in the presentment.
\ trial was had before that court.
Dr.. Irvine and his counsel were pres.
ent at all its meetings. The first Sos
sion of the court was held January -.
1900. on April {. 1900. it entered
judgment that DR.. Irvine is guilty of
conduct u~nbecoming a clergyman OF
the church. in and form as laid
ia the presentment. and that it is their
further Judgment that Rev. /. \. W.
Irvine. D. D.. rector Of St. Johns
church, Huntingdon. Pa. should be
degraded and deposcd from the holy
ministry"
1t will be observed That the proceed.
irgs which resulted in the deposition
of DR.. Irvine from the ministry were
iHaugurated by the standing commit
tee of the church. There is no evil
denCe that either of these defendants
"iriluenccd or attempted to C]orruptly
influence that independent and dis
tinguished body of men. They seem
to have acted upon their own motion
for what it is fair to presume they be
lieyed to be for the best interests of
the church.
1t is claimed by counsel for the plain
tiff hal the proceedings which result
ed in the deposition of DR.. Irvine We're
in some respects irregular and were not
the canons of the church. We do not
think this is material TO this case. The
defendants are here charged with con
spiracy, and it does not appear that
either OF them had anything to DO with
the conduct of those proceedings. II
they were in some respects irregular.
for it. DR.. Irvine had his remedy iOr
such irregularity. if they were irreg-
ular, by a proper suit in the proper
court. but he cannot invoke such irreg-
ularity in this action for conspiracy.
The members of the committee of in
Quiry or of the ecclesiastical court are
not charged with being parties to the
conspiracy. The proceedings which
resulted in the deposition of DR.. Irvine
from the ministry We're instituted at
the sole instance of the standing com
mittee. With it neither of these de
PENDANTS had anything to do. so far
as disclosed in the evidence. W. can.
not see a scintilla OF evidence that
their action was influenced by any
combination between these defendants
or by any of the defendants acting sep.
arately, or that there was any attempt
or intention on their part to accom-
plish that purpose by improper means.
DIR. Irvine having been found guilty
OF conduct which vas ~unbecoming a
clergyman by a court of the church.
duly constituted for the purpose of try
ing the charges preferred against him,
with the judgment of the court that
he be degraded and feposed from the
ministry. there was nothing left for the
bishop but to impose the sentence,
which was clearly his right as well as.
we think, his duty. The imposition OF
this sentence is complained of by the
plaintiff and laid in his statement as
the sole ground of his claim for dam
ages 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 a conspiracy between these
defendants, and we may further a
that there is no evidence of any at
tempted combination to produce it.
AS we said before. it is quite prob
able that Mrs. Elliott wished to have
DR.. Irvine removed from the ~rectOrship
of St. Johns church and that Bishop
Talbot desired his deposition from the
ministry if the rumors which were
afoat, rejecting upon his moral char
acter, We're true. which he took the
proper course to ascertain. but there
is not q Scintilla of evidence in the
case which shows or from which ii
might be inferred there was any unlaw-
full combination between these parties
to accomplish that purpose. 1t fol-
lows that the verdict must be for the
defendants. and we so instruct you,
The first point of defendants. which
is, 'In view of all the evidence the
verdict must be for the defendants is
affirmed.