, 1903-01-27

church OF Huntington in 1898 was VIVA
is known as a mission church. Thai
is. it was a church which received aiC
from the diocese in support OF its rec
tor. II is located within the territory
OF the diocese of central Pennsylvania
these defendants, is the bishop of that
diocese. and it was his mission to sup
ply this church with a minister so long
as it was a mission church. On March
%. 1898, he appointed DR.. Irvine, the
plaintiff. minister. He testifies that he
knew that troubles had arisen in other
churches which had been served by
DR.. Irvine. which he believed were at
tributable to his conduct. but being
willing to give him another trial. he
exacted from him, at the time of his
appointment. a promise that he would
resign from St. Johns church when he
Cthe bishop would request him.
Not many months had elapsed be
fore the bishop learned of trouble be-
tween DR.. Irvine and the other minis
tiers of the borough OF Huntingdon,
and between him and the management
of the Pennsylvania industrial reform
atory, located cross the river from
the town. and that serious trouble had
arisen in the church. Its members had
become divided and members OF the
vestry had resigned. Ugly rumors as
to the moral character and conduct "a
DIR. Irvine came to his ears.
On February II, 1899, he wrote Dr..
Irvine a letter. reminding him of his
promise that he would quietly leave
the church If any trouble arose and
requesting him to leave Huntington.
This letter is couched in very friendly
terms. DR.. Irvine formally resigned
as rector OF the church, but a majority
of the church vestry, on February 20,
1893. declared the church withdrawn
from any claim for aid from the mis-
sionary fund and formally called Dr..
Irvine to be its rector. The bishop
thereafter had no power to compel
him to relinquish his ~rectorship unless
he had or would violate some canon of
the church.
Mrs. Emma D. Elliott. Il OF these
friend of DR.. Irvine and was a very
generous contributor to the church. A
trouble arose between the rector and
her about a claim which a Mr.. Harmed
of Altoona had against the church for
services rendered as a choirmaster.
Mrs. Elliott testifies that She gave to
DR.. Irvine money to pay the claim.
DR.. Irvine instead of paying the claim
kept the money. This circumstance
seems to have estranged Mrs. Elliott
and DR.. Irvine. To that time she was
admitted to the communion by Mr..
Houghton. the immediate predecessor
of DIR. Irvine. as we'll as by DR.. Irvine
himself. DR.. Irvine then barred Mrs.
Elliott from the communion because
she was a divorced woman for a rea-
son contrary to the INC of the
church. Correspondence was had be-
tween him and the bishop and between
tbs bishop and Mrs. Elliott on the sub
ject. We do not regard this circum'
stance of materially in the determine
ton of this case. although Mrs. Elliott
then seemed DESTROYS of having him
deposed from the rectorship of this
church. Complaints of DIR. Irvine's
conduct we're made by her to the
bishop. Subsequently a letter was re.
ceived by the bishop. %purporting to be
signed by Mrs. Elliott, withdrawing Cor
practically witbdrawing) all com
plants she had made against DR..
Irvine. and requesting that he be re
tanned at ST. Johns church. This let,
ter was sent by the bishop to Mr.. Ell.
lott, one of the defendants and the
husband of Emma d. Elliott. She de-
MED writing or signing it. The bishop
then wrote her that if she could con
vict DR.. Irvine of the forgery of it he
would unfrock the "slimy fellow" This
letter is destroyed and, therefore. not
Produced. but several witnesses who
heard it read testify that that was the
import of it. A couple of them testify
that the bishop in that letter advised
the Elliotts to have him convicted.
The bishop positively denies that he
advised the conviction of DR.. Irvine for
that offense.
If this minister of the gospel was
guilty of forging that letter we fail to
see why the bishop should be criticised
for advising that he be tried in a court
of justice, which was the very place
to try him for forgery, if he were guilty
of forgery.
Prosecution for the forgery was ad'
vised by Mr.. Elliott's attorney. ex'
Judge Williamson, a reputable member
of this bar, and Mrs. Elliott com.
menced the prosecution. I believe Mrs.
Elliott was the prosecutrix. although it
is not very clearly shown in the case.
A preliminary hearing was had before
a reputable justice of the peace of this
town on February II, 1899. He heard
witnesses to substantiate the charge.
DR.. Irvine produced none neither did
he testify in his W behalf, denying