The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-09-21

| Unless the opinion rendered yester-
| day by Judge Ingram. of the Law and
| of ST. Johns Church may proceed with
| the erection of the Whitaker Memo
rial Chapel. The ruling is a complete
victory for. those who have resisted
| the City Council of Richmond. Judge
Ingram holds that there is no tech :
nical or legal reason permanently to
restrain the vestry from carrying out
q program, long ago arranged.
| Valuable Paper.
Whether the city will appeal to the
| Supreme Court Is a matter that has
| not been determined. Mayor McCnr-
thy and City Attorney Pollard have
| not discussed this phase OF the ques-
ton. They Will do SO. however. and
| If that course Is taken Council. In all
| probability, Will have to sanction it.
ina smuch as 1t will require an appro-
| priation.
In effect, the opinion of Judge In
ment. The court deals with the record
of the old church in which Patrick
Henry delivered his memorable adj
dress. and doubts If the erection Of a
chapel will bring about the desecra-
ton Of graves. long forgotten. If any
| memorials are covered by the build
| ing the church authorities will be re-
CURED by the decree to erect suitable
| tablets. which shall recite the memo
| fials obHterated and preserve the in
1 scriptions. Likewise. the court he
/ lleves mat the cause OF the Master can
be best advanced by the addition of a
! chape! for religious services.
Many Changes Since Revolution.
After reciting the main facts in
volved in the litigation. Judge Ingram
| says:
Ordinances have been passed since
M nr ib are n, set out in the bill regulas
4 square and providing for its care and
4 maintenance, in some of which this
arrangement. as set out in the ordi-
nance of 1915 between the vestry and
common hall of Richmond are re-
ferred to. Moneys have been appro-
priated by the city and spent there
under.
+ From the undisputed facts as. set ur
IN the answer and exhibits, it apnears
+ that in 1890 nave nearly as large
! as the original church was added
thereto. In 1888 a tower was added
to the church. In 1880 a vestry-room
was added TO the south side of the
church but no application was made
to the Council to make such additions
all Of them being wholly on lots 81
title Of the city to lots Nos. iii ant t
~, the vestry made application tc
the City Council for permission tc
erect wooden building or school
longing to the city. which permission
was granted, although it covers {
large number of graves. In 1894 the
concurrence OF the City Council wa:
asked for the building of n chpnce
to the church and the addition wa.
made with the consent of Council. al
though several WELL known grave.
were covered.
No Cases Cited by Pollard.
The, vestry and wardens deny tina
they have uniformly recognized un
~ within. a very recent date the va
lidity and binding force of the car
rangement" set forth in the preambl,
to the ordinance heretofore mentioned
fer upon the city of Richmond tn
: management and control of everythin,
within the Enclosure. of said ciEncc.l
yard, outside of the church building
, never recognized any rights of the cit.
over said lots of land owned by tn
church except the right to exercise
police powers incident to the munici
, pality. s.
f These are all the necessary fact
J. to advert to. save to hereafter allud
! to the purposes for which the pro
posed chapel Is to be erected, and tn
i reasons therefor as claimed by tn
yestry. wardens and rector of old ST
;, hJohn's NO cases are cited by TIL
learned City Attorney--n fact, Their
} are no cases in point that would al,
the court in solving the question
I here
, The fee e. simple title. It Is conceded
They were conveyed to 1t for cllurcl
purposes-for about 167 years the:
have been In It's occupancy. The churci
authorities allowed the dead to b
$ buried upon them. They made tn
$ arrangements in 1915 with the com
4 mon hall above alluded to. according
to the recitals In the preamble an
ordinance OF 1915 and l shall, 70
the purposes of this opinion, treat tn
recitals therein contained as true, an
n ! nave no reason. TO doubt their truth
although no minute Is found In til
9 "vestry book" bearing thereon.
: TO Promote the Cause. q,
Y The decision OF this question mus
d rest upon the Intention of the churc
: authorities In making the alleged ar
Q rangcment with tho common hall II
:, repeat, the gift and subscquent8dee
OF Hcnrlco Parish was for church pur
Q poses. And although 1t was tru,
uonhtless that II WIS according to tn
: ancient custom existing then IN Vr
with the church building, yet the ma 1
purpose OF tho Eift1{wasgfor the cree
tlon or q house Of worship. where til
& neople might meet and enjoy their &c
J. me liturgy of the Church of England
ri ana cannot conceive that 1t was tn
,f purpose OF the vestry Of Henrico Par
. I'm 70 conhne themselves to the. the
4
ii construction OF this aforesaid arrange
$ ilent according to the rccitals or III
l. nrnl,nance, would he to go against tn
eEEsht purpose, OF Colonel Byrd's glf
Ino"r the rules of. constr,lction IN
ornii,hance. 10 inr M 1T is supposed /
asulte an arrangement between til
10 nily ana church, must he construo
aRalnst the city as 1t is against graz
!, o. title 10 the church. / such an az
. ultipn az ~ sought to be created no
t. ma be.n desired shortly after The SUI
ID loSrd arrangement" WAS made, can
- pc possible that the vcHtryf would hAA
a neep required hrst TO get the PERM.
he Dl,mh ~ The common hall?
q, rms court thinks not and M beaJ
lhk obt thss conception OF the tri
meaning and intent lof THIS nrranE,
I4ene We have the several instanc,
q. .h'yc cited where additions were mas
~ IRON 1870 40 1890 without any renuc
- hsihR tlaer 20 th. city allthtritieA Il
~ y. Xxx nefmlAaion 20 make additions ar
-, sht,aain,Yss IN and to the old 5chnrr