The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1907-09-15
ST. JOHNS CHURCH
CASE in COURT
City's Application for al, In
junction Vigorously Opposed.
Lengthy Answer.
GRAVES NOT BE DISTURBED
Judge Ingram Declines to Refe
Matter to Commissioner
for Present.

judge ingram, of the Law and Equity
Court. yesterday heard the reply of the
vestrymen and other officials of st
Johns Church to tile application OF the
city of Richmond for an injunction 10
prevent the authorities Of the church
from building new chapel on the
grounds and otherwise changing the
appearance and conditions of the prop
erty. Flo also heard the argument of
counsel for both sides and took the
case under advisement, declining for
the present to refer the controversy to
commissioner. 1t will be some time.
possibly several weeks, before Judge
Ingram renders a decision.
History of Case.
The officials of the church proposed to
erect memorial chapel on the grounds
and in order to do so 1t became neces-
sary to change the appearance of the
grounds somewhat, and it is claimed
this will necessitate the covering up
OF several graves in which lie the
ashes of citizens who passed hence
many years ago. The city, which has
acquired certain rights pertaining to
the care of the grounds and the old
cemetary, opposed this move. and
seeks to prevent it by injunction pro-
ceedings City Attorney Pollard some
weeks ago filed a bill praying for a
permanent injunction to that effect,
and yesterday was the day set for
hearing the reply of the vestry TO
this bill.
The reply was filed by Messrs John
B. Welsh, member of the vestry and
lawyer and by his associate, Mr.. d.
G. Richardson.
1t is. lengthy document. covering
more than a dozen typewriter pages,
on which are recorded much Of the
A Different View.
The answer admits most of the ais
torical facts brought out In the bill
filed by the city, and the contract be-
tween the vestry and the city made
long years ago but places a different
construction on the contract from that
placed upon 1t by the City Attorney.
While the legal points in the case
are many and interesting, much
seems to hinge upon the fact
as to whether the building of the pro-
posed chapel will desecrate the graves
in the old cemetery. The city claims
that 1t will and the church people
undertake to show that it will not.
The attorneys in the case being un-
able to agree upon certain facts in the
matter OF dissertation graves, and
therefore Mr.. Pollard wanted a com
missioner appointed to inquire into this
fact and report his conclusions to the
court.
A Question of Law.
Mr.. Richardson, for the congregation,
denied that the work proposed TO DE
done would be a dissertation OF graves
and contended that the point at issue
was a question of law for the court
To decide and not question OF TACT
for Commissioner to ascertain he
said ii was ADMITTED In the city's
bill that the church has the ute 10
the lots numbered 81 and IS ana mas
held the title for 167 years, while
the city holds the title to lots III and
and ia The church surrendered none
OF its rights to the control OF the
first named lots when 1T entered INTO
an agreement with the city, and MI.
Richardson contended that the only
question at issue is whether or not
the authorities of the church have the
right to the control and management
of that property. AS to the motion to
take evidence IS to where it is located,
he said. the authorities have not yet
determined as to the exact location, |
but they have determined to do
everything they can to prevent any
feeling of repugnance on the part of
the citizens and certainly everything
possible to prevent the Dissertation OF
graves.
And they will not desecrate graves,
but they have not determined on the
exact location. First, they want to
know if they have right to control
their own property, and this, he con-
tended, is the only question before the
court at this'titne.
No Commission Yet.
Mr.. Pollard insisted that the pro-
posed Improvement would disturb" a |
number of graves and cover UP others.
He mentioned as in jeopardy the last
resting place of Mary Berkeley, who |
died in 1743, and likewise other graves.
swer. OF the vestry stated that 1.-THE
remains will not be disturbed'--not
that the graves will escape desecration |
At this point Judge Ingram decided |
not to name commissioner for the |
present, but to consider the papers
ienEthy, the reading, with running re-
marks by counsel, consumed nearly !
nll of the morning hour of the court.
me answer OF the yestry declares |
mat the new building will not be SO !
placed as to disturb those buried there.
me ground has been gone over with
care, and it has been positively as.
ed and this seems to be the whole cor,
tention. I'm
The answer is very Interesting from,
historical viewpoint in that it brings
out facts which, while known. have
been forgotten. -"
The Vestry claims that the CITY has
peen recreant to its trust, and has not
kept up the grounds as it shonid ana ana
therefore, even il it had authority ia
stop any improvements ia the cISyra., ~
or grounds, 1t would be forfeitaa M M
~ J. iailure to look after the trust. *