New-York tribune., 1909-03-03
TRINITY HEARING ENDS
COURT. READY TO DECIDE,
WILL T4KE BRIEFS.
Bishop Potter Gaze Consent IN 1883
TO Consolidation of ST. Johns
zcitk st. Luke'S.

Justice O'Gorrnan, sitting in Special Term OF
the Supreme Court. abruptly ended the hearing
in the St Johns Chapel injunction case yester-
day afternoon by requesting counsel on boh
sides to submit briefs. He interrupted George
Zabriskie % counsel for Trinity corporation TO
say that a large part Of the material offered 10y
him in the defence was irrelevant the main
question He added that he prepared to
dispose of the case then. but said that he would
accept briefs if the lawyers desired 10 submit
them.
Mr. Zab-fskie attacked the obstacle Of church
law "a fsed on Monday by ex-Surrogate Charles
H Beckett on behalf OF St Johns congregation.
He said that Bishop Potter in 1883 gave his
consent to the destruction of the building ana
the consolidation OF the work at ST Johns with
that at St Lukes. and produced an affidavit
Of the Rev Dr. William T Manning, the rector
of Trinity 20 show that the Bishop of New York
had lately approved the plans contemplated by
Trinity.
IN addition Mr.. Zabriskie read two letters
written by Lewis w. Smith. secretary Of St
Johns campaign committee III which Nj Smith
told both the Bishop and Colonel William Jay
clerk OF the vestry, that If the clergy OF st
Johns were taken 10 ST. Luke's the people OF
St Johns would go to the chapel al Grove and
Hudson streets, TO which Trinity had invited
them
The court interrupted at this point and said
that Mr. Zabriskie was talking far from the
question.
QUESTION FOR THE COURT
The question is said Justice OGorman.
.ehsve the defendants acted with due authority
in what they have done? All that you have said
has been very interesting but II does not con
cern the question. l quite prepared TO dls-
pose of this case mere and now, and should pre-
Il inc -
afBdavits which counsel think it necessary l
should see
Mr Beckett jumped TO his feet and said that
there were cases he wished to cite to show the
power of the court TO grant such an injunc-
ton
The question is not whether the court has the
power" said Justice O'Gorman, but, assuming
that il has this power, decide the question as
! have stated it
Nj Beckett said that he desired more time
for the presentation Of his arguments, but 'he
court reminded him that it had been month
since the first injunction was granted Couiisel
were instructed TO exchange briefs on FFiuaS
and present them TO the court on Tuesday
Mr.. Zabriskie. in referring 10 Bishop Potters
consent 10 tear down St. Johns and unite its
people with St Luke's said:
Trinity was not able to carry out the plan at
the time even with the Bishops consent because
the property which vas needed 81 John puIS 1l
ing ground, was not TO be mao Tor iAe He"
buildings contemplated
Counsel related the various steps taken oy
The xestrv leading I'D TO the decision TO close
St. johns. and said:
These plaintiffs I understand challenge our
right 10 carry plans on two GROUNDS
First they allege that ii is q violation OF their
rights as members OF the corporation, since IL
AFFECTS their interest in the property and assets
Of Trinity, and depriFes them of the rlght 10
vote, second. because il is an invasion OF the
canonical rights OF the members OF the corpora
ton