New-York tribune., 1909-01-30
COURT STOPS TRINITY
CLOSING ST. JOHNS
RESTRAINING INJUNCTION
RETURN4BLE FEB. g.
Main argument To Be Made on
Loss of Right to VOte at
Corporation Elections.

ver1ens and vestrymen of Trinity Church from
closing. s,rspending or in any way Interfering
with the religious services at ST Johns Chapel,
IN varick street, was issued yesterday by Justice
| r-langer in Special Term of the Supreme Court
/ The order of tie court, which will prevent the
closing Of St Johns doors on February 1. as
directed by Trinity Corporation, directs the de-
<ar5ants TO show cause at a hearing to be held
-, Tuesday. February ., why the injunction
4.bould not be continued made permanent
-rba order was made returnable in Part l OF the
Supreme Court
The injunction issued application OF
robn Burke Lewis W. Smith. Philip l. ScheII
Henry G. Dickens. William G. Rose. Otto Freyer
and Hermann CUSTOM. suing behalf Of them
selves individually and a committee repre-
sentiag the congregation Of St Johns Chapel,
and all other members and corporators of the
Rector. Church wardens and vestrymen of
trinity Church in the City of New York. cor
porstion, who may come in, make themselves
rsrties hereto and contribute to the expenses of
this action
Former Surrogate Charles H. Beckett and
William H Hamilton, counsel for the plaintiffs,
ATTAINED the Injunction They will appear on
Tuesday to argue in favor of the continuance OF
tie Injunction. mainly the ground that the
closine of the chapel would deprive the members
of St Johns of the right of church franchise,
because, ss communicates Of St Luke's Chapel,
,n which Trinity has invited them to worship
after February 1, they would not have the priv
rege Of voting at Trinity Corporation elections
SERVED ON COLONEL JAY.
Colonel William Jay, senior warden Of Trinity
Church and clerk Of the corporation. will appear
as counsel for the defendants copy of the
summons served on him yesterday at his
ofhce No. As Wall street
The complaint sets forth that
The defendant, said corporation of Trinity
Church. in or about the year 1897 was by charter
Of the Colonial Governor, granted by authority
CT the English Crown, duly created as and for a
Rector and Inhabitants Of the City OF New \ ork
in communion of the Protestant Episcopal
Church of England, now established by law,
and that under and by virtue Of divers suose-
cuent acts Of the Assembly and Legislature OF
tie Colony and State OF New York SAID lncor-
roration and charter were with certain modihca-
tons continued and the corporate name OF the
said defendant was changed to THE Rector.
Church Wardens and Vestrymen OF TRINITY
Church in the City of New York
The grant Of the Church Farm. in 1705, in
Guiding the site Of St Johns Chapel. is next
referred TO. The complaint says:
That in OF about the year 1907 the said de-
fendant corporation. in virtue Of its powers and
privileges caused to be constructed upon said
last named parcel, at an expense TO IT ana MEM
bers and corporators Of about Sl76,00O church
edhce 70 be known as st. Johns, and to be
occupied and used by inhabitants Of New York
who were in the communion Of the Protestant
Episcopal Church.
The complaint speaks of the architectural
beauty Of the chapel and of its historical asso-
Citations Reference is made to the corps Of
workers at the chapel and II is stated that the
total cost of maintaining employees is about
sea 600. The plaintiffs describe the membership
Of the chapel. and then name the defendants,
saying:
The defendant William T Manning is. and
for several months last past has been, the rec
tor, the defendants William Jay and Edmund D.
Randolph are the church wardens, and the de-
PENDANTS Hermann H. Cammann. Elihu Chaun-
oey, Richard Deiaield, Sidney Webster, john T
Locknan David B Ogden, StuyVesant t1sh,
Nicholas 2. Palmer, William NJ Polk, Francis
:. Bangs J. Howard Van Amringe, s. Edward
Mash Henry c Swords Charles A Schermer-
horn. William Barclay Parsons, George F. Crane,
Francis E. Swayne Ambrose s. Murray, jr, Yer
non II. Davis and Egerton L. Winthrop jr- are
the vestrymen of the said corporation of Trinity
Snurcn. such church waroens and VestrSmen
having been by the votes of its members and
eorporstors, including the plaintiffs or some OF
lhen- Gully elected as such to hold once Tor one
year ct the last annual Easter election, held on
ue 2lst day Of April, 1908
LOSE ELECTORS PRIVILEGE.
The complaint states that the corporation has
repeatedly threatened to close the chapel. and
that the rector. who ex off1cto holds the keys Of
the chapel. has announced his intention to close
TIE chapel II is then alleged:
Il the individual defendants should be per-
natted thus to carry out their aforesaid threats
sho ter even the shortest period Of time allowed
70 close the doors Of said chapel, exclude its
na eoranunicants and congregation and stop the
NerE and services heretofore and now being
regularly carried on and conducted thereat,
STAT incalcuiabie and irreparable damage VIII
ee uereoX caused; the congregation regularly
Ncfshppng tkereat and its various ministers.
workers and employees would be forthwith scat
rs ,oseo and dispersed. made to lose. in great
49, Their interest in said chapel and the
o. Gereof, induced to form new relations
III ~ siiiatiens, religious otherwise, made 10
ra.,:r ener most valuable and precious status and
ss'uoh Q. being members Of said congregation
- o conlInunicants in said chapel, and in con-
acfS - uereof. by the arbitrary ana WrongIuI
ana conduct OF the individual defendants
ossecied to their offices aforesaid by the votes
n. 4s members ard corporators or the oefend-
81 corporation, including these plaintiffs, or
80 80 oi them), to forfeit their inestimable and
precious franchises and privileges or De
tg electors members and corporators of the
IS ess4enoant corporation, and rendered incapable
soIng thereafter at any of its elections.
1ao tne plaintiffs allege that the direct I'M
--es4ete and necessary effect Of the closing or
salo chapel and the dispersion of its congrega-
sno membership viii be on the one han9 70
Se33rahehlse the plaintiffs and all other aouit
ole members Of its congregation as legal Vot-
80 Q. the next annual Easter election TOT
ssa. Ien wardens and vestryrnen ana DEPRIVE
saem of all right to advocate and elect persons
- seranie 10 the continuation OF SUCH chapel ana
t sss york thereat in any FORM and on the otner
1aha to make IL utterly impossible for said de-
,shdant corporation and said chapel and the
members Of its congregation to avail themselves
- :. u'e Aforesaid provisions OF law, because II
- Aforesaid plans and designs OF the individual
SSeiehaants should not be prevented ana TINS
sh4nediately. there viii, after January 81. l9u9
~ no persons entitled TO vote as aforesaid VINO
siaH belong such chapel" and no chapel IN
Htach "a meeting to consider SUCH separation
an De had or in which 'at least ten DAYS no
uee previously given for that purpose IN the
selo chapel" can be given. or in which divine
service can be held