New-York tribune., 1909-04-15
ST. JOHNS LOSES AGAIN
TO APPEAL COURT CASE.
Injunction Restraining Trinity from
Closing Chapel Vdcated.

Justice O'Gorman handed down 1ecfsion in the
Supreme Court yesterday denying the appilca'iOii
Of members Of ST. Johns Chapel for a permanent
injunction restraining Trinity corporation troin
closing the chapel. He said the tudieiai power
to interfere in questions OF rehslous
ecclesiastical arrangement except wheh property
{ or civil rights were involved
The temporary restraining order belhs NaC0'V'
by the decision there is no legal costacle u
the closing of St Johns Chapel by Trinity cor
poration. Ex-Surrogate Charles H BecAett sad
yesterday that the St Johns people undouO'e'.y
would appeal the decision, but that the case "oUu
hardly be argued the Appellate Division oelore
June.
The text of Justice O'Gormans decision fono"s'
This is an application for injunction & pen9eIeSte g.
lite restraining the dsfendan{s Iro with the con
tnuation of the usual religious services t+ rbar
ter from ths Blush CTo%n in 1871 The parish Of
Trinity Church embraces the entire md nine
chapeIs with one rector and several Wears cuTates
and assistsnts 81 JGnn 3t1 soTth of Canal street
1907 has been TnantdIeG oT Ty
the Trinity corporation place OF puOic "o
to changed 4s soF&H s9R9Pr Of rnS III ins
been considering for several years . ,orLE of
St Johns with the work carried on at So Luxe aS
Chapel which is also pat{ OF % tbe civ about
mile north of St Johns on November ls; Tobn I
chapel on Febr1ary /. 1909 and remove the work
thereof to St Lukes chapel
NOT TO ABANDON WORK
In this connection the vestry by their clerk de
don its: work in the region in which St Johns
Chapel is loGated that on tne Td }n make more
effective that special evangelistic services VII
Go bs nesbbSrhood and that Trinity Church is
merely rearranging its work ,i anu Id seristing
methods to meet changed conditions anu eAiS'"e
Sfos nov-r of the rector and vestry of Trinity
/ present
Johns institute the projected rear ITsri
of tbe s TssouS Tsses Of ah the Johns
Ia sIeT( CORPORATION having board OF trustees
the corporate powers are vested ior an Pun pU 49,
P5sct&od & mn yestT are w the governing board
of Trinity Church and necessar&ny & 5.bI1Tch agt
Rap5fisf C,hYrch. as n Y. 131). The vestTy have
be s'56eTrison and control and the sole man
agers Of the corporation ia respect to its tempora
ties The plaintiffs members OF the cong consresa go
tain ecclesiastical requirements, nave qIafer f-
themselves to vote at the annual eec{Om tbs be
come corporators Of the Trinity corporatio@n- on ar
upon them to interfere with the vestry who IN
the exercise Of their author1[y; yroa tbe Corporate
Pronertv 70 what they conceive be the most e.
9cient service in furtherance of its corporate o6
terts The property belongs the Trinity cor
poration. and not to the eoEportors brough whom
the corporation acts are not exceedlng tne pnGsT p0T
iads iadsment. 5e te''s" '''e =, s..,,or
70 Of the religious corporation law from the opera
ton Of provisions Of Section Oh OF 5ITfes n Of
trustees of religious corporations . ana Pr ,ees
nPescIbed b1 the discipline rules and usases Of
the corporation and OF the S{faI GOV sactin5
10 s1empts therefrom only those churches ineor
| porated under q general or special Ia" prior ~
! January !, 1928.
| NOT VIOLATING CANONICAL usAGES.
But while Trinity Church was not Incorporates 1,oea
|
does not faii Within the express exemption, this
corporation nevertheless is unaffected by the pro
visions of the religious corporations law so dsr & S
they inconsistent with or IN derogatOii 81 tbs[ nv
.xist under its Charter under the doctrine settled
IN rsnt y1e ~ rorporste powers by sovereign TO
an association Of ndivduals for Puohc, use Use "a
Fror, psssng laws impairng It's obligations
II it be assumed that Section is applicable the
contemplated action or the detsndaiIS "a : sofsnd
ants are not violating any Of the canonlcaI lsases ~
regulations Of the Episcopal Cnurca,. anu +Ta
eccesa sticaI head of the diocese Under Canon 10
the parish Subject to the csnoncal auth9rtty Of
bishop, may determine and pTeScT,loe ~, t TsI sr
ner and by whom they shall be performed me Inc
plaintiffs are required 10 conform to the can9ns.
lIsages and discipline of the church Of which they
are members and the court VII ,r,,as not aig x "
The judicial power is reluGtan, to lnjerieTe N
matters % OF 40 so oniv when rights Of property OF
civil rights involved. No such rights appear
/ a D
conclude therefore. that the plaln.n;s ha{ iIl
presented no case of which court or equity Wa
lake cognizance and the application Tor nJnncGHe
relief must be denied. The temporary restraining
order heretofore granted is vacated
DECISION NOT A SURPRISE
The temporary restraining order was granted on
January II bv Justice Erianser. and the arguments
~ show cause why II should not ne made perIh8-
nent were heard on March by Justice . trorInan,
t., Surrogate Beckett counsel for St Johns. said
,,esfardav that he was surprised at the de-
cision -
.U1tbou+ Speakfnx in exaggerated terms OF thls
o.sa setd Nr Beckett, 1T is grave and serious
one and either side defeated would have appealed
from the decision. -,
st Johns people do not CONSIDER TINS men ui,
mate defeat nor do they regard the election OF yes
terdav except as a victory They showed thelr
strength in the parish to be at least one-nfth OF
the whole.
Msr,hers ~ the ST. Johns committee said yester-
day that they had not given their fight FOR their
chanel and the right worship there
m