The Washington herald., 1912-07-14

London, July l3-The great deceased
wife's sister" case, which has been be-
fore the courts since 1907. was settled
finally by the House OF Lords. which dis
missal Canon Thompson's appeal against
the decision OF the Court OF Arches. ad-
monishing him for refusing holy COM
munion to Mr.. and Mrs. A. y. Panister,
of Norwich, on the ground that they
were ''open and notorious evil Hvers."
The following are the facts in the case:
Canon Thompson. as Vicar Of Eaton
In the diocese of Norwich. had among his
parishioners Mr.. and Mrs. Allen Neville
Panlster Mr. Panister married his de-
ceased wife's sister. a Miss Peterson. in
Montreal. Canada, on August Il, 1907,
having Travelled from England for that
purpose. The act legalizing marriage
with a deceased wifes sister in England
came into operation on August . OF the
same year. and was Retrospective. The
Wears refusal TO communicate Mr.. and
Mrs Panister was after their return
from Canada in October.
Mr. and Mrs. Panlster obtained de-
cision in the Arches Court of Canterbury
that the refusal was Illegal. The vicar
then sought TO obtain writ prohibiting
Sir Lewis Dibdin, the dean Of Arches.
from issuing his mOnition warning the
vicar TO abstain in the future from re-
fusing the sacrament to Mr.. and Mrs
Panister, but the Divisional Court by
majority refused the writ, and their de-
cision was affirmed by the Court Of APP
peal
Earl Reads Judgment.
The Earl OF Ialsbury read the judg-
ment OF Lord Loreburn in the Court of
Appeal, in which the following passages
occur:
The lawful cause alleged IN this cler-
gyman's responsive pleas is that Mr..
and Mrs. Panister. by reason OF their
affinity, such affinity being notorious,
and Of their open and notorious cohabita-
ton as husband and wife, were and are
open and notorious evil livers. so that
the CONGREGATION was and is thereby Of
Tended within the meaning OF the
rubric prefixed to the order OF admin
istration Of the Lords Supper or holy
communion in the Book Of Common
Prayers.
Il regret that this plea was placed upon
the record. 1t is inconceivable that any
court OF law should allow as a lawful
cause the cohabitation Of two persons
whose union is directly sanctioned by
act Of Parliament and is as valid as any
other marriage within the realm
Il entirely concur with this Judgment
of the late Lord Chancellor" said Lord
Halsbury yesterday.
Il am unable to see any room for
serious doubt in this case" said Lord
although l am sure that the
appellant is solely animated by con-
scientious considerations. The rubric in
the communion service, which has statu-
ia Bile sanction, provides that If any one
who intends to be a partaker OF the
Holy Communion, be an open and no.
torious evil liver or have done any " rsng
to his neighbor by word or deed, so
that the congregation be hereby Of
Tended the clergyman may repel him.
Marriage Was Illegal.
Under the statutes OF Henry VIII mar
rage with a deceased wifes sister was
declared to be prohibited by Gods law
and to be illegal and void. But serious
change was effected in 1906 by the
Colonial marriages deceased wife's sis
ter's) act. which enacted that marriages
Of this kind between persons comiclled
in a colony where such marriages were
legal should be legal for all purposes
within the United Kingdom.
In 1891, after many years discussion
and controversy, the act now in question
was passed. 1t Is impossible to conceive
language more clear and advantageous
than is found in the first section. The
effect of this was to make such mar
rage lawful for all purposes, entitled to
be recognized as such within the realm
or without, and that without stint Of
qualification.
II am unable to see any room for doubt
that the direct effect Of section / was to
remove such marriages from the class
of marriages prohibited by the statutes
of Henry VIII and to make the descrip-
ton OF open and notorious evil livers
entirely inappropriate to those who came
within its provisions. Such a marriage
of unimpeachable legality could not be
a lawful cause under the statute Of