Pine Bluff daily graphic., 1912-07-14
(By Herbert Temple.)


 ceased wife's sister" case, which has been before the courts since 1907 was settled finally by the House of Lords, which dismissed Canon Thompson's appeal against the decision of the Court of Archer monisning him for refusing Holy Communion to Mr. and Mrs. A. N. Panister, of Norwich, on the ground that they were "Open and notorious evil livers.'' The following are the facts in the case.
 Canon Thompson, as vicar of Eaton, in the diocese of Norwich, had among his parishoners Mir. and Mrs. Allen Neville Canister. Mir. Canister mar ried his deceased Wife's sister, Miss Peterson, in Montreal, Canada, on Au- gust 12, 1907, having travelled from England for that purpose. The act legalizing marriage with a deceased wife's sister in England came into operation on August 9 of the same year, and was retrospective. The vii cars refusal to communicate MT. and Mrs Canister was after their return from Canada in October.
 MT. and Mrs. Canister obtained decision in the Arches Court of Can- terbury that the refusal was illegal. The vicar then sought to obtain writ prohibiting Sir Lewis Dibdin, the Dean of Arches, from issuing his monltlon warning the vicar to abstain in the future from refusing the sacrament to MT. and Mrs. Canister, but the Di- yisional Court by majority refused the writ and their deeisi5n was al-
 The Earl of Halsbury read the 'udg- ment of Lord Loreburn, in the Court of Appeal, in which the following pas sages occur:
 .aThe lawful cause alleged in this clergymans responsive pleas is that MT. and Mrs. Banister, by treason ol their affinity, such affinity being notor- ious, and of their open and notorious i rehabilitation as husband and Wife, were and are open and notorious evil flyers, so that the congregation were nd are thereby offended "lihln the meaning of the rubrick prefiXed to 1 the order of administration oi the Lords Supper or Holy Communion m the Book of Common Prayers.
 I regret that this plea was placed upon the record. It is inconcelvable that any court of law should allow as a lawful cause the cohabitation of two nersons, whose union is directly sanctioned by Act of Parliament, ana is as valid as any other n'arrlage within the realm.
 "I entirely concur with this Judls- ment of the late Lord Chancellor, said Lord Halsbury yesterday.
 q am unable to see any room TOT serious doubt in this case" said Lord Ashbourne, although l am sure that the appellant is solely animated oy conscientious considerations. me ruhric in the Communion servlce, which has statutable sanction, pro vides that if any one who intends to he partaker of the Holy Commun- ,on .he an open and notorious eVll liver. or have done any wrong to ms neiahbor hy word or deed, so that the congregation be hereby onehaea'
 
 oIInder the statutes of Henry Vlll.' marriage with deceased wlle $ sls- ter was declared to be prohibited py Gods law, and to be illegal ana Voio Rut a serious change was enected Ill 1906 bv the colonial marriages tue ceased wife's sister) act, which enact cd that marriages of this kind between nersons demiciled in cc!o! where s,cb marriages were legal, should De ,aoa1 for all purposes within the Unit ed Kingdom.
 "Jn 1907, after many years dlscus- sion and controversy, the Act HON in ouestion was passed. It is lmpos- sible to conceive language more cieai and unambiguous than is found Tn the first section. The effect of thls Was to make such marriage lawful TOT al, purposes, entitled to be recosniZeo as such within the realm or without and that without stint of qualification
 .I am unable to see any room TOT doubt that the direct effect of secuoh one was to remove such marriages from the class of marriages prohlpl'eo bv the statutes of Henry Vlll' ana 'o n,alxe the description of open anu notorious evil flyers entirely inappro- nr;ata to those who came within Its nrovisions. Such marriage of unlm- neachable legality could not De d lawful cause under the s'a'u'e o' Edward Vl. .,.,, ' T nVI n-