Year: 1869

tribunal, certainly not civil one, and
/ doubt if an ecclesiastical one, which
would Overrule SO sumrnarily an OBJ
lection of this kind. The right OF
challenge is a God given right which
caff1Ot be taken away. That also was
one of the objections which should
have been. sustained by the court.


Another objection also that was
raised by the accused was that the
presentment of the paper which
stands in an ecclesiastical trial the
same as an Indictment at common
law, viz: the specifications Of the
offences for which the party ITO ap-
pear and stand his trial, was insutfl-
cient. The court had no right to pro-
ceed to try hinlsOn such an objection.
This also was OverIuled. The Objec-
ton was that the alleged Offense was
stated as having omitted the word re-
generation in the infant baptismal
service on divers occasions within the
past two years, and asstated in a1lOth-
er place within the past six months,
not specifying the dates of the COM
mission of the Offense or the names of
the persons to be called az witnesses
against the accused. @ f z


Now / may here express my aston
ishment at the court Overruling an OBJ
lection of this kind even. Mr.. HOff-
man, thegreat authority ofthe church
in this country, says that such an in
dictment is bad in all kinds Of law,
common, military, civil and ecclesi-
astical, and I may state that it is Op-
posed to the plainest dictates of COM
mon sense. Mr.. Hoffman also char
acterized it as absurd and illegal. Now
some of these, if not all, were Objee-
tons that wentto the very foundation
Of the Jurisdiction of the court and its
jurisdiction over the subject matter,
and If wTOngfully Overruled the court
was proceeding outside its canOns, and
had no right to do so.


Now here is a very important ques-
ton, whether the wrong complained
of is such as a court of chancery has
Jurisdiction to inquire into and re-
dress. This is the wrong complained
of on the part of the ecclesiastical
court To state ina few words my
views upon that point the court here
and the council here must show two
circumstances to exist and cO-exist in
order TO Justify the taking of iurisdic-
ton In this court. There must be
an Inevitable natural and proper re-
suit Of this ecclesiastical court, an in
jury to the civil rights of Rev, Mr.
Cheney, or TO bis rights Of property,
and the injury must be such as the
court counts to be irreparable in its
nature. Was it the Inevitable eOnse-
duenee that there would be an injury
to the property rights of the plaintiff
ifthe court were allowed to proceed /?
It Is set forth by the bill, ''fOr that the
Rev. Mr.. Cheney has for many years
been Presbyter at Christ church in
this city, in the diocese of Illinois
that he was educated for such office +;
that he is in receipt of a salary of $500
per annum; and. also that he enjoys
certain emOlumeilts I'm the shape Of q
parsonage, rent free, from the parish. y
Now, what would be the consequence
of the court, in this instance, proceed
ing with this trial It is said that
the consequence would not necessarily
be the deposition or even the suspen-
sion of the complainant. It is said
that there has been no sentence vet.


My view is this: that if this court is
court proceeding in violation Of its
canOns, outside them ndwitl16ut any
jurisdiction, it must be presumed to
intend all that may befall in the pros
ecutiOn of the case-even the worst
that may befall-they must be pre-
sumed to intend the deposition of this
party; because they put him without
right to the risk of deposition. And
the bill, may say, goes further, and
states that the Bishop has made a
threat, or what has been so taken and
understood as threat, thatthere shall
be deposition in this case. 1t is true
that the Bishop denies this, but it is a
significant fact that the respondents
do not deny It I; they made no answer
to the allegations of the bill, and, so
far as they are concerned, i am. dis
posed to consider il as not denied (;
having, as 1 said, no right TO proceed
at all, the presumption of the law Is
that they intend all that may befall,
even the worst consequences under
the canOns of the church. If that be
admitted, the only remaining ques-
ton is, whether there is threatened
such damage to the proper civil and
property rights of the complainant as
that civil court has a right to inter-
vene and put q stop to the action Of
the court. To give this right the inju-
ry threatened must be irrepaTable.


The Judge discussed at some length
as to what may be considered an ire
parable injury. In the legal sense a
man may own five estates, worth
$lOO, 900 each, except the fifth, which
may be worth $1,000, and he has the
right to come into court and allege an
irreparable injury 10 the fifth. Ami ir-
reparabfe injury is confined to that
which is estimated, and may be in the
main small. It is that which threat
ems to destroy or render valueless to
the owner something which he pOss-
esses, whether an heir loom or an es-
tate, and has no reference to the rest
of his possessions or what Is modified
to them.


An irreparable injury may be such,
either directly or indirectly; If the di-
rect and immediate consequence be to
destroy the estate OE interest, It is di-
reetly irTepaEable. If such that a
court or jury, although recognizing Its
existence, still could not accurately fix
the amount Of damage inflicted, then
il is indirectly irreparable. The right
here involved is the right 10 continue
to be minister of the Gospel in the
Episcopal church, as pastor Of Christ
Church, in receipt of the salary and
emOluments of that position. 1t is q
pecuniary injury that a man should be
cut of from the profession or business
for which he is connected, even sup
posing that he can go abroad and con-
meet himself with another church.


But the question is not so simple as
that under the canon of the church.
If the court depOse or indefinitely sus-
pend him, ne IS absolutely cut off from
all the churches of the same denomi-
nation, in the land; he cannot Off
ciate either I'm this country or probably
in England. He eOnnOt fill the posi-
ton, or pursue the career for which
he has been especially prepared by
years of education, and adapted BY ex-
perience and ability. It Is 50 far as
temporal rights are concerned very
much Is if his arms were clipped off,