IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^/ :^ 11.25 ■tt|21 lU itt Uii 122 S D4 ■■■ « US 12:0 WMU lU 11.6 FhotogFaphic .Sciences Corporation ^ 39 WiST MAIN STMfT wnSTni,N.Y. l4StO {7Xt) %n-4S03 (i CIHM Microfiche Series (Monograplis) ICMH Collection de microfiches (monographies) Canadian Instituta for Historical IMicroraproductions / Inatitut Canadian da microraproductiona hiatoriquaa f\e\ Technical and Bibliographic Notes / Notts techniques et bibliographiques Thfl tot The Institute has attentpted to obtain the best original copy available for filming. Features of this copy which may be bibliographically unique, which may alter any of the images in the reproduction, or which may significantly change the usual method of filming, are checked below. D Coloured covers/ Couverture de couleur I I Covers damaged/ Couverture endommagie n Covers restored and/or laminated/ Couverture restaurie et/ou peliiculit □ Cover title missing/ Le titre de couverture manque Coloured maps/ Caites giographiques en couleur Coloured ink (i.e. other than blue or black)/ couleur (i.e. autre que bleue ou noire) D □ Coloured Encre de D n n n Coloured plates and/or illustrations/ Planches et/ou illustrations en couleur Bound with other material/ Relie avec d'autres documents Tight binding may cause shadows or distortion along interior margin/ La reliure serrie peut causer de I'ombre ou de la distorsion le long de la marge interieure Blank leaves added during restoration may appear within the text. Whenever possible, these have been omitted from filming/ II se peut que certaines pages blanches ajouties lors d'une restauration apparaissent dans le texte, mais, lorsque cela etait possible, ces pages n'ont pas ete filmies. Additional comments:/ Commentaires supplementaires: L'Institut a microfilm^ le meilleur exemplaire qu'il lui a M possible de se procurer. Les details de cet exemplaire qui sont peut4tre uniques du point de vue bibliographique. qui peuvent modifier une image reproduite. ou qui peuvent exiger une modification dans la mithode normale de f ilmage sont indiqu^ ci-dessous. □ Coloured pages/ Paget de couleur □ Pages damaged/ Pages endommagies □ Pages restored and/or laminated/ Pages restauries et/ou pelliculies Pages discoloured, stained or foxed/ Pages dteolories, tacheties ou piquees □ Pages detached/ Pages ditachtes Showthrough/ Transparence Quality of print varies/ Qualite in^gale de I'impression The poa oft filiT Ori] beg the sior othi first sior oril n □ Continuous pagination/ Pagination continue □ Includes index(es)/ Comprend un (des) index Title on header taken from:/ Le titre de I'en-tlte provient: □ Title page of issue/ Page de titre de la livraison □ Caption of issue/ Titre de depart de la The shal TIN whi IVIaf diffi enti begl righ reqi met depart de la livraison i/ Generique (periodiques) de la livraison I I Masthead/ This Item is filmed at the reduction ratio checked below/ Ce document est filme au taux de rMuction indiqui ci-dessous. ^2^ ^*X 18X 22X 26X XX / 12X 16X 20X 24 X 28X 22X The copy filmed here has been reproduced thanks to the generosity of: BibiiothAque nationale du Quebec L'excmplaire fiim6 fu* 'eproduit grAce i la g4n6rosit6 de: Bibliothdque nationale du Quebec The images appearing here ere the best quality possible considering the condition and legibility of the original copy and in Iceeping with the filming contract specifications. Original copies In printed paper covers are filmed beginning with the front cover and ending on the last page with a printed or illustrated impres- sion, or the back cover when appropriate. All other original copies are filmed beginning on the first page w'th a printed or lliustreted Impres- sion, and ending on the last page with a printed or Illustrated impression. The last recorded frame on each microfiche shall contain the symbol -^ (meaning "CON- TINUED"), or the symbol V (meaning "END"), whichever applies. ly^aps, plates, charts, etc., may be filmed at different reduction ratios. Those too large to be entirely included in one exposure are filmed beginning in the upper left hand corner, left to right a.id top to bottom, as many frames as required. The following diagrams illustrate the method: Les images suivantes ont 6t6 reproduites avec le plus grand soin, compte tenu de la condition at de la nettet^ de i'axemplaire fiim«, et en conformity avec les conditions du contrat de filmage. Les exempiaires originaux dont la couverture en papier est imprimte sont film6s en commen9ant par le premier plat et en terminant soit par la dernlAre page qui comporte une empreinte d Impression ou d'illustration. soit par le second plat, salon le cas. Tous les autres exempiaires originaux sant film6s en commen9ant par la premiere page qui comporte une empreinte d'impression ou d'illuetratlon et en terminant par la dernidre page qui comporte une telle empreinte. Un des symboles suivants apparaitra sur ia dernlAre image de cheque microfiche, selon le cas: le symbols —^ signifie "A SUIVRE". le symbols V signifie "FIN". Les cartes, planches, tableaux, etc., peuvent Atre filmAs d des taux de reduction diffArents. Lorsque ie document est trop grand pour dtre reproduit en un seui ciichA, ii est film6 d partir de i'angle supArieur gauche, de gauche A droite, et de haut en bas. en prenant ie nombre d'images nAcessaire. Les diagrammes suivants illustrent la mAthode. 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 lie ^Hili Judyinent of ihe Lords of the Judicial Ccmmitlee of the Privy Qmncil on the Appeal ./ Dame Henriette Brown v. Lea Curt et Margidlliera de t (Eavre et Fair nine de Notre-Duiue de MontrM, from Canada ; delivered 2U/ NooemUr, 1874. Present : Lord Selborne. Sjk James W. Col vile. Sir Robert Piiillimore. Sir Barnes Peacock. Sir Montacutk Smith. Sir Robert P. Collier. THIS is an Appeal from a Judgment of the Court orQueen's Bench for the Province of Quebec, in Canada, confirming Judgment oftEe Court of Re- view, which latter reversed a Judgmehtf^f the Superior Court in First Instance. The question which was the subject of these different Judgments related to the burial of the remains of Joseph Guibord, one of Her Majesty's Roman Catho- lic subjects, who died at Moijtreal on the 18th of November, 1869. His widow and representative, Dame Henrittte Brown, instituted and pro- secuted the suit in the Canadian Courts, and was also the original Appellant before their Lordships. She died on the 24th of March, 1873, and by her will devised her property to the " Institut Canadien," and also appointed them her universal legatees. This Corporation, having accepted the appointment, applied for leave to continue this Appeal, which leave was granted by their Lordships on the 26th of June, 1873. e .7 v This leave was granted without prejudice to any que&tion which might be raised as to the competency of the Institute to continue the Appeal. It appeare*^ that the widow had been condemned in the costs in the Canadian Courts, and her universal legatees were therefore, of course, interested in procuring the rever- sal of these sentences ; and the objection to their competency, though mentioned in the " Reasons " of the Respondents, was not insisted upon in the arguments before us. The suit on behalf of the representative of Guibord was for a mandamus to " IjCs Cur6 et Marguilliers de I'CEuvre et Fabrique de Montreal," upon receipt of the customary fees, to bury his body in the parochial cemetery of members of the Roman Catholic Church at Montreal, entitled the " Cemetery of La C6te 67085 i-r P348.55 9 4/^"T — 2 — dcB Neiges," conformably to usaire «n^ i^ i civil register. ^ """"^^ «"d *« ^^w, and to enter such burial in the La Fabriqud de Montreal " ;«. *u certain lay church officers .Llled " M^r^ ,yaUn consisting of the Cur6 and and churchyard is analogous to thS churcL''^"'" '.'''^*'°» *« '^^ «h"rch 1 his corporation manages the tempSi?L T^^^^ ^" T- F"«''«^ P«"«h. are a so sometimes designated by the t kof^!^ lLvIHT^' ^^''^ temporalities La J'nbrique de MnniriJ " i J ^t ^'^ *abrique." from the larger by a paline In .1,1 ?? "" """"" P"" beine seDamL »nrl th„.e „h'o hi, dS"?- J,V^ ™»"" Pf'. »■•« buriei «nb„,,tiid Knlf ne a|)|.enrs from the evidenr»rnL!l T °? ''' »»crements de I'liElise • ° ,„^ »ho h,«l ,„,rored ^S pu 2hC„T »th ^t »">'"«! '"ioide. .Sd c^Lni*:,^ In the other and krger par" ire b„rln?H- **'!!,« '•^•""oi'^d to the Chu^h way and with the rites of the Chureh ^'"'"'^ ^"'»" C»thoIice in the S custo j;„ isr «iy niriverrr^ -^ - "■«"» ^ "•■' « « «- ler or reserved part. "^ ^^ ^" *^^ ^'^''g^r part, never in the smal in.o aJrrirS' tt;' ra^-i^t^'"- " P- in Which grave, a., and otZTZT^ytt^t^. '„";' '"'f'T -e - follows ,- unexceptionable mora/chamcter and 1 ^° 'S' ■"* "PP"»" •• have been of t.on a Itoman Catholic, wh XftJhe reWntd '^'ti^t'' ?=^ ''"P'"» «" incorporated bv T'^pJ^f,- "S'T"' *"<■ ""'er appli«„c«, under the name of the " I„«E Can.dien^™ °'""' ^'"""« «" ^00. that they and periodical pnwktions KVollowsl^ "«"''?"IP''''"'''^'' "'"• newiS ration. The prayer was Kranted hv IZr "^ ?^f'' '" '* constituted a legal mZ the AsaociatioS L direc?r»mo„g^\trrltr„s"^^^^ "'^<^-^' make an annual return to the Government o^Z?.' .'^' ""f "orpomtion is to for the purpC^f Sin'gXX'S: ?' t i^s"'"'" P^P™'" " Committee ought not to be allowed to remain therein ^^■'"''■^' "'"'<''' » "■«'■• opini™ :h?' ^F?""«'"' '--^^'no ^^ considerable majority to the the^morality of lU library, and that th^etSt^rt^^LT^r^U^trJ B. Q. R, • ' « • • , • • ' Y5. wh burial in the of the Cur^ and n to the church English pariah, ^h temporolitiea ular cemetery, being separated >aptized infants '^g'ise ; " and • and criminals to the Church. C8 in the usual > ; but it is the ir in the smal- graves are and ' have been of ni and educa- is death, med at Mont- ler appliances -^ict., c. 261), y of Montreal and I of the" Institut em of mutual and 0, that they newspapers legal corpo- incorporates )ration is to personal. Committee leir opinion Hty to the 'le judge of ement was — 3 — 1 ^"ur^u ^j^^V^^P*;'^ I" *^® "•'"•^ y^"*' ^^^ -f^™"" Catholic Bishop of Mont- real published a Pastoral which was rend in all the Churches of his Diocese in which he referred to what had taken place at the meeting of the I.iHtitution ind alter praising the conduct of the minority, pointed out that the majority had fallen into two great errors : first, in declaring that they were the proper jud- ges of the morality of the books in their library, whereas the Coundl of Trent had declared that this belonged to the office of the Bishop ; secondly, in declar- ing that the library contained only moral books, whereas it contained books which were m the Index at Rome. The Bishop further cited a decision of the LouncU ot Trent, that any one who read or kept heretical books would incur sentence of excommunication, and that any one who read or kept books forbid- den on other grounds would be subject to severe punishment ; and he concluded by making an appeal to the Institute to alter their resolution, alleging that otherwise no Catholic would continue to belong to it. He says .L ^ n es;;S:;.!irl^S'?^Sl^^=r!SL?^^i^?^Kl3rii;::^S;^ ar'^'^ exocmn.unicatlon dent The resolution of the Institute was not rescinded. In 1866 several of the Roman Catholic members of the Institute, includinc Ouibord, appealed to Rome against this Pastoral. u- u ^^'^J^eived no answer to their application. But in the year 1869, the Bishop ot Montreal issued a Circular— de ri;?e",'Sd^'S,n1^";int£:iSr,rr^^^^^^^ ''"-'"•" «' •• ^-' -« '« ^«-^'' Cong,.gation .„l 1 T/"' r^''*'"J?'' """5 date from Rome 16th July, 1869. He also sent a Pasto- ral letter from Rome dated in August of that year, which contained two inclo- beforeur- '^"*^"'^ '''■ ''"'''®'' °*" *^^ ^""^^ ^^'*' "' P""*^^ ^" **^^ «'^«« " Illme. nc lime. Dne. d osceseos cicro omnem curam conftTio nt Pnii.T^; »": "fo V misprinl] .iiisferiint, ul una cum lua) perniciosas doclrin^.s"n eo X'erf conaillS ir ^ mur ' hum Zo""'!;:;,", ",' " ""■"""'"If" '"^^'V""' 1"°"«T'« observaniia maneo. """""^«' "O" possunt. yucl a luas pro mei muneris ralione comniunicans omni cum " RomtB ex iEd. S.C. de P.P. die 14 Julii, 1860, 4c." The other inclosure was a Decretnm of the " Con«MeKatio ' care of the Index was committed, it was as follows :~ ° ' to whom the " Dt.'cretum. „ B„ r- ■ „ ■ " Feria II, (lio 12 JuMi, 1869 8ANCTI8S?Mo"DffioK™S "°™""» K'='«^"° t^'<"-.linalium a ^^^B^H^Praf ^WBiP||fi' """• r— .»,,... in quorum fidem, Ac ' ■"• " •'•w-rtij member of the IiS, f ^^'i\^ °^ '^^^^ing the '< Ann„ • ^. "*^ °"^ that any tio.ede,a„tJr'-'"'«. would be dep.vfd'ol thf-sri^^.^-;^ l? -J^ng^ The I„.t,tute held a meeting on the 2, . « "" ThrBiT""^'""' produced no effect It ia right to b. "yPocnsie, en fo.gaant do se document and fnn^ ""' ^''^ entirely new^nJ * ®'*"^''«^ed the prin- , It "houTd'alt^^^^^^ --- eo^uIdZ; ht^ tenTo" "r^/--" of the case that r„;t '"f^^^ned, m order to comnlff !u ^^" ''^ Guibord. i'J> was attended bva'f' "^"^ «J^ ^^^-''^ M>rh^^tath 'kI''^''^'*'^ ^'^^^ry to administer Holv Cof *' -^^^ "^ministered uncUon / ^'"^ dangerously Institute, which rnjJ:T?'""'°" "nie«« he ZiJn^Au- *° ^""' but refuse Guibord hav?ngdtd'"'""l^^ *^ ^"- ^nembership of the Srrttstt^r ^^^-^"f p'^^To^^^^^^^^^^ V'^^Sth of November Wlpp'^w^^ Institute are men- 1'lnsiiiui Uana-lien le 17 ^ProKNpta. quocumque ' KU tocorum ordimriit. votitorun inlicli,. >n to the fact that Ao belong to the ». retain, keep, or ea out that any '** in remaining a t, " inSme 4 I'ar- and resolved ; «ucune espftce d'ensei- son sein. laliondel'Annuairede snt et simplemenl k co ted Rome, SOth which that offi- iibord's death,) 8 why they are fianimit^ par le corns Pnncipe la tolerance *me 4 I'article do la '. en foignant doBe ndemnation " 'hed the prin- n any former ' by Guibord. wary history dangerously but refuse rship of the f November, % the widow iie Clerk of ' usual fees. — — ih. r^.^J'T'?^ ^ *}'" *PP>icfttion M. Rouaselot, the Cur6, havin«r heard of the death of Gu.bord and knowing that he was a membe ortl"e Institute had apphed to the administrator of the diocese for his diroc io.L He repl tj that he had yesterday received a letter from the Bishoo of Vfu^rio? T * ing him to refuse abilution " mdmo h IWticle de k mJf^ ^ ' ^T^' s^'o^iird'^i^i'^r''""^' the.effre;ptmi: XX^iL Ji^j!::;^^ to Uuibord. The Cur6 having received the letter, refused to biirv fl.. l»vl Lur d 'buroCeVf ''n "T"^' ^^'^^^^ Ro.uu,'c:thoi:L';e;7or?ii^y It seems that the agent of the widow offered to accept burial in th« ^n^Th ^•^'^r'/M^'"'^"'^'-^'*^^'*' ' ^"* ^»"=* ««•- ^'« rSed '' Un t»ie 23rd of November the widow presented a netition f/. tu^ c «« ple,t was t« the .ame effect as the petitL o? the DeSanb ^„d .e? rc«:r„Krt""4mf„r"'^"'""'^' "- ■-'-'^ <"" "- -"leSai' The second plea in substance denied that the Respondents h- v:.f„„«^ *„ and to give him such burial as he was entitled to. ^ ^ *° ^^ '°' reH,pi;M™ 'z:iro :^e^r;;«ii te^ro^-h-ii" ever nature is indepen.lent of all civil interference or contrXthitfi^Hl" to the exclusive control, and management of the Respondents and of the si!!^ nor Roman Catholic ecclesiastical authoritv • that the Rp^nnnl.?^ • ^l" E7c tit/en ^'^^^ ^^" ^^^^^ ^^^" P-Xstd'^rp sts^r itoman Catholic cemetery m question, and are empowered bv law to r^Jnf «„! the precise spot in the cemetery wher'e each buriaf is to be made tesiSes heir abovemen honed capacity the Resj^ondents are also civil offi^^s wfthin cpr ^^JT^' \T:'^ *°^J'^^' ^••*'^^" d"^»^ defined by law anHe wtl v r^" ponsible in that capacity and sphere only ; that L R'espondents!^^ ^theTr 2 — 6 — (loiihlc rapiicity tliusexiHting, aru, by tho Roman (Jutholic rolij^ioiw authority and by the la\v,H«!t over tbo burial of puiKonH of Konnui IJatholio donoinination dying in the parinh of Montreal, and lire reHiH)nHihlo to tlie religious and civil autho- riticH riHpectively for the religiouH and civil portions of miioIi functions ; that the Ktspondents for the execution of their double duty, and in accordance with the iminmorial custom of the Roman Catholic parishes throughout the country, have assigned one part of the cemetery for tlif burial of persons of Catholic denomination and belief who are buried with Romm Catholic religious cere- monies, and other piirt for the burial of those who are "''i'I-'ratimi all thi VactH relating n ui r. nr v/ rr"/ '":""'''■'* ''^•^.'^ Institut,- had " justenient rendu le decreet q 1 1 a pru6 de la .(Jpulture eccl,:.8.asti.,ue," and further, " que le .16cret, rendu dans la forme (ui il se trou ve, est d'ailleurs un ..!,5cret nominal " Issue was joined on this special replication, on thi.r^r Tl'^'i -^'"Si" t,'\'""l'''''"»^<'» it is for the first time allege.1 that Ssti^arburii "° ^ '" ^"'^'''"" ^''''^''''^ ''^ disentitled to eccle- th. d'llmi.rr'v ''''Y'^''^ ^'^"'.' ^'' •^"''■"^*'' Mo-delet in the Superior Court, on tne demurrers and on the merits. rers ti^ih^Z) S'^Y\J".''f"«"* ^^^ V'"' '"'''''^ °" *^'« "^^'''t^' '^"'l "" tho demur- ssl but d Ir"l . rV' -T* ""'* "'•J-'-^J -^ P^"-eniplory writ of mandamus to Zw^r tl H • I *'l"^ '^ "^[^ ""* l'"^ '^"^ '■''S'"^! ^i^''^-- to the widow's special ZZZ t t' '''""^P'^l ^••/he special replication, which it seems to havi con- siUered as improperly pleaded. rhere was an Appeal to the Court of Revision, before three Jud-^es who reversed the Judgment of the Court below, quashed the writ ori,/iua ly issired and dismissed the writ of mandamus with costs ^ ' nres..ntT !wi/ "''^T"^ the widow appealed totheCourt of Que.Mi's Bench, and KS to , Ini r". .'•^'^"«''^'"" "S'''"'^^ ^""•- "f the Judges, which the Judges refused to admit. It is unnecessary to enter upon this part of the case, as in the nJtTn '''V/S";"f"^ *''^i!- r^'"-^'^'-'" fully ixpressed their opinion hit lies', petitions could not be su.stained. sion '^lmt^h",^?n^"T'f '^"''''^ ""'"""'^ **^^^ Judgment of the Court of Rovi- was founded TU^Tv ""'i T'" "' \'' *''" Sromids upon which their decision nlea hnr^^' V'^. 1''"'-"^ ''\''''''' ^'''"^^ *'^« ™'^"^'''« '•"i"'^^ »P«" the third of The w i '^1 1."^'"' T'^'^ ^^'' Appellant upon the question as to the form of the writ and the regularity of the proceedings. 1 he questions of toriii, which are not unimportant, may be disposed of before the graver question which arise out of the third plea are considered othei grouiiT? '" • ''^^^"'^'^'""^ bad upon the ground of uncertainly, or upon any to thf(S.^nTp'"''''r"S"^'l"'*'" ^^.f *^'" '"''^ ''''' »" proper form according tho ullwMir 1 Proceduie for Lower Canada ; the procedure therein pointed out, in .11 " '"'"'d'^HUs, was not a writ of mandamus in first instance, but dantstn :f '""^r"^ *" T'r' " P'!i*^"" ^'"'y'^^S ^r an order upon the Defen' w not as in7h'" 'P'"'?"^ '''!' /^'' ^'•'' '^'''S *" ^' ^«"« ^y t'^« Defendants thrwri^' n V "''' f ';,'^'''^ of mandamus in England, to make a return to the writ, but to appear to the sumnions, and plea to the petition. The section — 8 — of the Code of Procedure oeiiring upon tluH point are 1023, 1024, nnd 1025. Article 1023 evidently contomphitcH a writ orHummonu. It unyn the applimtion is made by petition, Hupp(jrted by liflidavits setting forth the factH of the ciwe preBtnted to the Court or a Judge, who may thereujion order the writ of sum- mon8, for it goeH on, '• and such writ iH werved in the name manner att any other lorit of aumnutm." This is rendered more clear by Article 1024, which directs the subsequent proceedings to bo had in accordance with the provisions of tho lirst chapter of that section. Thut refers to Articles from 097 to 1002, both inclusive ; which, in cases similar to our quo loarranlo, require an information to bo presented to the Court or a Judge, supprted by afliilavits, ii|K>n which the issue of a writ of summons may Ik; ordered The writ of summons commands appearance upon a day fixed and is to be served in the manner pointed out. The Defendants are toappear on the day fixed (Article 1011, and to plead specially to the information (Atticle 1012.) [u the caseofmnndamus under the Code, therefore, the parties are not to make a return to the summons ; the pleadings are to com- mence with a plea to the petition, and not a plea to the return to the writ. In our opinion, therefore, the objection to the writ, so far as it related to its being a mere writ of summons, and not a writ of mandamus, was untenable, and the practice of the Court in this respect, which has always been adopted, is in com- pliance with the direction of the code. The other technical objections to the writ have no substantial fondation. Three of the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench held that the writ was correct in point of form, although one of them, Mr. Justice Badgley, being of opinion that the writ asked for too ranch, held that a peremptory writ could not issue commanding the Defendants to do the one thing only viz., to bury, with, according to his view, they were legally bound to do. The procedure therefore requiring a petition and plea to the petition, it appears to follow that the applicant for the writ is not so strictly bound by the prayer of his petition as he is in this country to the command contained in the first writ of mandamus, and that the Court may mould the order for the peremptory writ in the same manner as the Court here may mould the rule for a mandamus. There being no rule which requires a peremptory writ of mandamus to be granted in the precise terms of the first writ, it seems to follow that the general rule applicable to pleadings, either in equity or at common law, may be acted upon. According to them, a Plaintiflf may generally obtain a decree for less than that for which he asks, and for relief in a more distitict and specific form than that for which he has prayed, provided it is within the scope of the prayer. In the present case the prayer of the petition was— that the Defendants might be commanded to bury or cause to be buried the body of the deceased Joseph Guibord, in the Roman Catholic Cemetery, conformably to usage and to law. That was, doubtless, as pointed out by the Court of Review, extremely vague. . The objection to issuing a peremptory writ in that form was clearly stated by Mr. Justice Mackay (Record, pp. 270, 271). " Under such vague conclusion," he observes, " the point really meant to be tried is hidden. That the Defendants are bound to bury Guibord H the Roman Catholic Cemetery, according to the usages and the law, is indisputable, and is not disputed. Peremptory mandamus to do this would nevertheless H S4, and 1025. lu appUuUiun in of iho Ciwe writ uf Btim- p an any other wliicli direcU isiouB of tliu to 1002, both ) information oil which the 118 coiuiiiand» ited out. The tdripecinllv to ide, thereiore, ;h are to com- the writ. In 1 to itH being able, and the id, is in oom- Kstions to the rt of Queen's of them, Mr. t, held that a the one thing bound to do. >n, it appears »y the prayer d in the first 3 peremptory i mandamus, damns to be b the general may be acted ^ree for less specific form f the prayer. 3 Defendants the deceased usage and to V, extremely learly stated ly meant to libord Jn the indisputable, nevertheless — 9 — leave things just ». unsettlod between Plaintiff and Defendants as thev wore the day before the Plaintiff nresentec' the re(iu<^te " ''*''*'"'"""•♦ "" ^^"^V w««fo But if the principle abi)vo laid down bo acted upon the Court n„iv in .. rdTSrdr"t:.^::5:i':i\"^^'^ ^^^^ ^*^«^ ^--•^- "hrDetuSii^n;.' ; burial with the^ritPnlT l»»« I>«lendants are bound to provide tx^clesiaHticHl burial with the rites and cereraomes of the Roman Ctithol c Church thev mav ay so. If they consider that the Defendants are bv.und to buyU.el^^^^^ b Lra^ll^idirSi^^^ "'"' Mies of those interred'^itl^oocLtL^^^^ this writ " Are^fhlfv M. f r'"r^"*r.V^^' '*"*'""^'*^" ^»»" '^'^ ^^^ Defendants to et ftiarguuiiers, lor the time being, in their coriwrate capacity as holders of th.. auostionTnf'TM-^ "T'"'"'^ • ° determine the merits of the on*e, and the grave a\7r:utrueL\%i:adi:r'"'"'"' '^" "'^^' are raised by 'the third'plea! Pnm^"p°'l1®'*,*'*/..'^'' ^y^^' '* •' desirable to consider shortly the status ofthfe as m the Kingdom of France itself, won the Romim Catholic Church U.l,,» S therfwa. veZ" r, ;■ 'J!""' ¥«'' '''B-'ly Ecclciaaticl Court,, „„*d be.ide, lueni mere was yeated in the Superior Counc 1 of Canadii tlie iurisdiolion r»m,» " afpel^STnorrh^'r" 5V^' ""f '''''' ^^ ^^^^ Par^mS oTS^e af^^^^^^ appellatio tanquam ab abusu," or the " appel comme d'abus " ♦V,. Ik ."?"' ^ ," ^*""^^ *^" I^fo*' Public Eccl&iiafltique Praucais " ed 184fi L TtfiV'rfcr^Lf ^'"^V' -t forth, with notes VtheTared :dito'r!t' tne /ytn Article. Pithou s treatise defines the " appel comme d'abus " as that- less:;i^eKi;|r„s^^ ^e JuHsdlction ou altenut contre concordats, e.lits, et onlonnaticerdu Roy Xs^de Bon P?r?«m«^. '• 'l^T'* *' P"^"**" ^e •'Eglise Gallica.te. dro.ct commun, divi„ ou nature., mais aUir pXliv:i'rc2VoySa".rd" rEglic"; dtelSr"""""^ '" rathiJ?.Vli'"T'"^r'"'^ ^^^ P"^^^^ documents which show how the Roman o%:'provinc: :^ ^^« -" ' — 12 — ceable by his representative. It may be observed that the Cur6 and Mareuil- hers are only proprietors of the parochiai cemetery, in the sense in which a Parson in t-ngland is the owner of the freehold of the churchyard, that is to say subject to the right of the parishioner to be buried therein. The Respondents' do not contest that Guibord had that right, but say that they have refused^othTng but ecclesiastical burial, for the refusal of which they are responsible only to th! o^^fr^f ?h^ °?' *^, **"/ '^'Yi^^'^t^ority. They admit, however, that the conse- quenceof the refusal of ecclesiastical burial is that the remains of the deceased canbeinterredonlyin the smaller or reserved portion of the cemeter" it cannot be doubted on the evidence that this qualidcation of the general right of interment, this separation of the grave from the ordinary pl4 of sepulture, implies degradation, not to say infamy. ci^ui^ure, _ That forfeiture of the right to ecclesiastical burial, involving these conse- quences, may be legally incurred, is not denied by the Appellants^ Their "on- tention IS, that it was not so incurred by Guibord ; that, according to the law of the religious communUy to which be belonged, he retained at the time of his manLrl' "^ "^ ^" '^' ^^'^'' ^''''''' °^ '^' ^^^^^^^^ i" t»^« »«"^1 Their Lordships are disposed to concur, with one qualification, in the opinion hTsTs : ^ '' ®'''^'^^* ^ ^ *^" "^-^^^ ^^^''^^^^^ ^f these queEns de le^ adS&ceTSVrs'^^^^^^^^^^ n« P«"vent se refuser Ss;5S;S2.^""^^~^'-^^^ " ar=i^ If this passage is to be taken to imply that it is competent to the Bishop to deprive a Roman Catholic subject of his rights by pronouncing against him e^ mere mom ecclesiastical penalties, their Lordships are of opinioS that theTop^ sition IS too wide. They conceive that, if the act be questioned in a CoSrt of Justice, that Court has a right to inquire, and is bound to inquire, whether that act was 111 accordance with the law and rules of discipline of the Roman Catholic Church which obtain m Lower Canada, and whether the sentence, if any by Tom^etlV^S^^^^^ "'^ regularly pronounced by on auth'o'ritj f *i.^ o^ worthy of observation, as bearing both upon the question of the ataiua of the Roman Catholc Church in Lower Canada, and the manner of icertaS the law by which it is gcnerned, that in the Courts below, it was ruled, appar'! ently at the instance of the Respondents, that the law, including the r tuaT of t^ tak.'^':?i-T^\-°* ^"r^"^ .^^ ^•*"^'^^^' ^"* '^^' '^' Courts were bound to take judicial notice of its provisions. ih. JolL??''Ti^" ""^u^'u '"^'°^ "^^"^^ ^^ ^^^^^^^^ ""I'^^^-i^ ^ conceded that the ecclesiastical law which now governs Roman Catholics in Lower Canada is Identical with that which governed the French province of Queb^ If modifi- cations of that law have been introduced since the cession they have not been introduced by any legislative authority. They must have heen^the subject of somethmg tantamount to a consensual contract binding tha members of that rfgSly prTer'^' "" " '' '""^' '"^^'' '^ '""^'^'^ ^' * ^''''^ Court, to 2; the EEiBa^aSiifiTiyiM 6 and Marguil- ase in which a J, that is to say, be Respondents refused nothing lible only to the that the conse- >f the deceased I cemetery. It jeneral right of « of sepulture, ig these conse- is. Their con- ig to the law of he time of his y in the usual , in the opinion these questions. e peuvent se refuser ve de sa paroitse, & ue ou autre autorite > the Bishop to igainst him ex bat the propo- in a Court of whether that Oman Catholic 3e, if any, by y on authority n of the status of ascertaining ruled, appar- the ritual of ts were bound conceded that vev Canada is !C. If modifi- have not been he subject of mbers of that Court, to be - 13 — It seems however to be admitted on both sides that the law upon the point in dispute IS to be found m the Quebec ritual, which w.is cert.inl/ accepted as law in Canada before the cession of the province, and does not differ in any material particular from the Roman ritual also cited in the Court below The yuebec ritual is as follows : — sans baplLe. So. A ceux qui auMient ^ A i^l^.fl . ''^ '* '■"''«^"'" Ga'liohque. 2o. Aux enfants morls par fr6ne8ie ou accident, aiix(iuels casonlTdnit^ornriT'^. t ' P'*'*'^ ™*'?® ''" °^'''' T" ^ serawnt lues llsauraientdonn^desinarquTderMirQjanttf^^^^^^ 5o A ceux qui ont eto tues en duel, quand rafime salisfail a leur devoir pascal, k ZinrnfLTayJntLZhJ^..^ «''"''''"'■ *'"8 «""5" '"Ril'me. n'auront pas noloirern.nt coupables de quek.ue M morte? comZ ,1 tnZlT.''' u" '=,""^'""°" '• ^ <"'"* ■!"' =""' ">°'^^ los antres sacremenls avant que drmourTr s'H Z,U ,nn^. .«^^ "7 se confesser, et rte recvoir assez impie pour blaspb^mersclemmenret vo^on !ir«mLr„ «*"^.^°"'°'r pa^lonn^r 4 ses ennemis, sMl avait m pas user de la ra6me r^u/ur ™ ceft^ Ilnefaudrait cas les tolasphfemes ne serui-nt pas volonta res^n n[r Li iE^a". 5""" "^"i'l^" ^l^ '"^ ^'°'«"''^ ^" «>"'• <=ar en ce seraientmorlsdanslMmw^^niten^e tersnr^^^^^ f^^I"^"- ^° A"" P^cheurs pnblics qui farceurs, usuriers, etc A IWd de ceur*)nl irprimrr''- "^ """' .°" '^""™''' P'-ostilu6es, l«s sorciers et les menis, on ne doit pas ausslleur ^fuseHa stml nr« ppHA.!- 7 "' 'T"' """"^^ °" "° '«"■• ''■''"«« P"* ^'^^ ^acre- The refusal of ecclesiasf ical burial to Guibord is not j ustified, and could not have been justified by either the Ist, 2d, 4th. 5th. or 7th of the above rules To bring him within the 3rd rule it would be necessary to show that he rna,^T°'""T*'p''^ na^e. That such a sentence of excommunication ^gU be passed against a Roman Catholic in Canada and that it might be the d.?Jl of ^le Civil Courts to respect and give effect to it their Lordships do not deny ^ ? is no doubt true, as ha. already been observed, that there are now in Canada no regular ecclesiastical Courts, such as existed and were recognized bv ?he State when the province formed part of the dominions of France. It must however, be remembered that a Bishop is always a judex ordinal a«coS an official to act for him. And it must further be remembered that unl^Js araongHt the Roman Cat lolrcs of Canada the many questions touching, faith Ind ?S TlT ' ' "r" '^'' "^"""^^ '^^"^"^ of their Church, may arife amongst them. There is, however, no proof that any sentence of excommunication was aX'rr SS' ,^"^^-^-r;^- by tli Bishop or any other ecclerstrc: autnority. Indeed, it was admitted at the Bar that there was none- their r.orS ships are therefore relieved from the necessity of considerg how far su^h t sentence, if passed, might have been examinable by the Temporal Court when ^ itXn ??f "if ''' ^'^'^ '^r\'''^ ^""^'^>^ was brought b^efore tharCouTt inirs t?.on ft f \ r' u """'^ *^'^^ "" ^^"^ ^'^ distinctly raised by the plead- Wf'^ fu?''^°^ '"''*' ^'^"^^"«« 5 ^"d the necessity of such a sentence to thf li^ .' "'f "'f T"^' .'^ ^'' *« «""^« ^^*«"t, admitted by the al egation in the Defendant s pleading that 7e dicret, as it is there called, of the Adminrstrator- General, was un dicret nominal. Auunuis^raior- the Jpfni!!? T''\ ""• *!-^ f^'-guraent H was suggested, rather than argued, that the refusal of ecclesiastical buna! ( ^iibord's case might be brought within the 4 -:#«;»« — 14 — i^*" °^**'l ''i^?'^? ?!^^' *"•* j"'*^^^^ °" the ground that, without legitimate reason, he had failed to communicate at Easter But uoon thJ« fh»J. ',« ?T huve to observe that this failure was not the ground m^Thchec^reliSbr nal was denied to him ; and that, so fur from Wilfully abstai U ng Trom"^^^^^^^^^ the sacraments of the Church, those sacraments were refused to Mm Xn he r.nw'^ "^ """^^l^ of refusal finally insisted upon was that Guibord was '' un prehear public within the meaning of the 8th rule. pecnear This defence was set up for the first time in the replication. The Administrator-General's evidence on the point should be noticed :- '' 0u«*/i()n.— Pour que" raison feu Joseph Guibord, comme membrn do i-inot r. ^■ pas 6tre adniis aux sacremo s de I'Eglise ? ' ''""""^ ™«™°'° ''o Unslitut Cunadien, no pouvail-il " /M/)(,nM.— Parce que, uomine lei, il est consi(i(?r6 comme o^cheur mihlin On »„. ^ cplu. qui, pour una raison connue publiquement, ne neut Mrtirinnr m?, ..' "" ^"'®?'* ''*■■ P^cheur public Guibord. en appartenanl 4 i'lnslitut C^na.mm^ppaKaft 4 urinsuLi m^^ d«. I'Eglise. M. ioseph encore sous les censures de I'Eglise par la luison qu'iVnosS une h hli ip L^ '" trouvait comme il se trouve par I'Eglise sous pHinBd'excommuiiiLion,/«terneSSurueS '=<'"tena„i des livres d^fendus a ppss.,ssion des dits liv.-os. Celle esj.ece d'excomrauSon s'enco^rn^«^^^^^^^ et reserv6e au Papa, par la fait do loi de Eglise qui en .l.fend la leclure et la retS^dfes qurce'a ParJJnt i trnn""'' ••"' "J"? ''"" ''•'"">»" '* possfedent Oeile excommunication a alteint M. Gu bord par iXrwlCn^'Jl,^?"'''^^"''? ^? *=«"" 1"' '«» qu'on est sous Veifei de la .lite excommunication ouoiri m I'L ..^li^! t^ '' !'"'' mombre de I'Institdt. Lors- lique el quP. de fuit, I'on continue 4 eT"tre memK ?'on eKve de la nX- T '"'"°**''*' •»" ''^^''^^ Oalho- M"''^i.i?ci^r'^'°" '"^ "^ "^P'^'^"'^ ecCsiastique. y^X^ll'^^^^trj;^,^:'!:^^^ The evidence continues — " Queslion.~Le dlt feu Joseph Guibord, comme membre de I'lnstitut Onnnrfim, a,.-, i rEvfi^JeTllomlVii^on'rid^Venl V' '* '"' '"''''^' '' '•^«"-' «' «" ^-tu da I'application qu'en a fait. The evidence further continues— " Question— A quel mandement fuites-vous allusion ? ' flepowe.— C'est 4 celui produit en cetle cause comme I'Kxhihii n rfa i<> rvo™ j Mon;;?l^^r:^^^S,iS:S^Sai'caC^S^^ ^e ,.Ev.qua de tivament. Veuillez indiqli^r lesTermUquidecSt telle chose "*''°'°'°""«"'"°n J et si vous r6pondez ailirma: •• liiponse.—Ceci est declare dans I'annonce de Monseicnptir de Mnnir^ni «.,= „ tear, j'ai fait publierleqnatorzeAoftt mil huit cent sdxLiPPtnflnf 1.,? n^'^ ®" "" 1""'"^ d'administra- D. dela Demanderosse.^ Voici duos qS^stemesceci est dS uT?rT ^.'^^''^ •='"""'« P'^** sent Ici sp6cial..ment et strictement defendues, savoir : de fie narite dp'l nl J,^? chers freres. deux choses gnera des doctrines pernicieuses; el 2, de publier, reten ir. ga X fve%nnlaT,T i^f^lif". '""' •>"'" ""^ei- deiix commandamenls do I'Eglise sent en malifere .rravp n v « „„: a' Ia™""".""^* ''" '^'.' '"^"1"' P"""" 1868. Ces ouotiii aiuiuuwe, sans y aire autorise nar 1 Bir i' containing person sending his'son ^^^^0^ t "^rr^^^ who possessed such a book; any going to a shop where such books were sold '^ S^ ""^''^ '^^^ ^'^ «"«^ ^ ^oo^ ; be added. Moreover the Index Xl^^ ' /"? many other instances might by the law of the GalhiJI, rh„lk ■! • . "If '""1 '" ^ ""^n the authority and, in theifoption S not elbTiehZhM fh'' ^"t ^^"'f '"^ '^'-'>' in the «^ or law of that Chureh f, ,„1] . .k"" *"" <'«n »uch an alteration a peiirr'ii'tlil"' J"^" ""**• '«=°°'''""8 '° ««> ecclesiartioai law of Fmnce pu&ir^r„lr *"' "" '"°-'"<=»»«"<»l"i'-«'l in order to constitute a man I' EecoS45;^7/:i-<*"-""^'''''^^"'''"-'«0°»«-"-. vo. Sepulture, A.„. 1715. Durant de Maaiam (Droit Canonique, t. 6, p. 442 ) says — »— - » m ^ I! 111!! 1)1 — 16 — re.|ui8e,parcHaf^ notari6l6 sur oelte miiior., nest pas absolniupnl ture est regarJi imrmi nous 0"™™™ tHl ^^nmrt^ n^^^^ oar le rofus d., la iipul- Calle niainte se ,)orte devanl des jiiKBg s^cS! Mi^?mr«1?. infl "" Jesus-Clinsl. est r.covahlo A s'on pliindre. «ooi6li,eilWeurm6medesesSS'^ '^^^ *'" ''""'''"" •""^'^ '"^ "•» o-'J'-e dans la . Htrkmirt (Lois Eccl^siastiques, p. 174) ;_ pas quelqie moyen de d^Lse IdgilU^e i proposer^ ^ "'" * '" ''"'"■■" "' dexa.niner s'il n'y aurait No personal sentence, such as is contemplated by these authorities was as already pointed out, ever passed against Guibord auiaoriues, was, as It 18 also to be borne in mind that no sentence, whatever might have been i,!,''^"^^'^"' P*^'^^ ®^®» *^fter Guibord's death. There is indeed a lptt!.r called a d^creto^ the Administrator-General to the Curl whiJh, after referr t to a letter of the Bishop, written before Guibord's death, refuses Lies S.I ZltZt^ ^^'^ "' " ^'^"^^'!: "^ *^^ ^"«*^*"*^- The repr^entatives of GutoTd UaTel-erS rf^lXlarsLtit ^'^^ ^^"^^"^^ ^^^^ ^^^ ^ «^ ^^« ^ " .hi|t=^^;^t^^^^ considered a public sinner within the terms of the Quebec ritual Trent r- ^^^^''' ^ ^ ^^^'' principal reliance on Rule X of the Coqncil of hibi.;;SKaCtCe'Sra^^^^^^ hujus Indlols pro- Various observations arise on this citation, which seem to deprive it of all authority in the present case. uepuve u 01 an In the first place it is a matter almost of common knowledge certainlv of historical and legal fact that the decrees of this Council, both thtethrJel ate to discipline and to faith, were never admitted in France to have effec JonrS viga^-e, though a great portion of them has been incorporated into Fren^rOr^ donnaiices. In the second place, France has never acknowledgoS nor received but has expressly repudiated, the decrees of the Congregation Sf the Index bv the CbuncH of T^Jnl^^^^A''^' ^^u '^^ T" ^''''" ^^^^"""unication inflicted WL- 1^ I ^'^«*J^ **»« punishment of reading or possessing prohibited books would have no eflFect in France dana le fortexlSneur. Dupin a Trist gS?^ He saTs'l "'" ''' ""''""'^ '" ^^""^^ °^*^« '^^ oTtiy,";;:! I647;;a?p'ro,r„\tal^^^^^^^^^^ <»-' ''a M^ ainsi congr^gSoL'^qu^errnTrRot^^^'^pS'^ P"i-nce. nl la iundiction des m^ mmumf: "^if. ;<''S flxcommunlf^s, ou que •'ianaissiitiee. La muiiiiii'O n siilut. 98 Ii6r.>tlr}n09 «('>pnrt« de wo n'osl pas absolnaipnl siilnles lois do I'Eghse ; ; car le rofus do la stipul- '. ijuB oha'jut) (1.I6I', pour r.!coval)l.! A s'nn pliiriilrn. te Id ban ordrw dans la »nlentia, il faul le clter 'examiner s'il n'y aurait uthorities, was, as might have been s indeed a letter [i, after referring Uses ecclesiastical atives of Guibord lone of the essen- stantive law upon Guibord is to be il. if the Coqncil of , aut hujus Indlcis pro- ii (losfmatis suspicionem icurrat." deprive it of all dge, certainly of those that relate ve effect propria into French Or- ed nor received, f the Index, iiication inflicted ssing prohibited Bupin, a jurist fs of the Congre- aris qui I'a jugd aiasi ') nl la jupidicllon des IS ses Elats ; muis les . . II est vrai quo expurgatorius, lequil — 17 — s'augmfinto tous lesans; et c'est li ois « i c • ^V^:^^ toest.b.ish ri^ have consented, since the cession, to be bouTd hv .n h '""^^f^ ^" ^^^^^^ Canada to enforce, which, is truth, involves thpil^ '-^'^ '^ 'J''^ "« '* '^ ^ow sought Inquisition an authority nWer Sttdb.rT'''"" "^'^^' authority of the of France. It is not, therefore no?.! . '^''^''•>''' •'«P»'i''^ted by the old law mentioned the Roman Catholic subSof hi On ^ *''" ^•^*,"^ Elizabeth, Already to be bound by such a rule. ^ ^^ ^'^^ ^^^en could not legally consent The conclusion, therefore to wfuVh tu - t difficult and important case is that plur^ }'^e'^I^o'•d«hips have come upon this w.,, at the time of hi, dea'ti tl^r/tS 'v^L^'l '" '"■'"' «"" ^"'^'^ censure as would, according to thp On.K • , ecclesmatical sentence or Roman Catholics in Canada, justify the^Senial T''^^- *"^ ^^" binding upon remains. "^ •>" "^"^ denial of ecclesiastical sepulture to his the B^J^rhrV^^^ order of orders of their ecclesiastical superior and fhTr '"!? ^•"^ ^'^""^ *« «bey the to issue against them. Their Lordships I'nnn? ''. ^^'^^ °" '"andanius ought apprehend that it is a general rule of ?hw "^ ''""f^" ^° ^^''' '^^S^'^ent. They dencethatan inferior officer can jus fy hi "act rn ^""^'y ^^y^'^^^ of jurispru- superior only when that order has been ZTT'"" ^^ '^^ ^''^e'' of his authonty. "'^^ Oeen legularly issued by competent establishertha^^^^^^^^ ttdSitldV' t I""'' 7? '' '' ^^ «'-rly Church to ecclesiastical burial, nevertheless tt t "" f ^^^ ^«"»^" Catholic be sufficient to justify the Cur^ and « W.Hir '' -^'^''.^^ ^^^ Bishop would in that part of the Parochial cemetery h^S^ ^"/"^"^''^"^ ^ ^^-^^y him be in erred; or, in other words, the filhoD hv V ^ ^"^^V''" ^^''' hypothesis, to ndividual case, might dispense with the a^ndf. ^^^ absolute power in any law, and prohibit upon any grounds reveZd " f *^" ^'"'^'^^ ecclesiastical himself, the ecclesiastical budal of any paTi linn' not revealed, satisfactory to their Lordships that the Roman CaSiL ofC;- n^^'T 'I "" ^^'^^nce before placed m such a condition. '^^noiics ot Lower Canada have consented to be Their Lordships do not thi i if and circumstances of the suit hud h^i!!^ -T'"'^ ^ consider whether, if the nartips had power to order the intelei t o/ G.i'Sl' ^^ "^"'^ ^^ would norhave religious rites, because the widow finnJlvT be accompanied by the ui^ual their Lordship's bar have not Sed for^ifr^"S*^^«. demand, and Counsel a before them in his individual canacitv h.Tl"'''' ^"'^"^^ the Cur^ is not Majesty that the Decrees of the Cw[ a, *^'^t,^"^ '^"'"^ly advise Hel Review be reserved Thaf th^ • • , i Queen's Bench and of thp cLJT l and that, instead oWo?l?Udf b^' ttc "V^: "t^""' <^ny^i^' peremptory writ of mandamus be tauTd dfre^Slo < f°"r "f "'^''"^ ««'''' '."""*'«"<' I*» Cur^ et Marguilliers «:i — IS — remains being Cughrrthe ,. Lrete^^Tr ,W '"'^ ' ■""* **""' "P"" '"'='' which should be borne by Se TppeTante ^ ^ '" '^ "'^'"'"'^ •'^^^' If, aa was suggested, difficulties should arise bv reason nf »« ; ♦ EosiBB SBNficAL, Imprimeur, No. 6, 8 et 10 Rue 8t. Vincent. ling them, upon idien, and upon prepare, or per- hich the remain ly interred, for that, upon such % reasonable and e said cemetery, pay the Cana- rts, and of this eoiuatio judicia, xpressing their atical members ^ belonging to as submitted to V of the Roman ' an interment the mandamus > obviate them t for that pur- ich ceremonies,