*196.* _Jurisdiction, Privileges._—It is usual for every fraternity to
have a tribunal of its own for the trial of members who break its laws or
violate its discipline. Within their jurisdiction, the laws of the State
give such tribunals great privileges and courts show them great respect.
The Freemasons, the Knights of Columbus, etc., and most of the churches,
have such courts.(353)
*197.* _Trial, Property, Priest._—In most of the States a court will not
interfere with the fair trial of a church tribunal. Neither will the court
entertain a controversy concerning the title or right of possession of
real or personal property excepting at the instance of some person
claiming a right thereto derived from or recognized by the law of the
State or of the United States.(354) But when the bishop has deprived a
subordinate priest of his authority to officiate as such, he may enjoin
the priest from making use of the church property.(355)
*198.* _Doubt, Legal Rights._—The foregoing rule has some doubt cast on it
in Delaware and Massachusetts. The investigation of a dispute between
members of a church by a committee according to church regulations,
consented to by the parties, in which both take part, can have no effect
on their legal rights. If the State law provides for cases of the kind, it
is superior and must be submitted to. Also, an award or proceeding of a
committee is not evidence for or against either party. However, any
statement made, or admissions of the parties, if not of a recognized
confidential nature, may be given in evidence on the trial in a court of
the State.(356) The judgment of a mutual ecclesiastical council legally
convoked will not bind either party rejecting it.(357)
*199.* _Bishop, Priest, Redress._—When a bishop removes a priest in the
regular way according to the rules and discipline of his church, the
priest has no redress.(358) Also, when a priest has submitted his case to
the church tribunal according to the discipline of his church, he must
abide by its decision, excepting where his civil rights or property rights
as a citizen are involved, when he may appeal to the laws of the
land.(359)
*200.* _Trial, Counsel._—The question whether a minister on trial in a
church tribunal is entitled to be heard by counsel or attorneys depends
upon the laws of the church, and it can not be said as a matter of law
that he is entitled to counsel.(360)
*201.* _Removal, Suspension, Trial._—In the United States under the laws
and discipline of the Catholic Church a priest may be removed from the
charge of a congregation at the pleasure of the bishop, without trial; but
he can not be suspended from his priestly functions without specific
accusation and trial.(361)
*202.* _Charges, Fair Trial, Hearsay Evidence._—When a clergyman or
officer is to be removed or a member of the congregation is to be
excommunicated, it is necessary to fully state the charges against him and
give him an opportunity for a fair trial according to the laws and rules
of the religious society before rendering final judgment. All the
allegations of the complaint should be made upon positive knowledge of the
complainant or upon evidence that is admissible to prove the case in
court. Rumor or gossip, known as mere hearsay evidence, is not sufficient
to base a charge against the character of any one.(362)
*203.* _Trial, Testimony, Slander._—A church judgment, where there has
been a full and fair trial or when members submit to the church tribunal,
and the judgment has only been rebuke, censure, suspension, or
excommunication, is usually upheld by the courts; and when the testimony
given on such trial is concerning immoral or scandalous conduct or crime,
if those taking part act in good faith and within the scope of the
authority of the church, they are protected by law and not liable to an
action for damages for libel or slander.(363)
*204.* _Remedies, Secular Courts._—In cases involving church doctrine and
discipline only, all remedies within the church must be exhausted by a
member before the secular courts will interfere, if they will interfere at
all.(364)
*205.* _Notice, Waiver._—When the laws of the church provide the tribunal
and procedure, if the person proceeded against avoids the service of the
notice or refuses to submit to the court, the notice of trial required to
be served might thereby be considered waived and the tribunal might
proceed with the trial in the absence of the accused.(365)
*206.* _Appeal, Decision, Limitation._—The right to appeal from one court
to another of higher jurisdiction is generally recognized.(366) If after
trial in the lower tribunal of the Church, an appeal is taken, the
decision on the appeal is binding upon the parties and also upon the
inferior tribunal.(367) In the Anglican and some other churches, there is
no limitation as to time when offenses against the discipline of the
church may be inquired into.(368)
The Catholic Church has a limitation as to prescriptive rights, to-wit:
“Three years in case of movable property; ten years in case of a right, or
of immovable property, _inter praesentes_; twenty years in the same case,
_inter absentes_.”(369) Also, there are limitations in canonical cases,
varying from one to twenty years.(370) There is no statute of limitation
on lawful debts.
*207.* _Procedure, Judge, Juror, Witness._—If there are no rules of
procedure prescribed by the church tribunal, the proper practice is to
follow the State courts; as, for example, where the State law forbids an
officer of the court who has an interest in the proceeding to sit as judge
or juror, the same would apply to the church tribunal, it being the common
law of the land. Also, in States where a person who is interested in a
matter is not a competent witness, in the absence of a different rule in
the church, the same rule would apply in the church tribunal.(371)
*208.* _Catholic Discipline._—A church member has no right to sue any one
in holy orders in the civil court without leave. That is, a layman or
priest should obtain leave of the bishop to sue a priest. In some
countries it is ground for excommunication to violate the rule. This rule
is analogous to the general rule that a sovereign state can not be sued
without its consent.(372) In this country, where there is no
ecclesiastical court recognized in law, leave is rarely asked.(373)