Thomas's Massachusetts spy, or, Worcester gazette. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1811-1821, 1821-03-14
LAW DECISION.



On Monday Lar. the opinion of the Court was
given, in Bottom, BY Chief JuAice Parker, in the
Gale Of Hakef & al. Deseons, &c. w. Fales. The
aaion was RePievin proieeuted by the plaintiff.
as Dsacons of the Fra chuIch in Dedham for the
recovery OF iundry bonds and other feeurities
tor the PAYMENT OF money, together with the rec
ords and documents belonging to laid Church.
The defendant plead in bar, Al. that the prop
eTty belonged to him and not to the plaintiffs
4diy, that the plaintiffs were not descons Of the
Fra ChuIch in Dedham; and, 3dlv, that be was
deacon OF the Firit Church in Dedham, IiIues
were joined upon theie fevcral pleas, and were
tried before Judge Wilde. in this county, at the
February term of he Court in iSao. At the tri-
al it was admitted tina. the property repleved be-
louged to the FirR Church In Dedham, and that
shoie who were deaeons of laid Church, had
lawful right to the cuaody Of IT, After the min
iAe'ial Office became vacant in the frf parila in
Dedham, by the dilmiHion of Mr.. Bates, it app
peared that the parifh gave an invitation to Mr..
Lsmion to ietsle with them, called an ecclefiaai-
cal council, add that he was ordained over the
hIR Pariih in Dedhsm by laid council.
Itsppeared ,ha, of thirty.eight members be-
longing to the Fra Church in Dedham, lsven-
teen voted sgainfi the iettl,msnt of Mt Lam{on,
fifteen in favour Of it, and tx did not vote. 1t
Appealed that, after the ordination of Mr.. Lam
Ion, thoie church members who adhered to the
psrilh, ard were 10 favour Of the ordination of
Mr. Lamion, met, as ufual, with the parlh, elect
cd Mr.. Lamlon their paftor, elected the plaintiffs
their descons, had the Chtittian ordinances adj
minittered to them and becauie the defendant,
who was then deacon of faid Firif Church, en-
tirely abiented himielf from attending publick
worihip with the pariih, and neglected TO perform
the duties OF deacon OF the church remaining
with the parilh, they, after notice, dilmilIed him
from Office. 1t appeared that the defendant, to-
gether, with ,hole church members who felt ag-
gtieved al The iettlement of Mr.. Lam(on, with
drew and attended divine worlhip and had the
ordinances adminiaered to them at a different
place from the payilh Meeting Houle, but within
the limits of the pariih.
The Judge, who tried the caule, dire6fed the
jury "that Mr.. Lamfon was legally ordained as
rniniiter of laid 6rit parlh, and that thole mem
bers OF the Church, who adhered to the paIifh
and united with them on this occsGon, muff be
coniidered as the Church in isid 6rl panlh of
Dedham, and the iuceeG2r of laid encirn. Fra
Church ; and that thoie members of ths Church
who withdrew from the psrifh and refulsd to
concur in the proceedings of he majority of the
inhabitants OF iad pa,ifh, in the ordination OF
Nj. Lamfon, could no., in law, be conlideTed
Church 10 as to emile them, though majority
OF the members OF the Church, 60 hold, sppro-
pirate, or control iald miniherial or Church
fund OF property"
Under ,hele directions, the jury found, III. that
the properly lepleyied was The properly Of The
plaintiff. adly. That the plaintiff. were deacons
of the Fra Church in Dedham. And, 3dly. that
the defendant. was not deacon of laid Frf
Church. This verdict was taken fubjcA to the
opinron of the whole Court whether the direction
oil the Judge was correct in point of law.
This cauie was argued at great length, in this
county, At the lat October term of the Court, and
was continued for advilement. The coun now
gave their opinion that the directions of The Judge
who tried the csule were correa. and ordered
judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs accord.
ing to the verdict.