New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-05-30

dpcDg the prosecution. snd be was sssisFo py bfosn1
Ludlow. Brother ARIEL did call and examine sitnessts,
bot do net believe Brother Ladlow did Brother ARIEL
did give testimony, believe bat csbpot say, a. he wss
tinR Brother IuSow ds rvs ses@ony 10 tn case.
Mr. Perry t'ok an ebj-stion to or-l testimony IN MS
the minutes of the trial In evidence and
Question BY Mr. Bapgs-Do you rec.Ilsct any observs-
tons the Chairman to The mode Of contracting the
trial
He said II was his prerogative 20 tske eharge If the
trial A. far as can recOect Dr. Curry offered the nstes
10 prove that Brother Arch vas called q witness and
also minute 10 prove Brother Ludlow was called on he
tris also that Jacob Lewis called and testified MSk
down these Brother Sscret.ry, said be- are ping %
the brick. and will have house up In sms
The fourth specification then rezd. 10 ruling out
ts nony as 10 the quo asiso the disposition Of mind
by which the prosecuuon1 WAS adjusted DE- Bond vs
called and examined 2 Did YOU make An onr to shov
ihe character Of the proseeuhonf
A We made an effort 10 show The $50 ass-o" As
disposition Of mind in which the pr .secutoa Originated
amopg the quarterly conference the enef was ruled esi
nnsdysshle and we also offered written protest which
Cross examines by Mr. Perc--Q What did you ODER 10
prove the show the quo oninof'
A. That is another question: we called witness 70
Irove i. .u.s.,
have 20 objection - state H. We wished ~ prove
b, No ;ptr,ion Ia reclaim the money you'd have been
rjsnsed in the Quarterly Conference but TOT msunder
standings which had taken place between some oil me inrce
existing officers and their predecessors In ONCE am no,
nnrssd AZ the nature of these msund, rstsndng nor do
Know snyihug OF the matter, unless by report ,, -
q. Was that Misunderstanding because of a du.renee"
opinion on the proprety ofreqarns this 'nsesogston
, 90 rot Know il tina, ali. or n there was more
DR. CURVE wish nov TO Offer the minutes ct me
Secondst Church, making this appropriation 70 brVnu
Pease in order 70 prove the specifications mar or es
"tmonv was admitted in order 10 avshsfe the recoro
end we will con,eLd that the recollection OF any one sne
might have been present should NOT have been 1osedo
90 10 prove that the records untrue which was per-
mied TO he doue in this and testimony 10 thai snec
allowed 10 20 60 the Committee.
minute was offered in evidence TO prove that 70 vas
IN NJ AZ Quarterly
tnCe attached 20 the word CssIdar 90 which Brother
Posse objected but it was admitted by the presiding
then reSd in which he proved that the Committee OF the.
Second st T. Church estimated the salary OF Brother
Pease for the Conference year al $500
iecting Brother Pease 10 disciplinary trial without max
ing sny proposition fer friendly arbitration. -
MIR L. l. johnson examined-I . member Of the
Quarterly Conference VIXEN the question came up about
brother Pease receiving money than he Was entitled
Did YOU hear the presiding Elder at the first quarterly
meeting OF the present year. say that the Stewards had ne
right to pay Brother Pease for extra month n -
A. did
@ Did he make any proposition to the brethren OF that
quarterly conference TO settle that question anicabyb be
fore proceeding 20 other meansl
A. | heard no such proposition made.
Mr. Perry This is only consumption OF time suppose
they prove negative ON 1000 occasions what wiz ha'
Dr. Curry. We viii take our own course.
q Did his conduct leave an impression IN your mind hat
the Presiding Elder ursing ON to prosecution
Objected 10 opinion and ruled out
q Was there anything said by the Presiding Elder 70
urge prosecution - -
do not remember the precise words Of the Presiding
Elder.
O. VIII you give the substance OF what the Presiding
Elder said !
A cannot do 10
Fxsmin.d by Mr. Perry.-Q. In the Quarterly Confer.
cnce did the Presiding Elder make the remark from the
Chair Brother Pesso not entitled TO tho money
A. lie did but think i was Ia answer TO question
O Was the Presiding Elder informed that tho reason for
the appropriation that there was dehcienoy In tho
estimate OF the r years salary made Tor Brother PeAse a.
AZ the Srst Quarterly Conference OF present Pre-.
siding Elder il was learned by the Board OF Stewards that
deficiency did exist in the payment OF the first yearssd
any 10 Brother Pease, of one MONTH aud question WAS
been already paid his full salary and month over, aud
motion made then % appoint Committee 10 Invest
gate the books OF the Stewards.
o Did you as President of the Board Of Stewards In.
form the Presiding Elder that there was deficiency In The
payment Of Brother Pesses salary
do not think did the answe OF the Presiding FL
der with respect to the payment OF Brother Peaso salary
was answer question OF law that the steward had no
right 10 nav unless estimate had beer previously made
and also said that the Estimating Committee hsd right
TO estimate beyond the Conf year and this opinion
he stated given ON the general principles Of the
Church.
The prosecution offered as testimony the record Of the
Quarterly Meeting Conference OF he Second It, Church TO
how that the estimate OF Brother Pease wasfor Calendar
year. rather than for Conference year and also offer 10
prove that the OF several Methodist Episcopal
Churches in this City, including the Second st. Church to
allow for thirteenth month at each General Conference
year and they also offer to prove that Brother Hiram
Bangs received payment for thirteenth month a
year from the Forsyhst Church all OF which &c shop
declines to admit on the ground that the guilt limo
cence Of Brother Pease not in issue under this spe
cifcatiOn.
The Conference here adjourned till o'clock on Monday
morning.