Weekly North Carolina standard. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 1850-1858, 1855-12-19


tnis way, it was likely the Conference would never
close and in reference to the dispute, that it was
perfectly lawful under certain circumstances to ad.
NIT certain certificates, whether the opposite party
we're previously notified or not and if certificate
from credible person were offered by proper plead
ing It might be admitted. He also made some OBJ.
serVatlons regarding the usual way of taking ev.
dehce, IN such cases, on OATH and expressed hope
that it would be done away with. -.
Rev L. M. Lee being called to substantiate the
chaTge that the prosecutor was not man of verac-
Hy-Mr. Deems rose to point of law-that he was
trying DIR. Smith, not cice eersa that the Bishop of
TINS Conference had no power to try him (D.), he
being member of the N. G. Conference. DR.. Smith
replied :" that ne had perfect right to prove that
Z. +. Deems was not man of .eracty-that he
(Deems) made this objection simply because he had
no way of averting the calamity which he tries to
avoid, except by convictng me- have had no hand
IN bringing this calamity upon him, but he brought
it upon himself by his cowardly outrages upon the
Tucker family"
Mr.. Deems replied that at one time in the morn.
ing be (Dr. S. had called him hyena-a at another,
Impudent; noec he calls he co,cnrdlg never
knew hyena to be cowardy; but l suppose am
now to he called ccwardly hyena-the impudent
fellow" DR.. DIS further remarks referred to the
question disputed. He argued the point well and
with superior tact.
Inc prosecuted returned: / am entitled to the
right OF showing that the allegation charged against
me is untrue. I am also entitled to show that my
charge with regard to the character of Deems is
true.
The controversy went on to n considerable length,
during which, in reply, DR.. Smith likened his pro-
secutor to a scuttetish," upon which DR.. ID. gave
his opponent another touch on the point Of hyenas
and so forth; but DR.. Smith and "repclled the
dart, perhaps with better aim and effect; but the
Bishop again took the question in hand, remarking
that it was lawful for the accused to prove the char
acter of the accuser. DIR. ID. arose to point of
application. That be admitted Dr. Smith had a
right to prove to his character, but not in the
particular manner which he referred to- After con-
siderable disputng, the accused read evidence the
depositons Of Messrs. Rogers and others, previ-
ously noticed"
On Tuesday, the trial of DR.. Smith was resumed.
DIR. Leroy Al. Lee examined and the letter from
Bishop George F. Pierce to Dr. Smith offered in
evidence. To this DIR. Deems objected, but the
Bishop decided that this letter Gas also the letter of
Rev. I. j. Lenay, taken into consideration by the
Bishop on yesterday were admissible to tie weighed
by the Conference as they might deem proper. The
letter of Bishop Pierce was then read. Geo. w.
Carter, and W. B. Rowzc were examined prelim
mary to the introduction of written statement from
E. Blanche. The statement was then read (Dr.
Deems objection to it having been overru!ed) and
Rev. John E. Edwards introduced a witness.
During the giving ofhis evidence, the Christopher
Duncan, or Tucker" letter was read also letter
from Dr. Deems to the Richmond Christian Advo-
cate concerning the dedication of Church for the
Raleigh City Mission, and the general character of
the religious work in that mission.
is natural that this trial should excite it does
deep interest in the Church. and especially among
the people of Petersburg and those in attendance
the Conference in that place. Drs Smith and Deems
are both superior men-both shining lights in the
Methodist Episcopal Church. Every one must re-
gret this unhappy controversy. We express no
opinion in the matter, but will give the decision OF
the Conference when rendered and published.