New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1860-05-04

John Tutle board the bark Anna
NOTICE TO THE BAR.
The Judge notified the bar that the calendar would
be called Friday morning ih inst and all found not ready
when called would 60 to the fOo Of the calendar
SUPREME CoURT-cH.nBrRs-MAr s-sessr' Js'sic'
MrLLIs.
The DIFFICULTIES IN DR.. cHREvER's CHURCH.
Charles r. Harvey, Charles d. Tompkius, George
II. White, and William Il. smith.
This was motion on an action gro wing out OF the
Siaoues Dr. Chsevsrs Church The motion is made for
injunction TO restrain The from acting or astemP
ing Trustees OF tn. Church Of the Purans until the
action brought settle the question at issue between the parties
il viii be remembered that th. scton brought ii
little OF the dens Harvey and Tompkins TO hold Office Tn
sSe sersd.n,s named 5, their coaeendsn. whs AMI
smith inspectors Of EectOp and that such ceI
Gcaes owen In violation Of the rights Of the plaintiffs
The plaintiffs ash therefore, that these certificates Of escton
given the defendant, be declared null and void aud that
are then asked also, to the amount OF $500. =
AFTER Stating the above facts the counsel for che plaintiffs
stated that the defendants had obtained injunction order
sning the defendants from seting Trustees and also
s. e ssS Th ny! e. ''' then
Counsel Tor the stated tho ground upon which
the Of bsns Tts At meeting Of he Board on the
9Th April last, had acted In violent manner II appeared
only require that the 6st order should be modified
permit q the defendants 70 act 30 that there might be
had threatened to absent themselves from the meeting thus pre-
JUDGING the interest. Of the church
duly Trustees and denied that any Illegal votes were
In reply TO thi, ,n,wer shdsv Of Mr. Berry Mr.. Heine,
add Others the part OF the plaintiff read alleging that
Trustees
Mr. Moves opening the case remarked .a. I'd. va. an
who held their certificates for cousion whereby the plain
tiff. were ou.ted from their title.
constituted Legal voter which would very much expedite the
'et and save Is., deal Of p5e%1, discH,'oG r..
w,n. lie read the law incorporating religious e.es and
ele ndedH
Of the there substantial dis,srsement Ia the
that there thirty for the plaintiff each
ehsne being sdad;s;ed As !. came G and sssI the vote
There was hess clear msoIy Of two for the psntir which
as @
ticket The Secretary also made an entry that The plaintiffs
declared defendants power to which they no
Tfh viz to determine who the legal voters After the
dtsImns the matter serwad Their duty was then only
clerical write out the certificate and anything done
The Law provided that these elections were to be conducted
openly aud The challenges must be made the presence of tho
oi'fsnoLias without giving him opportunity be
heard T.' W.. no that any Notice mad been en
cate sorss ,s that tic pa :. Were elected and stating that a
tho pms bel elected they having received the hsheau
Der Of votes the election and anything
he by their adAys they had majority OF the
II had been said that the bylaws the church made different
corporation could nate ia contrsVsnton Of The
VIM NJ EyaIts for the defendants said that the qsen IN
tended TO presented In WHO entitled Do
the Trustees Of this CoTpoon There were three vaesne'es
10 which there three claimants The Board OF trustees
hsd fL TO st the validity tfthose who wer 20
them Their fellow trustees The law had LODGED thn sus IN
the ohctrs Of the Society who preside a an eecsoh ena
ey have passed upon the matter In lorna
constituted apparent title BY which the noarc
those presented SO clear was the aw upo
the certificate the BoaId to recognize them Inc ID
pector were not Obliged give 70 any out noe
Who received puraty Of legal votes No Court upon snch
state Of facts woud the Inspectors to give 70
sny net entitled to IT, Unt certificate were given there was
no title to the office. ~, s,.. - . .n..os..,, mn, a,
brauaht by plaintiffs In their own nsh 70 tne
se n ss an for damages TO them for an 20 tnen
defendants hot the Board Of
~ M election, 70: the two members VINO h,d
he re frae The action 10 its present shape coad
vas nohins 10 office thai the prtifs could carry
,er use or PROFIT and injury % the personal foitues or
could from the giving Of the e"e The
ony which this question could be tried ives by quo va
the title BE did not propose 70 duss the as
peIily hch lorg prevalent Ia that church The
having held election and there being disparity
The votes and the s the Inspectors stale tho
su Upon evidence ssicory 10 Oh Sc in'pector they pro-
pounce az sg. he votes righfuliy
out them those for whom they cast
and then Ia the cences tta. the
ds5endnnts had received plurality Of tho legal votes east II
both should he would ash that the in
picstidn that OF the should act "a
iTustse qaoTuse should DO granted. sol Tl.
Tie ~,s herr Hjst.rsa ~ Friday m'rias ~hea Mr.
| - JAW .iai11a u ya az a