The Union flag. [volume] (Jonesborough, Tenn.) 1865-187?, 1868-12-25
Written tor the Jonesboro' Tenn Union Flag
Important Church Case Decided.

AT the close ofthe wa. DR.. Lanahan, now
one Of the Book Agents at New York, was
Presiding Elder, having charge OF tue Mptho-
dist +. Church, ia Winchester, Va. la his
work he came to Winchester to hold services
in connection With Rev. B. II. Craven, the
Pastor assigned TO that charge. Willis in the
pulpit on Sabbath morning, awaiting the
lime for opening the service, Rev. Noryal
Wilson, Of the Church South, entered and
took fcrcible possession, and conducted the
meeting, announcing that be would do so
twice each Sabbath thereafter. 0r. Lanahan
stated 10 the congregation that while for the
sake Of order, be had submitted TO the inlru-
sion, the congregation might expect that the
Pastor and himself would that evening and
subsequently occupy the pulpit in accordance
with his previous announcement. Ia the
evening DR.. Lanahan aud Mr. Craven were
present, and the latter preached. Since that
time the Church has remained ia the posses
sion OF our preachers and their congregation.
The seceders carried the case into Court. AZ.
ter a full hearing, Judge Parker, on Tuesday
December LIST, delivered his opinion. The
Judge enters intn n history Of the Methodist
Church, as an organization in this country,
from its birth to the present time. His de.
cisiOH is based upon the deed Of conveyance,
which reciIes that the property was convey
ed to Trustees for the benefit OF the "COngre-
CATION Of the Methodist Episcopal Church in
the own Of Winchester and vicinity The
amount Of property in dispute was about
$4,000. The Judge DEGREES that the bill Of
the Plaintiffs Church South be dismissed.
This is one Of several decisions oflike import
raaarYHw nd a.. Tt..f.s. ..A M...l.-H II
Of them 10 favor Of the Methodist Episcopal
Church"
H,s'r'. Editor, Union Flag,
The above is .nken from "The Christian
Advocate" published ia the city Of New
York. You will please publish the same ir
your vsluable paper, and by so doing you
will oblige your many readers. All the peO-
pie in this country need, is rsiia5ie informa-
ton in regard to the Church property law
suits, to show them who are 10 the right.
These Church Soufh preachers are publishing
from the sacred stands aud through their
papers many false things in regard to Church
property and decisions made by Courts.
Without an exception, rs far as my observa-
tion extends, the Courts have decided In
Church suits, 10 favor Of the Old Methodist
r.. Church, anG this will be the decision 10
every case, where an impartial trial IL had.
We intend to oeenpy, and contend for, in =
lawful manner, al the Church property deed
ed TO our Church before and since ieeesHoH Of
tie Church South aad also IN the property
where We'haVe "a equitable right, and Ehers
We were put in possession by the loyal Metho-
dists, We expect TO contend earnestly, and re-
ligi0usly. and IN accordance with the law IN
such cases made aud provided. These Church
South preachers, and SONS Of the leading lay
members are publishing, that there was an
agreement made and entered into, - aud
between the two Methodist Churches 70 d.
vide the Churches aud the Church property.
We boldly a%ssert, that sueh M agreement
never was entered into upon the part OF the
Old Methodist Churet and ] challenge con.
tradiction. n there ever vas an agreement.
Il was to this eject that The delegates Of tbs
Southern Conftrenees were 10 return home
aud submit he question 10 the several ,ocie.
ties. whether they would Tote Coz separation
or not. This vas never done, and sppsal
70 al the Metbodists 10 this c0uuiry 10 prove
that ! an correct in the position 1 have TAX.
en-. Thousands Of old Hsthodisis In this
country, say that tbey never considered them
selves members Of The Church SouiA, but
vsrs waiting antioufly for Proyidsnes 10
spsn tons door By Which ths Mother Church
might sgain enter add oecaPy. Tbis door