The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1871-07-28
.MiscelIaneoas 8eIections.

The Book Concern in the Courts
A decision was rendered Yesterday
on the motion argued some time since
before Judge Barnard, made on be-
half of Rev. DR.. Lanahan, ASS
istant Agent of the Methodist book
concern, to compel the Agent of the
Concern, Rev, DR.. Carlton, to allow
an inspection of the check and bank
books and vouchers, as far back as
1856. Judge Barnard, in announcing
his decision delivered an opinion
more than forty pages long, recapit-
ulating the statements urged on both
sides, and then says: l shall do but
little more than state the conclusions
at which IhaYe arrived after a patient
careful and anxious consideration
Of the facts, and the legal questions
involved. The relator,in my opinion,
has failed to show such q refusal on
the part of the respondent to permit
him to examine the books and papers
mentioned as to entitle him to a writ.
l am of the opinion that the REALTORS
difficulty has been, that he claimed
the right to have private control of
them, to remove them from their
places, and that this
claim has been properly resisted by
the respondent for reasons which
will be stated hereafter. If the
relator has a right to examination
sought, it must be made in the build
ing and place where the books and
papers are ordinarily kept, and not
elsewhere, and such examination
should be had under checks and safe
guards, such as were provided by the
book Committee, in their resolution
Of October, 1870. But with such
the relator is not
satisfied. Such an examination
ne declines to make. Besides /
nave been unable to discover any
reason or necessity for their exam
nation. The explanation Of the
respondent is so full and satisfactory
that it is a matter of regret that the
relator had not soughtan explanation
from the proper officers of the
Concern before making such hasty
reckless and damaging charges It
is difficult for me to understand how
a careful prudent Christian gentle.
man could make the charges, insin-
ations and imputations against the
and the Book Concern,
without the slightest evidence to
support them. They are not only
unsupported by evidence, but are
and overwhelmingly refuted
and overthrown. l am unable to
resist the conclusion that the relator
is hostile to the respondent and to
the best interests Of the Book Con-
cern There is abundant evidence
in the papers before me to show this
hostility and its injurious results.
The relator, to judge from the papers
before me, makes charges of fraud
and mismanagement against the
Book Concern, its managers and
employees, without proof or evidence
justifying them and when called to
an account for this conduct desires
to obtain evidence justifying them
from books and papers and vouchers
which he now swears he never saw.
l am unwilling to sanction such
conduct. To me it is surprising
indeed that such claim should be
made by the relaUor. lam surprised
that he did not make the examina-
frst,and then, if justified in doing so,
make the charge. Failing to find dur
ing this period any evidence he now
seeks another opportunity of going
through the books and papers hoping
to find a something he has hitherto
failed to discover. 1t is a sort OF
fishing for evidence which the law
has never permitted, but has always
condemned. As before stated, the
started his claim upon another
ground. He claimed, not as assist
ant agent but as corporator the right
to examine these books. 1t is obvi-
Gus from the whole act that the
Legislature did not intend to inter
fere with the powers of the Book
Committee and ofthe General Confer
ence. Itdid not intend to place the
Agent-the respondent-and the
Assistant Agent-the relator- botI
appointed by the General Conferenc,
or the Book Committee, above prin
cipal in power and authority and il