The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1878-05-08
PEW RENT IN PLAINFIELD.
DENYING THE Rf0BT or A CHURCH TO
60 INTO yHE COURTS.
hut that Pies Ruled out by Justice Nodype
The Church Aopsuited-A jury Prrcti-
only Va Wing thnt the fsospel shomId he Free.

hut that Pies Ruled out by Justice Nodyne
The Church Ao9suited-A Jury Prrcti-
cnIiy saying that the Gospel should he Free.
The trial OF the Painfleld Methodist
Church's suit for $50 against Charles Hodges
former pewholdcr. was held In Plainneld.
N j.. before Justice Nodyne and ajury on Mon
day The suit was brought to secure the pay
mont Of n three months notc for 800. dated
March /. 1877. and given by Hodges as satis-
faction for two years pew rent. Hodges held
ths pow In company with his father-in-aw. and
agreed 10 become responsible for the rent OF tho
entire pew. He was two years in arrears more
than a year ago. and then james w. jackson.
the treasurer Of the church. demanded his note
nj three months for the amount Of the indebted
moss sayng that he wanted 1t to make his
accounts tally. The understanding was that the
note should not be discounted or otherwise
presented ut a bank. and that Hodges should
pay half Of II at maturity and the remainder in
monthly installmcn,s OF SIS each. Tho note Inns
not been discounted. hu, Hodges did not fulfil
his part ~ the agreement. nor hns he paid the
subsequent rent Of his pow. He is now no
longer pewholdrr. although h" attended the
church services unit a week or two ngo.
On the trial. Hodges acknowledged having
male the not, and did not sirenuously dispute
that the church privilege afforded u consider
ut on. hut he assorted that the church had no
7 ght to 40 CLAW ihout il until tn" question had
brrR passed upon 10y committee ~ the CON
gregnton. lie a'knnwlrhl;ed. also. that he had
not paid the iustailmrn:s agreed upon. III"
further testified that he and his wife had boon
members of the church for twenty years. and
that he had formerly been trustee He had
always pnid his p'w rent until the hard times
cninc. and had meyer before had any difference
with either the church H. a corporation or with
the nlemlers ind lvilually.
The Rev. Mr.. Day. the pastor. and Mr.. Bur-
CESS. the trustee. who represented the corpora
tion. conrurred substln Tally with Hodges in
and the conditions on which II was given and
received.
The plea that the bringing of the suit was not
In accordance with the church discipline wns
ruled out by Justice Nodync us not being
QUESTION of Inv.
In summing up the defendants counsel. in
spite 1T the Judges decision. argued that the
congregation, and not tn" law should have been
appealed 10 first. aud that. therefore. the note.
recourse having b"pn had To law. should not he
paid; while Mr. Butts. the churrh's lawyer.
avrrr"d that M appeal 10 the congregation was
not necessary. and that the note should be paid
In any event.
The Jury retired at | o'clock in the afternoon
and at came IN with verdict that the church
had no cuus, for action and that II WIS accord
ingly nOn-sntcd with costs. The verdict has
caused great deal ol comment in Plainnpld.
some side with the church. declaring that
Hodges Is perfectly able 10 pay and that il IL n
church wofsted. Juror whom u reporter for
THE Sun SAW yesterday spoke about the vor
dict rs matter of course. hut did not tell why
H. thought HolESs should not pay. The gen
erpl opinion is That the jury considered the note
% be- different from money obligation on the
value received. Us hearing OF the gospel should
b. free
The church has taken no further action, but
the expectation is that II will appeal.