The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-11-20
virginia Conference, aid NOT procetd@ac!

4 Virginia Conference. aid not proceed dc
cording TO the oyistoas Of the Discipline
chapter 8, section 5. paragraph 2, SO Tar al
the charges involving only "impruden
/ conduct or sinful tempers or words
were concerned; that Is to say, tho sale
/ Williams did not proceed in The beginning
by giving "priyate reproof, - nor did he &C
to the accused in the company OF s.two OF
three faithful friends, |" but entered, without
formal investigation Of the case. u. BIZ. Il.
| Question Of I,d,o..-Should q preacher
placed temporarily In charge OF a circuit OF
station, in order to investigate complaints
against on accused party in regard to al.
legged Improper conduct, or, ssinful tenn.
pers or words,' proceed according to The
! provisions OF Discipline, chapter 8, section
5. paragraph 2, and take the steps prelimi-
nary to the investigation therein enjoinetl
upon the regular pastors
| 2. It appears that the said Rev, T.. l..
Williams, in selecting committee OF in.
| yestigation in said case, chose the members
OF said committee from the Church at large
on said circuit, and exclusive Of the church
at Hartford, where the accused held their
| membership, and conducted said inyestiga-
| ton at Centre Hill, and not at Hartford !;
| and the said L. L. Williams in like manner
said trial at Cedar Grove, and not at Hert-
ford.
Questions Of LaD.-Q.) Shall q preacher
In charge always select committee OF in
ves,igation from the particular society In
which the accused holds membership, or
may he select it from any part Of his pas
toral charge?
(2.) May the preacher in charge conduct
the trial Of a member Mt place other than
the place at which he holds his member
ship?
3. 1t appears that the said preacher in
charge refused to the accused the privilege
OF submitting testimony OF any sort to the
committee OF investigation at Centre Hill,
and permitted Rev. j. L. Garrett, the chief
accuser, to remain with said committee
while they were making up their decision
preparing bill OF charges and appointing
4 prosecutor. 1t is explained by the de-
PENDANT that be was permitted to remain
because his deafness prevented his hearing
the proceedings OF the case. 1885
Question of Lun.-Q.) May an accused
party present testimony before committee
OF Investigation? ..
(2.) Should an accuser remain with a
committee OF investigation while they are
making up their dccision-preparing bill
OF charges and appointing prosecutor?
4. It appears that at the trial at Cedar
Grove, June %, 1878, the said Williams de-
cided that the law for the " trial Of men,
ber," passed by the General Conference
held at Atlanta. Ga, May, 1873, was not in
force until published in the Discipline, and
refused to the accused the benefit OF said
law.
Question of La1o-Does law Of the Gen
erai Conference become operative. from its
passage?
5. IL appears that said Williams refused to
allow the exceptions OF the accused in the
trials aforementioned to be entered upon
the minutes OF said trials.
Question Of La,r.-Should preacher in
charge presiding in church trial refuse to
admit to record the exceptions Of the ac-
cuscd?
6. 1t appears that the said Williams al
lowed on July %, 1878. in the case OF L. w.
McMu'len the accusers ". l.. Carrot, A. S.
Jordan, Miles Overman, and Joseph White)
to withdraw without the consent OF the ac-
cused Charge H., and the specifications I'M
der it.
Question Of Lap.-After proceedings
have commenced and charges have been IA
vorablY made in church trial, may an ac-
cuser withdraw any charge or specification
from the bill of charges?
Z. 1t appears that the said Williams pro-
ceeded to try the said l.. W. McMullen and
w. II. Nlcalullen at Cedar Grove, July %
and 25, 1878, without sufficient notice, and
upon bills OF charges Of which they had not
been furnished copy, and against the pro-
est of the said McAIulens.
Question of LaD.-Shail n preacher in |
charge proceed with trial Of case when
the accused has not been furnished with the
bill OF charges upon which he is to be tried,
and where the accused protests against pro-
cedure on the ground that he has not had
time in which to prepare Tor trial?
S. 1t appears that the said Williams de-
cided July %, 1878, in the case OF w. T.
McMullen, that the "law OF trial Of men,
her," passed by the General Conference OF
1878, having "been made public by the
press" was applicable TO the case to au-
thoriZe the appointment Of ga member OF
our Church" as prosecutor, though he was
not member of the Committee Of 1nyesti-
CATION. ....
Question Of La1c.-When a church trial
has commenced under the law rs contained
in the Discipline should the proceedings be
changed and conducted under new law
subsequently enacted by The General Con-
ference and not yet published by authority
in the Discipline? .s...
~. II dppCulS tidl a. liuul IL w DUMB
was allowed to act as prosecutor in the trial
OF the McMullcns at Cedar Grove, at the
Quarterly Conference Of July % and 25,
1878, and it does not appear, either from
testimony or from the record that the said
Baker was appointed by the Committee of
Investigation. 1t also appears that despite
OF the fact known to the presiding officer
that said Baker had been excluded from sit
ting on the Committee of Trial at Cedar
Grove June 25, 1878, on the ground Of
prejudice against one OF the accused, he
was still allowed to act as prosecutor in the
case.
Question Of LaW.-Q.) Should a member
OF the Church not formally appointed by
the Committee OF Investigation be allowed
to act as prosecutor in a church trial?
(2.) Does the existence Of prejudice
against a defendant i'll 4 church trial dis
qualify member from acting as prosecutor
in a case?
10. 1t is alleged that at the trials at Cedar
Grove. June 25th and Goth. the accuser-
Rev. j. l.. Garrett-was allowed by the
Rev. II. L. Williams, the presiding officer,
to make such violent and offensive inter-