Juniata sentinel and Republican. [volume] (Mifflintown, Juniata County, Pa.) 1873-1955, 1880-03-10
Argument in the Church Case, in
Equity.


Presbyterian Congregation of Cedar Spring
comprising the Congregations of Mifflin and
Lost Greek, for and on behalf of the Con-
gregation of Lost Greek, Plaintiff, and Ezra
ID. Parker, George Wilson and David Cum
ningham, Committee, and I. j. Sherrard,
Pastor of and representing the Congrega-
tion of Miffiintown, Defendants" came
over from his home in Bloomfield, Perry
county, to hear the final evidence in the
case, and TO hear the argument of the sew
eral lawyers. Several days were consumed
in hearing evidence, and the argument was
not begun until at IL O'Clock on Friday
forenoon, when If was opened by Charles 4.
Barnett, Of Bloomfield, Perry county.
Mr.. Seibert ruled that all questions should
be ruled out, excepting the question affect
the corporate rights OF the parties, but still
by such a confinement of the limits of the
argument, it was not meant TO prevent a
free discussion of the question.
SPEECH OF CHARLES A. BARNETT, ESQ.
Mr.. Barnett, of Bloomfield, opened the
argument on behalf of Lost Creek congre-
gaticn, the plaintiffs in the case.
He said that if is only a question of prop
erty right, an important question at all
times. 1t is a source of regret that the dis
pute has arisen among one and the same
people, but the plaintiffs are not in court of
their own free will they are before the
court because they have been driven there
because their property rights have been
questioned, and yet it is not their purpose
to inhame the question. 1t is not proposed
to enlarge the breech between the parties.
/: shall be their endeavor to pour oil on the
troubled waters. In meeting the trouble
they have recourse 10 a case in equity,
which the defendants allege in their answer
is not the correct method of procedure.
The great point of their answer on the
equity point is found in section of the
answer, and reads
.We deny the authority and power of the
Trustees of said corporation to authorize,
BY the resolution of 18th May, 1877, part of
"niSA - NoAtaAhON w. Q VI
plaintiffs bill, the institution OF such a suit
in equity as has been filed against the de-
fendants, or TO make use of the corporate
name for the purposes therein set forth.
And the defendants aver that Ezra ID. Par
D. ker and George Wilson are two of the six
trustees of said corporation, and that said
bill was framed and filed without their
knowledge and consent, and the same is
diSavOwed by them"
The Sth section may be said to reach the
foundation of the question on the equity
point; it is the authorization of the work of
the Trustees of the church, and we do
maintain that the Trustees of Lost Greek
are the proper authority to see 10 the tenn
poral wants or requirements of the cOngre-
CATION. There is nothing in the Bill in
Equity to prevent exact justice from being
done between the parties. No complaints
have been made by any one who is not a
party to the bin. The answer is simply a
technical answer. Technical answers will
no longer do; the time has gone by when
courts may be held down to technicalities
Equity, justice, stands high above a tech
nicality What is wanted here is justice.
1t is immaterial whether the bill was signed
by Z. d. Parker and George wilson or not.
Trustees will be always compelled to give
their names to any and all movements in a
congregation TO secure justice between all
members, and whether the names of Mr..
Parker and Mr.. Wilson was on the bill is
not material. Here the plaintiffs claim the
right to maintain the rights of the congre-
CATION, or the church. The remedy is a
Bill in Eqaity. Mr.. Barnett read from
many books to maintain the position that
he took on this point. He continued:
They discard the bill, or profess to do so,
and say that writ of eiectment should be
onr remedy. They maintain that ejectment
would be the proper remedy They are In
great error. A bill in equity is our remedy,
and the board of trustees are The legal Off
GERS of the church and corporation TO see
to the application of the remedy. A bill of
ejectment would not be our remedy in a
case like this.
They put great stress on the action of the
Ecclesiastical or Church courts but all of
their action is entirely outside of the case.
The action of the Ecclesiastical courts
cannot interfere with the operations of the
civil courts. The laws of astronomy, laws
that govern the moon and stars. might as
well have been brought in here and an effort
made to apply them in the case. The Ec-
clesiastical courts have no civil powers, and
consequently have no application in this
case. When a man withdraws from a COR
poration, or partnership, he leaves behind
him all the laws by which the corporation
or business was conducted. He may join
another corporation, or form new partner
ship, but that is a new concern and has
tion whatever with the one from which he
withdrew. Illustrations were introduced to
prove the point of Withdrawal, and that
withdrawal or secession does in no way
affect the laws that govern the body with
drawn from. Where then are the parties of
the other side They are outside the cor
poration. Ecclesiastical courts cannot
sever corporation rights. The property
right is question OF law, and the Ecclesi-
astical court has nothing to do with the
law-Reports read Ecclesiastical courts
can only advise.
At this point the court adjourned for din
ner.
After dinner Mr.. Barnett resumed the
argument, and re-stated the points of the
morning speech. Resuming.-The action
of the Ecclesiastical court is important in
one point. 1t is an important fact that it
has departed from the prescribed duties of
the trustees in this corporation. They
do not as they used TO do. Instead of
the regular action, they have a Committee
of WAYS and Mcans-a body not recognized |
by the corporation, committee, or body /
outside, and entirely unknown to the cor
poration. They have added new cOngre-
~