Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-07-23
The McKcndree Church Iitirat,eu.
NORTH CHURCH VS.. SOUTH cHuRcH-AN INTEREST

NORTH CHURCH VS.. SOUTH CHuRCH-aN INTEREST
ING CASE IN MARYLAND.
The Mckcndree Chapel case was argued yes
terday In the Circuit Court Of Prince Georges
county at Marlboro. before Judge Chew. and
the decision is awaited with much interest The
court is asked to decide whether the church
belongs to the Conference of the NJ E. Church
Nofth or TO the Conference of the N. f. Church
ooutn there being division among the mem
Ders. The bill of complaint was entered by Rev.
Daniel Haskell. of the South River circuit ap-
pointed by the Baltimore NJ F. Conference to
take charge Of the chapel. and several North
Church members representing themselves as
trustees. Mr.. Haskell claims that after preach
ing once in tue church. on the 18th of May, the
occasion of his second attempt to preach he was
forcibly restrained from so doing He ALLEGES
that the property Is held in trust for the NJ. E.
church The respondents deny the authority OF
the Baltimore Conference over the church. and
claim that no peaceable possession was allowed
at any time, but that forcibie entrance was
made through window by the petitioners
A STATEMENT OF FACTS
was agreed upon as follows First. that Rev.
Daniel Haskell is duly appointed minister of
the VI. f. church. and was assigned to the Nc
kcndree chapel by Bishop Simpson; second that
Mckendree chapel was attached to the South
River circuit by order Of Bishop Simpson. and at
the annual conference, according to paragraph
3i4 OF the Church Discipline a board of trustees
consisting of Francis E. Duckett and those
named in the bill. were elected trustees of that
church on the ed of Nav; third that at the
time named in the bill cOmplainants were denied
the use of the church by the parties named in
the OIL; fourth, that as soon as the Daniel
Haskell was assigned to the church by the order
OF the bishop he attempted to take possession of
the church as minister, and that his assignment
as minister of the church. by order of the bisl-
op is. In the absence of the action of the animal
conference. the recognized authority of the NJ
E.. mel, mat
tiers; fifth, and it is further admitted that the
trustees OF Mckendree chapel named in the an
swer as members or representatives of the NJ. f.
church south, are the trustees of chapel as
named IN the deed of trust or their SUCCESSORS
duly appointed, elected and qualified from time
10 time, as death or vacancy occurred according
to the rules and discipline of the NJ. E. church
before they united themselves to the NJ E.
church south, and according to the rules of the
Nj. f. church south, since they united themselves
to that church. and as such trustees held and
claimed possession O: the church at the time the
Rev. Daniel Haskell. and the trustees named in
the bill as representing the NJ. F. church of the
United States claimed their right to and possess
sion of said chapel. 1t is further admitted that
In 1857 or 1863 the congregation of McKendree
chapel, by resolution. declared their adherence
to the Methodist Episcopal church south, and
sent delegates to the Alexandria conference of
that church.
The case was argued by Messrs. Sesscer and
Il.
respondent. At the conclusion of the argu-
ments Judge Chew took the case under advise
ment.
THE ARGUMENTS.
Mr. Sesscer in his opening claimed that the
action OF Bishop Simpson was legal; that the
chapel belonged both by deed and BY majority of
membership to the Northern Church. and that it
was not necessary that members or trustees be
residents of the county. He called attention to
the fact that in 1877 the respondents were not
oil Inv To sail
colored congregation, the court refusing to re-
cognize them as legal trustees of the chapel.
Mr. Roberts, for respondents. reviewed the
entire controversy. He claimed that it was
agreed that churches north of Maryland should
belong to the Church North, and churches south
OF Marylandto the Southern Church. Churches on
the border were to be governed by the wishes of
the majority of the congregation. according to
the subsequent affirmation by the Cape May con-
ference in 1876. Two cases similar to the one in
controversy, which occurred in Virginia, were
referred to. in both of which the property was
said to be grant to the Southern Church. He
claimed that the respondents represented ma
jOrity in this case, and rested his case on the
plan adopted by the conferences of 1914 and
1876, that the majority Ofthe congregation should
elect to what church the chapel should belong
He claimed that the injunction case of 1877 only
determined the property to belong to the then
trustees. of whom Mr.. Duckett was then one,
as were also the present respondents. 1t was
eontended, also, that no particular time was
specified in which to carry out the provisions of
the Cape May or New York conference, but that
the congregation could act at such time as cir
cumstances warranted. Mr.. Hill, in closing for
the petitioner, rested his case upon the title of
the trustees, claiming that the property could
not descend to individuals as trustees. In an
swer to the plea that the Cape May commission
governed the case, he cOntended that, even so
admitting, the provisions of the commission had
not been carried out, as rule rendered a trans
fer Of the property necessary.