Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1881-02-22
THE QUESTION OK CRrrg OFs
RECp E9ETH.
The Kind "a she bryan maptsas
Church Case.

The trial OF the Bryan Baptist Church
case, the points Of which have been pre-
Yiously given, before a jury in the
Superior Court, was commenced ON
Monday, February 18th, and the hear
ing Of testimony occupied the nm
divided attention Of the court up to Friday
afternoon, 18th, when the case was most.
poned to Monday, 14th, at 10 a. m. and ar
that hour the trial of the case was resumed
and continued up to Thursday night, when
the jury were discharged to Monday. Dist
to receive the charge of the court in wri.
ting. They were charged, and retired tn
their room, and shortly afterwards agreed
upon aud returned the following verdict.
ave, the jury, find for the defendants
''GEO. PoINDExTER, Foreman
''SauaSaaah, Ga, February 81, 1881. - -
Upon announcing the verdict, consider
able confusion was apparent among the largo
number of colored folks in interest presenf
The court room was, however, soon deserted
by them.
Counsel for the complainants gave notice
OF a motion for new trial, and It is not At
all unlikely that the case will again 60 to the
Supreme Court.
The following is the charge of the Judge
in full:
Richard Baker ct. al complainants, and Petar
Houston ct al, defendants. J. r. Saussy and
& Ravenel and Chisholm q Erwin for de-
PENDANTS.
The complainants il I understand their bin
ask first, To be restored to the church building
as a place of worship, from which they alIeoe
that they have been forcibly expelled Second
That the persons who were trustees of the
church at the time of their expulsion hold the
legal titles of the building, and are entitled to
its possession. The bill thus makes two oues-
tions which the court and jury are called upon
to decide. These two questions are not all the
questions involved in the case, but their decis-
ion will virtually decide all that is necessary to
final disposal Of the case in this court
And first as to the forcible exclusion or ex-
pulSion of the compliments from the church
building This is question almost exclusively
of fact. Were they expelled, and If expelled
how was 1t done? 1t was certainly not done by
any action of the church IN conference by
formal resolution. have not forgotten that q
Judge may not express or intimate an opinion
as to facts in reference to which there has
been testimony, but as to q fact In
no testimony it is not only his right
but his duty TO say that the fact does not exist
He may not leave 1t to the jury to find fact
as to which there was no testimony. The
Supreme Court has said that to do so is error.
Counsel may ask why allude to state of
things made by the bill? / answer, to bring
out more distinctly that the bill means what It
says, that compliments have been forcibly
expelled from the church building. In ether
words. that force has been employed in expell-
ing them. Now force is OF two kinds-physi-
cal force and moral force-and il the jury
under their ev dence find either. the allegation
OF the bill that the complainants have been
forcibly expelled would be sustained. AS
to the first kind of force. physical force, there
is not particle of evidence to sustain it, and
therefore it would be error to leave it to you
fn find the fact of nhTEiCal fOFpa Ao tho
second kind Of force, moral force, it is a
mixed question of law and fact. 1t is therefore
proper to leave it to you to find it under the
facts as you may find them, and the law
arising on those facts as shall give it TO you
In charge. The moral force must be such as
to justify the co1lpIOt~'1lts iN gieldinq to 5t
Short of this Il would NOT sustein the aNeeA-
tior * tA8 bill shat gOlnplainantg had heen
fCrc.b}y expelled SfIort 81 this Iaaviue the
hoi ding would be vosuntaEg not and n0C Gns
result 81 force lhe law of 9 os7s Of ecu sc
depends upcn It's Facts Il Is therefore
q matter 0r necessity tha6 the Judga
has % charge the law on an assumed sfatA ~
facts. ana here tek nae cauEioa YOU gs1stle-
uer, nos 20 tarer rbst theStnas Of facts asaurl.
81 nave, 10 iLe opinion Of the Judge, h6eu
prov sa. On tho contrary, the charge IS given
ga the express condition that tne jury snail
and he facts. ia other words, gentlemen
shy u son that 80 n&5tsr what laE / give you
90 charge Il is your duty NC 60 regard it UNI
isSs yotgEud Inc facts that make the law APP
2 tcaei5. IA the absence of proof that physi-
-. force has been employed, the question is
narrowed down to the question of moral force.
And here repeat what have already said that
the moral force must be such as to Justify the
complainants in yielding to it, Suppose, for ex-
ample, that there has been evidence OF threats
by the defendants that they would resort to
violence if necessary to keep the complain
ants out of the building, this, in my Judgment
would be sufficient to sustain the allegation Of
the bin that complainants had been forcibly
expelled. suppose, on the other hand, that
the evidence shows that the compliments left
and remain out because they found it unpleas-
ant to associate with the defendants because
they could not meet with them without bick-
ering, strife and contention this, in Judgment
would not be such proof of force as would
sustain the allegation of the bill Who
ever heard of a church conference or a
public meeting of any kind where all the mem
bers of it were of one and the same opinion on
every subject brought up for consideration?
Who ever heard, because the members differ
ed in opinion, the meeting could not be held
and conducted in peace? admit that q men,
Der may for while interrupt the peace of the
meeting by boIsterouS and udparlamenta
conduct, but the legal presumption is, that the
presiding officer, by whatever name called.
would Immediately put down such conduct,
and restore peace. 1t is no reply to this to saw
that the compliments do not mean only that
they could not hold a conference in peace.
but they also mean that they could not
attend the church in peace The answer To
this is obvious. There is no evidence showing
or tending to show that they could not go TO
that church without encouBtering violence
SO FAR as the evidence is concerned, every COM
plalnant in this bill can go to that church next
Sunday without interference from any one
There is no evidence Of threats Of violence if
they do attend. There is no evidence that sen
tinels are placed at the door to keep them out.
viii complainants say they are unwilling to wor-
ship under the passionate of Mr.. Gibbons? That,
1t seems TO me, is proof that they are not kept
away by force, and is the very strongest reason
why they should return to the church, for il 1t
be true, as they claim, that they are the ma
Jorlty, they can soon elect their own pastor
and remove the present pastor.
1 have thus, gentlemen, given you my views
or the law as to forcible expulsion by the use
OF physical force or moral force. Apply it to
the case If you find the facts that make it APP
plicabie. In my judgment. the compliments
have the same right to worship in that church
as the defendants have, but neither to the ex-
clusion of the other.
The trustees hold the building for the use of
the Baptist Church as place Of ,worship-not
Tor a part of the church, but for all the
church, including complainantS and de-
PENDANTS. Neither party can clam the possess
sion Of the building to the exclusion of the
other party. l am not now speaking of the
trustees and deacons who have filed this bill
as the party compliments, but of them and
that portion of the church represented by them
as the party compliments. and of the trustees
ana deacons OF the defendants in the same
way as the party defendants AS between the
trustees, of course, whoever you find to be
trustees would be entitled to the possession of
the building-the exclusive possession.
AS TO this matter of forcible expulsion.
charge you that If under the evidence you
find the fact Of forcibIe expulsion by moral
Lorce. which you must do If you find it at all,
Tor there is no evidence of physical force, the
complalnants are entitled to be restored to the
right OF worshiping in that church, and your
verdlcC should be so formed as to restore to
them that right of which they have been forci-
Oily deprived; not, of course, the exclusive
right, but the same right that the defendants
nave, Ii you fail to find the fact of forcible
expulsion, your verdict IS not necessary to
give the right. The trustees, as have said,
hold the building for the use of the church
as place OF worship, not for a part of
the church, but for the whole church, including
both compliments and defendants, and it is for
this reason that ! say neither is enti-
tied to the exclusive possession. The next
question made in this bill is the great question
OF this case: That question is who are the legal
trustees! My first impression was that Mr.
Williamson, executor of one of the ORIGINAL
trustees, was the trustee by operation of law
But1n this was mistaken, for l find that bv
act OF the Legislature every church or reli.
glous society is authorized and empowered to
I'LL up al vacancies which may happen in the
said trustees by DEATH removal expulsisn or
otherwlse Ii, therefore. you.find that vacan-
cles have happened in the trusts of this church
and the church has filed up these vacancies'
then the trustees appointed by the church
are the legal trustees, and Continue such
until q vacancy happens bysdeath. removal
expulsion or otherwise. If then YOU find thai
certain persons were trustees bv announcements
Of the church at any time. who are still II, IiTo
and who have not been removed or evnaIiaS
or resigned, which suppose il what is InaoSt
by the word otherwise, they are trnstaas sttii
Right here the question comes up as to the