Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-05
THE CHURCH CASE.
A History as Set Forth la she AM
sver and AmdaVIts Of the Defend
1nHN.

swer and AfidaVIts Of the Defend
ants.
In our brief notice of the case involving
the possession and control Of the COngre-
gational Church or Meeting House of White
Bluff. published in the NEWS Of the LIST
inst, we simply pretended to give the
prominent aspects Of what We regarded as
an interesting legal question, in which
the community was somewhat concerned.
Our object was not to state the
full text Of the matters in dispute.
Mr.. w. w. Chisholm, one Of the com
plainants in the bill filed, and apparently
the moving spirit in the litigation, in q
communication which was published in the
NEWS of Monday, takes occasion to assert
from the record, and critlcises the local as
"incorrect and unfair" We have therefore
gone to the trouble to procure copies of
the answer Of the defendants and their am
davIts, which we publish below. These
give history of the church and this case,
aud the intelligent reader will readily see
that it does not at all tally with the con-
illusions set forth by Mr.. Chisholm, referred
to above:
ANSWER OF DEFENDANTS.
W. W. Chisholm ct al, complainants,
and James Z. Sandiford ct al, defendants.
In Chatham Superior Court, June term,
1882 In equity.
The Joint and several answers of James
E. Sandiford, George Ferguson, Alexander
Ritter. James E. Cramer and Robert Cra-
mer, defendants to the bill Of complaint Of
the said WV. Chisholm. John Williams, J.
w. Jones, W. r. Pritchard and I. f.
Churchill, compliments.
These defendants now and at all times
hereafter saving and reserving unto them
selves all benefit and advantage OF exceD-
ton which can or may be had or taken to
the many errors, uncertainties and other
imperfectious in the said complainaDts' said
bili of complaint COMMUNICATION answer
thereunto, or unto so much and such parts
thereof as these defendants are advised is
material or necessary for them to make an
swer. these defendants answering say:
That they deny It to be true, as alleged IN
the complainants' said bill of complaint,
that the said compliments are the duly and
lawfully elected trustees OF that certain
church, situate and being in the county OF
Chatham, on the White Bluff road, and
seven miles from the city Of Savannah, and
known as the Congregational Church or
Meeting House of White Bluff, or that they
were ever elected as the trustees OF said
church on the first Monday Of this March,
or at any time before or since by the MEM
bers and supporters of the gospel in said
church; but on the contrary these defend
ants aver that these defendants are the le-
Ay,,.- az (Nflvarr
tiopal Church or Meeting House OF White
Bluff: that they were elected as such on the
sixth dav of March last, the same being the
first Monday in said month, in compliance
with the provisions of the act of the Legis
lature of the State Of Georgia, approved
December 10th, 1929, and in compliance
with the rules and regulations OF said church
by the members and supporters OF the Cos
mel In said church, and that in accordance
with their said election they duly entered
upou the execution of said trust and have
always acted and are now acting as the
trustees of said church.
And these defendants, further answering,
denv that It is true, as alleged in said bill OF
COMPLAINT, that the said election, is first
election held for trustees OF said church in
a number of years; but, on the contrary,
these defendants aver that regular elections
for trustees Of said church have always been
dants are informed and believe, and that at
no time have the said offices been vacant by
reason of the non-election OF trustees OF
said church.
And these defendants further answering
DENY that It has been the habit OF few of
them, as charged In said bill OF complaint,
to go to the church on the first Mondays in
March, and without any ballot or vote, and
without opening the church, to Informally
~ 1ync 70 IN
to consider themselves, or that they have
held over for number OF years,
but these defendants aver that they
have been regularly reelected trustees
If said church by the members and sup.
porters Of the gospel in said church for
number of years to wit, the said K. u. Ora
mer has been continuously reelected for
the last thirteen years; the said James +:
Cramer has been continuously reelected
for the last twelve years, the said Alexan-
der R. Ritter has been continuously re-
elected for the last twelve years, the said
James E. Sandiford has been continuously
reelected for the last seventeen years, and
the said George Ferguson has been re-
elected continuously for the last seven years.
And these defendants deny that they
claim or have ever claimed that there are
only three persons in said county who are
Authorized to vote for trustees. as charged in
said bill of complaint, to wit: the said James
F.. SAudiford, Alexander Ritter and James
E. Cramer, and that, therefore, those three
control the said election, and can re-elect
themselves at will and as often as they
please.
And these defendants further answering
Tadmits the note and mortgage for $500,
belonging to the church, but which we
omit as being uninteresting to our readers
And these defendants, further answering,
saw that by reason of their lack of funds
caused by the cessation Of the payment OF
interest on said note, the same being almost
the only source of revenue to said church,
these defendants were unable to employ
minister of the gospel and to provide for
the regular holding OF religious services In
said church until within short time previ-
Gus to the filing OF compliments said bill
of complaint; and that in the early part OF
the summer OF last year one OF the COM
plainants, to wit, the said w. W. Chisholm,
learning of the said note and mortgage, and
believing that there was other money in the
hands of these trustees belonging to said
church, and contrtving how he might Cd
tain possession of the same and convert 1t
to wrongful, improper and illegal uses,
came to these trustees during the time the
church was so closed as aforesaid, and re-
ouested permission to hold prayer meetings
in said church building on Sundays, which
permission these defendants, not suspect
ing the Interior designs OF the said
Chisholm, but willing only that good might
be accomplished, readily granted.
And these defendants further say that the
said Chisholm, in pursuance of the said de-
sign. obtained the keys of said church, under
and by permission of these defendants as
trustees, as aforesaid, and under preterce OF
holding prayer meetings, and other ike pre-
tended religious services, combined
and associated with him other persons,
among whom were the other compliments
in said bill of complaint, named, to Wit, the
said John Williams, w. K. Pritchard, Dr.,
]. w. Jones, T. f. Churchill and other per
sons to these defendants unknown, and
after holding number of meetings declared
that no election for trustees of said church
had been held upon the first Monday In
March in said year, and thereupon assumed
to hold called election on the 9Th day OF
October last under the provisions OF the
third section of the said act OF
1923. And these defendants are in
formed and believe that the following
were the persons present and voting az the
said pretended election, to wit Nv.
in the employ of Mr.. Cornwell, X. n. Wall
aud wife, John Williams and wlte, Jonn
North and wife, W. r. Pritchard, Jr., Willis
Buntz, Martin Dannenfelser, Sr., Martin
Dsnnenfelser, Jr., John Padget and wife,
George A. Kieffer, Joshua White, Thomas
F. Churchill and ]. Green, none OF whom
were then, or are now members and sup
porters of the gospel in said church, and
none of whom were qualified voters In SAID
church.