Savannah morning news. [volume] (Savannah) 1868-1887, 1882-09-02
AN INTERESTING CASE.
Involving the III lie TO a House OF
WOrshiP.

1t is not often that matters pertaining m
the regulation and control Of church inter
ests are brought before the civil courts of
the country for adjudication, but there are
occasions when the civil courts are called
upon to adjudicate upon questions which
csnnot be settled by the parties engaged in
a matter "odium theologicum " Such an
interesting cause engaged His Honor Judge
Tompkins on the equity side of the court in
chambers yesterday, interesting not only
because Of the prominence of the parties
interested as complainants and defend
ants, but also because Of the
historical religious surroundings of the mat
ters in controversy, and also the historical
"reminiscences Of the subject matter of the
controversy itself, namely: ''The question
OF title and use and occupation of what was
known and Incorporated on the 28th of
November, 1872, as the Congregational
Meeting House Of White Bluff and known
before that time as the Acton Meeting
House. The history Of the case as developed
in the pleadings of the parties plaintiffs and
defendants are very briefly these; This old
church above named was built about one
hundred years ago, in the early settlement
OF Georgia for the accommodation of
worshipers OF the Presbyterian faith, and
Is situated as stated in Chatham county.
about six miles from the city on the White
BluH Road, In what is called the White
Bluff district. Here, according to the aft
davits submitted by the defendants to the
Dill OF the compliments, the Presbyterians
Worshipped In accordance with the rites and
doctrines OF their Westminter creed and
LIANT \
usages of their faith. From one
generation to another its pulpit was sup
piled by minister Of the Presbyterian
Church, the last in rotation occupying the
pastoral relations being the late Rev. Mr.
King, who died few years ago. In later
years, however, the congregation or mem
bership having diminished by removal or
other causes, the church has had no regular
pastor. When, as defendants state In
their answer to complainant's bill. the com
plainants have, without legal authority,
seized and taken possession Of the church,
and set up therein new &c
clesiastical organic entirely different
In practice, in faith, or In worship, from
the original design and institution of the
church. In fine, it is declared that they
have attempted to make a Baptist Church
out OF the Presbyterian Church, substituting
different forms for the reception of mem
bers, and seeking to take out of the hands
of the original trustees and their legally
elected successors the trust and property
confded to their chsrge-namely, the pre-
servatiou Of the Congregational Meeting
House in the White Bluff district as q Con-
gregational Church, under the forms of
worship OF the Presbyterian confession of
faith.
The bill in equity is filed by W. W. CHS
holm, John Williams, J. W. Jones, W. R
Pritchard, I. F. Churchill, sgainst James
+. Sandiford, George Ferguson, Alexander
Ritter, James E. Craemer, and Robert Craze
mer, defendants, and complains that the
latter are unlawfully and against good con
science and equity Withholding and pre-
venting the complsinants, who allege them
selves the true and legal trustees Of the
Congregational Church in the White Bluff
District. from exercising due and legal con
troll OF the property, and asking the inter
position of the court for their protection aud
its restraining order against the defendants,
restraining them from exercising any pow
ers as trustees over the trust property above
described.
The complainants submit various af11da-
wits showing how they became the trustees
OF the said property; how they were elected
at regular church meeting who voted for
them, and by what authority they assert
their rights to control and direct the affairs
OF the said congregation and administer the
trust Iun0s. Inc evidence is VolumiDOus,
but the above is about its scope.
The defendants, who are at present in
possession OF the church property and It's
trust funds, In their answer deny that the
complainants have any rights as trustees in
the premises, and assert and show by aft
davits that the said sc-called trustees were
self-elected without warrant in law or
equity. That, so far from being Presbyte-
rians, they are Baptists and Roman Catho-
lies, and did not even belong to the con-
gregation of the church at the time
they were elected as trustees. That their
object In endeavoriDg to get possession of
the property is not to administer the trust
estate in terms OF it's original establishment,
but to establish an entirely new system Of
faith and doctrines, subversive of the orig
inal design OF the trust, and they ask 10
their turn that the court grant them such
equitable relief as the case seems to de-
mand.
The compliments are represented by
Messrs. Adams & Denmark, and the
defendants by Messrs. ]. R. saussv
and A. H. MacDonen. As we stated,
the Judge heard able arguments on
both sides, and will render his decision
to-day On the matters In controversy, so
that It will be judiciallY decided whether
the old church is leayened with Presbyterian
leaven or whether it shall be turned into
Baptist Church, as the parties seeking its
possession are mostly, If not entirely, Of
that faith. The decision will be looked for
with some interest.