The Baltimore County union. [volume] (Towsontown, Md.) 1865-1909, 1884-04-05
Correspondence Baltimore COUNTY, Union.
THE TOwSONTOWN M. E. CHURCH
AGAIN.
MONKToN. March 3nth lae


Editors Union 1T is due the Methodist public
that few additional facts concerning this church
| should be published. The building was compile
ted, furnished and dedicated to religious use over
twelve years ago, at cost of from $25 900 to $685.
000 When the first building committee was ap-
pointed it was thought the financial circum stances
of the society would not justify the expenditure
of more than $500 upon the building. With
this idea the committee went to work, laid the
foundation, raised the brick walls to the square
and put up the rafters, expanding upon the work
thus faf about $4,000. At this stage of the build
ing wolk upon it was suspended for want of funds.
and thu building committee discharged at its own
request A new building committee was appoint
ed to take charge of the unfinished work. None
of these committeeman had been on the former
COMMITTEES, except John 7. Ensor. Mr.. Boyce,
being a practical business man of means, was
specially urged to serve on the committee. When
this committee was appointed the Quarterly Con-
ference sanctioned the expenditure of $4,000 on
the building, and this was the largest sum ever
approved by that body When the new commit
tee entered fully upon its duties they estimated
that $4,000, in addition to what had been already
expended by the former committee, would be sufi-
cient to complete the building according to the
original designs. But there being little no
money in the treasury at this time, Mr.. Boyce
borrowed $4,000 on his individual note, which
amount, it seems, used in paying old indebt- |
edness and in advancing the work.
In reference to the expenditure of this $4,000 |
the three defendants in the Boyce suit, o. P. Mer-
ryman, John T. Ensor and d. Hopper Emory, |
answer, "whether this $4,000 so borrowed was
consumed or not in paying off old Indebtedness |
which had been incurred by the previous building
committee, these respondents do not know, and
therefore cannot admit" But they admit "their
own sincerity and good faith in the matter" by |
"incurring responsibility to the same extent that |
complainant did" Further answering, "they adj |
NIT that after the $4,000 so raised on the indi-
vdual responsibility of the members of the build
ing committee had been expended the church was |
not, completed" GA new estimate was then |
coms1stins sn the cnurc1 Suliaing, anu oassrSi
estimate also of what they might reasonably ex-
pect to realize from contributions from the men, |
bers Of the church and outside sources. In the |
opinion of the committee it would then require |
about Sc, 900 to finish the church." The respon-
dents now say $50 far from looking to the trustees
or encum bering the church property to raise the |
required sum, the members of the building COM
mittee, in their individual capacity, agreed with
complainant to share the responsibility again with
him." and entered into written contract to this
effect. The respondents further answer, "the |
building committee a body entirely distinct |
from the trustees and it was member of the |
building committee, not as q trustee, that CON-
painant in the erection of said church
building" and it is further answered that "his |
legal relationship to said church and said proper
ty was precisely the same as that of any other |
member of the committee" And they further say |
"it would be o fraud ON the parties who gave the |
said land and the persons who have contributed |
toward the erection of the church a place Of |
worship, to permit the complainant to have lien |
on said property for his expenditures. He has no
more right to ask for such lien than has any |
other person who has contributed toward the |
building of the church." Would it be fraud to |
JoFa pdov,t ccuah ion on tha
Again, these respondents admit that "an effort |
was made to borrow the required SO, 900 from the
Preachers Aid Association, and when this failed |
complainant borrowed the money upon his own |
note So far, however, from complainant relying |
upon tie trustees or the church property for his |
security, he declined to borrow the money except |
upon the express agreement that each one of the
five members of the building committee should as
sumo equal re possibility with himself" In this |
the defendants affirm "the trustees, as
SUCH made no representation and gave no answer |
on the subject" The three defendants begin their
answer by saying, "these respondents saving and !
reserving to themselves all manner of exceptions |
to said BILL" and conclude it thus, "and the de-
PENDANTS rely upon the statute of limitations as
bar to said bill of complainant" "These respon-
dents insist that complainant has no c)aim-legal,
equitable moral-against them, against the |
trustees, or against the said land and church |
building
In the Il8nJ OF Tie aoOVe Ieciteu ldcIoJ IoSoInci
with those given in my former communications,
it will appear, LIST, That the trustees of the Tow
sontown church did not give the building commit
tee a mortgage upon their property, or assume
any responsibility in the case. I'd, That the trus-
tees were not in joint security for money expend-
ed in building the church. Sd, That Mr.. Boyce
"has no claim, legal, equitable or moral, against
the trustees, or against the said land and church
Then none of the other committeeman
have.
Mr.. Boyce, after the building was dedicated,
to release the other members of the COM
fr9mg t their agreement with him and make
to bia for that purpose. But this proposition |
was dsclamed. Three of the four committeeman |
paid to Mr.. Boyce their part of the $4,000, but |
only two have paid him their portion according |
to the written agreement, while the fourth has !
been released from both amounts. All might have |
been released but they would not Further COM
ment is unnecessary. j. N. DAVIS.