Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-12-19
FIGHT FOR A CHURCH.
The COvelanter Troubles Rehearsed
Before a Judicial Tribunal.
CHARGES OF COLLUSION SET UP
Against Mortgage on the Building in
Which Milligan Preached.
A LIVELY STRUGGLE FOR POSSESSION

The Covenanter Church troubles are now
fairly in court, and NEST important point
viii be iudiciallv decided. Attorneys Sol
Schoyer and J. P Hunter yesterday filed
the answer of the East End Reformed Pres
bvteran Church TO the suit brought by John
X Dcnhoim 10 foreclose the mortgage on
the church property. The mortgage is dated
June -, 1891, and is for s, 095 1t was pay
able in 30 days from date, and contained a
clause Of forfeiture if not paid in ten days.
The case is really a fight to obtain posses
sion Of the church property between the
supporters Of the Rev. O. B. Milligan.
formerly pastor of the congregation. who
was derosed by Synod for his part at the
famous East End meeting" and who is
now In the [. P. Church, and the faction
of the congregation who remained as the
East End Reformed Presbyterian Church.
The answer 10 The foreclosure proceedings
j, made bv John C. Calderwood for the con-
grcSaJion. He recites the trial and suspen-
sion of the Rev. Q. B. Milligan, pastor of
the church, and the withdrawal OF Milligan
and his followers, including James N. Den
holm and William J. Barnett, from the Re-
formed Presbyterian Church, and their
connection with the L. P. Church. They
ceased, ii is alleged to be memoers of the
Reformed Presbyterian Church in June,
1891.
Not Indebted TO the Plaintiff.
Denholm. Barnett and others, however,
asked 0fiIligan TO preach IN the E. P.
church building. An equity suit was
brought 10 prevent interference. Contin-
uiug, the answer states that if the church
corporation is indebted in any manner for
which indebtedness the mortgage was given,
il Is not to the plaintiff 1t is charged that
the procuring Of the mortgage TO be given
was in cOllusion and with an intent to un-
duly control the property of the congrega-
ton in the events which have since led 10 the
suspension and disenrollment of Milligan,
Denholm and others from membership in
the congregation.
The none covered bv the mortgage was
advanced from time TO time by james NJ.
Deuholm, without any authorization of the
congregation. Prior to the date of the
mortgage the withdrawal of Milligan and
his followers had taken place, and James NJ.
Denholm William Barnett and others, in
sympathy with AIilligan and intending to
secure control of the church property,
caused the mortgage to be given for the al
4t-tu iHueDteuueSS. Iue InOFIgaHe was nOS
protected by any valid compliance with the
laws Of the congregation, and Denholm put
ir in the name of his brother, John X
De1holm, so it would not appear on the
L#Ce OF 1t that the President of the Board
q Trustees had to execute mortgage to
himself as an individual
The Distinct Charge Made.
The plaintiff and others are now, it is
charged, irving to make distinctaan be-
tween the congregation and the corporation
and seek 10 divest the East End congrega-
ton Of its church property. The plaintiff
was offered the amount Of the mortgage pro-
vlded he assigned it to the church authori-
-.es Of the r. p Church, of North America.
10 ne held by them until final -determina-
zion Of the equity proceedings should de-
terIalEe the ownership. He refused the |
oler and is using the mortgage to divest the |
Jllie of the congregation.
II IS further claimed that James NJ Dem |
holm and William j. Barnett, who signed |
the mortgage as President and Secretary of |
ths Board Of Trustees and attached the seal
Of The congregation, had no right to do SO,
as they were 10 longer members. Also that
the giving of the mortgage or incurring of
the Indebtedness was never authorized at
any legally called meeting of the corpora
tion.