The Carbon advocate. [volume] (Lehighton, Pa.) 1872-1924, 1892-05-14
SPECIAL COURT SESSION.
Matters Of Local importance to our Peo-
Pile. The Evan. church Case and
Hummel Matter.

From the Mauch Chunk Times.
Last February the Bowmanite faction
Of the Evangelical Association filed a
bill in equity in the Court of Common
Pleas of this county to dispossess the
anti-Bowmanites who are in possession
of the churches of Lehighton and
Mauch Chunk. The first public step
in the great legal controversy in our
court was taken Monday afternoon, at
a special session of the April term,
called by Judge Dreher for the purpose
Of hearing argument on the bill. Court
opened at o'clock, with a full bench.
No public notice of the session had
been given but there was a large gath
ering present, principally members of
the Evangelical Association The
plaintiffs table was surrounded by
Hon. Edward Harvey and Hon. James
S. Biery, of Allentown, and Messrs
Craig & Loose, of Mauch Chunk. AT
the defendants table we're Hon Robert
e. Wright, Of Allentown. and Freder.
ick Bertolette, Esq, of Mauch Chunk
The remaining space inside the railing
was taken up by the members of the
Mauch Chunk bar, who we're present
in full force, and by Evangelical min.
listers and prominent laynen. Among
the ministers were Presiding Elder
Rev W. A. Leopold and his brother
Rev S. T. Leopold, of Allentown; Rev
J. G. Bliem, of Bethlehem; Rev. j. S
Newhart, of Slatington; Rev. |. f
Heisler, Allentown; Rev. j. l. Voter
Parryville, and Rev. Jerome II. Smith
of Mauch Chunk. Among the laymer
were noticed Ex-Judge Levi S. Wentz
of Millport, w. w. Bowman, of Stating
ton, Chas. w. Laury, of Weissport, and
James Walp, of Lehighton. All these
are representatives of the Bowmanitt
faction. The other side was coEspicu
ously absent The case was before
court on the bill in equity filed by the
plaintiff and the demurrer to the SAME
by the defendent Mr.. Bertolette open
ed the case by making the point that
"beeause the Evangelical Association
as corporation was not included in
the plaintiffs bill as a party to the bill
therefore the demurrer of the defen
dant should be sustained" 1t is 8
technical point pure and simple but il
was argued with much earnestness and
eloquence on both sides. Mr.. Wright
sustained his associate claiming that
the corporation should be included
and made party because the right Of
every member would be affected by
whatever decree the court might make
on the bill in equity. The arguments
against this view we're made by Messrs
Harvey and Biery. Both contended
that the bill as drawn was correct. The
papers were taken by the Judge who
will ronder a decision when court is in
session again. It may be well to state
right here that whatever the decision
be it will not affect the merits of the
case. Should the point made by Mr.
Bertolette be sustained, then the plain.
tiffs will be given leave to amend theil
bill so that the corporation will be
made party and then the proceedings
will commence again. Quite recently
a similar point was made at Reading
and Judge Endlich sustained the point
Mr.. Harvey, however, in his argument
claimed that the bills were not identi.
cal. All the arguments yesterday after.
noon were confined to this one point
The bill in equity was not touched
upon and will not be until Judge Dire.
hers decision is handed down.