Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1893-05-25

bytery hal been against him he might have ap-
pealed. But he cannot appeal against q verdict
OF acquittal. Therefore he was limited to COM
plants, and complaints can only be made to
1.-The next superior judicatory," the synod
Of New York. He and his co-presbyters gave
notice of several complaints which it is their in
tention to prosecute before the synod of New
York at its next meeting. One of these has
already been called to your attention and has
been read to you. These are the other COM
plants made against the interlocutory decisions
of the presbytery: (The case H., pp. 69-77.)
These complaints are against interlocutory
judgments of the presbytery and have to do
with the very foundations of the case. If the
synod recognize the validity Of these complaints
the prosecutors have no case against him, and
any decision this assembly might make, il they
should entertain the appeal and then sustain it
and reverse it, would be null and void by the re-
versal of the synod of these interhocutory judg-
ments of the presbytery of New York. The
defendant and his copresbyters have the con-
stitutional right to make these complaints.
That the only way in which thew could
bring these unjust and unlawful proceedings
of the presbytery before the superior courts.
The synod has right to entertain them and
determine them. The synod cannot refuse the
com pla1nants their right OF hearing and Of a
decision. If the assembly entertain this appeal
without considering these complaints. which
cannot legally be brought before you. you can
not have the whole case Of DIR. Briggs before
you. You will have only er pdrte and
partial statement Of the case. You would, on
the one hand. deprive him Of his legal right Of
complaint, on the other hand YOU would run
the risk of making an en parte judgment.
The court should be on their guard lest they
do gross injustice by such a procedure.
PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS.
The defendant made a number Of preliminary
objections before the trial began. The presby-
~ fbaaa oh
gives the appellants seven Of their grounds Of
appeal. But the presbytery overruled five Of
these objections, and the only redress the de-
PENDANT has is in his five complaints to the
synod of New York. Will you review four Of
these objections in the interest Of the appellants
when you cannot review five Of these objections
in the interest of the appellee?
Will you entertain their appeal against the
procedure Of the presbytery SO far as it favors
the defendant when you cannot entertain his
complaints against that procedure so far as it
favors the prosecution?
Will you entertain their appeal against his
evidence when you cannot entertain his COM
plant against their evidence? Surely no court
of law could do such fragrant injustice.
You cannot entertain this appeal without
assuming Jurisdiction of a case which is now
lawfully under the jurisdiction of the synod
The assembly have already been informed that
the synod of New York has assumed iurisdic-
ton Of a complaint signed by ia ministers and
elders of the presbytery Of New York. which
was.presented at the meeting of the synod in
October last. 1t would be an unconstitutional
and revolutionary procedure for you to assume
jurisdiction Of this case, which could not be
recognized as valid by the synod of New York
and which could not prevent the synod from
proceeding with the case in the constitutional
way. Therefore, even il you should make your
final Judgment and reverse the final Judgment
of the presbytery Of New York it could not yet
be a final judgment for the defendant, the
presbytery of New York, and the synod Of
New York could not regard it as constitutional
valid.
APPEALS AND COMPLAINTS.
The latc Of the church is that appeals should
be consolidated tcih complaints. The law is:
eff a case should be carried to an appellate
judicatory by both appeal and complaint the
same should be consolidated for trial il deemed