The herald., 1895-10-26
SUSTAINED BY THE SYNOD
Proceedings in the Case of Rev. Burt
Estes Howard
The Various Errors in the Procedure Set Forth
In Detail-OfticisI Record Of
the Case

George H. Stewart of the First Pres
byterian church received from San Jose
yesterday a copy of the proceedings of the
synod in the case OF Rev. Burt Estes
Howard, which is presented herewith.
~ am perfectly satisfied with the res
port of the committee, and in connection
with the decision of the superior court
of this county it has preserved the auton-
omy of the ola First church. 1t has also
accomplished more-the trustees havs
been traduced here right and left, and
have been placed in false light before
people unfamiliar with the circumstan-
ces; the decision justifies the course:of the
fearless elders and trustees as we'll as the
mem bers of the First church.
The decision was drawn by a commits
sion representing the best minds Of tho
coast. including such men as DR.. Coyle
OF Oakland. DR.. Mackenzie of San Fran
cisco, ex-Supreme Justice Thornton and
| others:
To the Synod of California, in Session
at San Jose, October "a. 1895: Your COM
mission appointed to issue certain COM
plants and appeals which you have put
into their hands, res pecJfully report:
| We nht6 Slp6u anu phtlCHt dts
tention to the business entrusted to us,
| during sittings of four days, as the &C.
| companying minutes of our proceedings
| will show more fully. And in the judic-
| lal cases submitted to us we have reached
the following findings, which we ask you
| to enter upon your records, tOwit:
| Judicial cases Nos. /, 2, 3-Being COM
plants of J. X. Hoffman, a ruling elder,
| against the presbytery of Los Angeles.
| The complainant not being present either
in person or by counsel, the complaints
| are missed.
Judicial case No. 4,-Being a complaint
| of H. T. Gordon against the presbytery
of Los Angeles, com planning Of. the action
of said presbytery in adopting the report
| of committee ana directing charges to be
brought, and appointing committee to
bring charges against Rev. Burt Estes
bury, NJ. N. Avery, H. G. Wiley and H.
7. Gordon, and of the action OF presby-
terry when said charges were filed in or
dering citation to issue to said parties.
AS the substance of tho complaint il
contained in the appeal cases hereinafter
| mentioned which we're issued by us. and
our finding in said appeal cases covers the
requirements OF this case, the complaint
is dismissed.
Judicial case No. o Presby terrain
church of the United States of America
VS.. Rev. Burt Estes Howard, being ali ap-
peal of the said Burt Estes Howard from
the Judgment of the presbytery of Los
Ange Q rendered upon the 18th day of
Octobar, 1895, tindingsh him guilty of viola
ting his ordination VOWS and ordering
him suspended from the exercise of his
functions as minister.
We find that the presbyter erred in the
following particulars. towit:
First-In deciding that an application
for rostponement was out OF order and
could not be considered, and in refusing
TO give time to the defendant to procure
counsel.
Second-In sustaining the objection of
the prosecution to the question asked by
defendant Thompson, WAS the legal
effect of accepting the name Westminster
discussed at the meeting Of the commit
tee?'
| Third-ln sustaining the objection of
| the prosecution to the question asked the
witne sses Salisbury, Hoffman, Gordon
and Brearly.
80. State whether you heard me say
whether | was influenced by the fact
that other interests than my own were
involved which | could not endanger by
admitting the jurisdiction OF pres by terry
in the matter OF constituting the West
minister church and the pastoral and ses-
is onai relation
Fourth-In sustaining the OBJECTION of
the prosecution to the question asked by
the defendant of the witnesses Salisbury
and Gordon, what reason did 1 give for
not submitting to the jurisdiction of the
presbytery in this matter?"
Fifth-In sustaining the objection of
the prosecution to the following question
asked the witnesses Brearly Salisbury
and Hoffman, State whether the pastor
and session had legal advice to the effect
that the property would all escheat to the
state if they recognized the dissolution
of the FIRST church and the constitution
of the Westminster church witt the pas
toral and seasonal relations?'
Sixth-ln refusing to permit the wit
ness j. W. Mckinley to testify as to the
advice given by him to the defendant
concerning the legal effect of compliance
with the orders of the presbytery with re-
terrain church and its property.
Seventh-In finding tn . defendant guilty
when the charge and specifications were
insufficient, and the specifcatio did
not set forth facts which sustained the
charge.
Eighth-In nverruling defendants OBJ
lection to the charge and specifications.
Ninth-Ip finding the defendant guilty
when there was no evidence to show that
he had been guilty.
Tentll-ln finding the defendant guilty
when the evidence showed that he had
never refused to do anything which he
had been ordered to do by the presoytery,
and therefore had not violated his orji-
nation vow to submit to his brethren in
the Lord.
Eleventh-In finding the defendant
guilty when 1t appears Thorn the evil
dence that the matters in dispute between
the presbvtefy and the church were
purely TEN poral and the orders Of the
preSbytery were intended to compel the
payment of money and in excess OF its
Jurisd lotion.
I Tweltfh--In inficting a sentence which
was in excess and unduiy severe.
In view of these errors we sustained
the appeal and reverse the Judgment of
the presbytery suspsnding SAT: Burt
Estes Howard.
Judicial case No. 6-Presbyterian
church of thee United States of America
VS.. II. T. Gordon, J. c. Salisbury, II.
q. Wiley, M. n. Avery and J. X. Hoff-
man; being an appeal of said defendants
from the judgment of the presbytery of
Los Angeles in finding them guilty of
contumacy and sentencing them therefor,
rendered upon the 18th day of October,
1895.
We find that the presbytery erred in
the following particulars:
First-ln overruling defendants
objection to the introduction of a copy
OF the Los Angeles Times.
Second-In finding the defendants
guilty when the charges and speci flea.
tons were insutficie and the specifca-
tlons did not set forth facts which sus
tanned the charge.
Third-In overriding the defendants
objection to the charge and spec itications.
EOurtl-ln finding defendants puiItv