The herald. [microfilm reel] (Los Angeles [Calif.]) 1893-1900, 1895-10-11

| stances of the appointment of pastor, q.
| in the case of the Westminster church.
would have been ia conflict with tn.
stitutional provisions OF the church
| law.
| Furthermore, there was never any
| intention on my part to violate my or
dination VOWS, NOR have they ever been
| broken.
but there was never q pastor to West.
| minister church, even il we admit that
the said church was legally organized.
which dsny, therefore | could not have
violated the vows. as is here charged"
At this point Mr.. Howard read from
the,Iaw of the church regarding the con-
stituting Of churches, showing that ne
was not member of tho session in ques-
ton.
Further objections were interposed by
the prosecuting committee, which were
sustained by the moderator.
Continuing, Mr.. Howard showed by
the laws Of the church that no com mittee
had ever met, as alleged, with the pastor
of Westminster church.
The CHARGE, said he, lis INDEFINITE
and incorrect. There was no ommittee
but com mission. and the questions
herein cited were not propounded to me.
This IS not a correct transcript OF the
questions asked
In answer to SPECIFICATIONS and the
defendant admitted that the narration of
his speech at that time was substantially
correct. He then read from The Herald
vi July !, 1895, the report Of the address
referred to IN the charges, commenting
upon them in his own defense.
William r. Henderson then took up the
line OF the defense. Speaking of the plea
of Mr.. Howard. he said: II will not tai s
up the time of tnis body to consider the
points brought out in the defense relative
TO the division of the old First church,
but l must make serious objection TO the
first denial filed regarding the regularity
of the Organization of the judlcatory IN
refusing to admit H. t. Gordon and 9TH
er elSers to the judicatory body. My OBJ
lection is to the failure to specify the
elders who were excluded, as it might in
volve the question of the exclusion OF a
sufficient number to influence the vote of
the presbytery upon the question at Is
sue. Further than that, l have no OBJ
jections to what Mr.. Howard has inter-
posed as his demurrer, though later in
the proceedings I may touch upon some
things treated by him."
Upon a vote of the judicatory the first
objection of Rev. Howard, alleging irreg-
ularity in the constitution OF the body,
was overruled.
The second objection, concerning the
discrepancy in the published charges and
the copy furnished defendant. was also
overluled by unanimous vote.
The following formal objections were
voted upon seriatum and unanimously
overruled:
The Rev. Bert Estes Howard, the &C.
cused herein, appears and answers the
citation served upon him in this case and
flies the following objections to the charge
and specifications served upon him:
He objects to the charge and specihca-
tions because there is no offense under
ecclesiastical law set out IN the charge
ancs specifications.
II ta tta oh
tions because they assume that the &C
cused was at certain time mentioned a
mem Der of the session of Westminster
church of Los Angeles, while the true
facts are that he was never member OF
the session of said church.
That the attempt by prespytery to con-
stitute session of the Westminster
| church of Los Angeles was uncopstitu-.
tional and void, and he was not bound
thereby nor bound to obey in relation
thereto.
He objects to said charge and speciica-
tons because they assume that he. as
pastor of d church, known as Westminster
church of Los Angeles. together with the
session of said church. at certain tim
met committee and answered questions
| which assumen facts are not true.
| He objects because said charge and
| speci 6cations assume that Rev. Burr
| Estes Howard. the accused, was and is
|
Angeles, which assumption IS untrue
and the action of the Presbytsry referred
| to in said specifications is and was I'M
constitutional. illegal and void.
| He objects because said specifications
| and charges are vague, indefinite and I'M
| are not given in the first specification, BY
| whom they are to be proved, anu said
| specification does not state the facts.
4 The second specification does not state
| the facts, and the third specification
| quotes only a small extract from the said
| sermon and does not give fair interpre-
| tation to the same, and the fourth speci-
| fication states conclusion drawn from
| the address referred to which is not just
| flied by the facts. and each and all of said
| specifications are insuth cient in form and
| legal effect to prove the charge made, OF
| justify the making of the same.
William P. Craig, for the prosecution,
! inserting the word 'incited" in the place
of the word advised" as appearing IN
| speci tcation 4, and thus materially
changing the charge. After brief dis
cussion, in which, by the ruling of the
ID cd erator mem bers of the judicatory
were refused right to participate, the
motion was voted upon, but before tn g
result was announced the motion was
With drawn.
/ Rev. Burt Estes Howard was here ar
raigned and plead not guilty.
The prosecution opened it's case by call
ing to the witness stand Rev. Williell
Thomson, the moderator. Rev. n. H. G.
Fife officiating IN his place. The official
record, con tanning report of the appoint
ment of the special committee referred to
in the charges was read and placed in
evidence. Mr.. Thomson testified as to
the meeting of the committee referred to
in the record, affirming the correctness of
the report as read.
AT this iuncture the question ives
raised by Mr.. Howard as to the right of
u. E. Galbraith to engage in the prose-
cutiou, he not being a regular mem Der
of the ludicatory. This was practically the
same point upon which Mr.. Towards
attorney, H. T. Gordon, was excluded
earlier in the trial. The point was holly
contested. the prosecution arguing to re-
tain their associate on the very grounds
upon which they opposed the admission
of Mr.. Gordon as counsel for the defense.
Mr.. Galbraith was dismissed.
Rev. Thomson was submitted to a
severe cross-eXamination, no material
points being brought OUT to change the
weight OF his evidence. TO number of
questions asked be refused to answer. In
those questions which he did answer it
was apparent that he belonged to the side
of the prosecution.
Adjournment OF the judicial session
was taken until O'Clock, with the pro-
vision that the presbytery meet at 80.
EVENING MEETING
AT o'clock the Presbytery again con-
vened as a judicial body for the cuntinu-