The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-12-19
ELDER LAYCOCK DEPOSED
SEVENTH PRESBYTERIAN SESSION
DECIDES AGAINST HIM.
An Old Member of the Church Ar
mony'--Mr. LaycOcx's Statement.

The quarrel that has been brewing two
years in the Seventh Presbyterian Church.
bits of which have been made public from
time to time, eliminated last night in the
Session deposing c. r. Laycock from the
office of ruling elder and suspending him
from the sacrament Of the Lords supper
and the rights and privileges Of a member
until he gives evidence of repentance.
There was a secret meeting after this ac-
zion was taken, at which Mr.. Laycock was
not present. Rev. r. V. Hunter, by virtue
of being pastor of the church. is a mem
Der of the Session. Mr.. Hunter and others
refused to make public the charges and evil
dence in support of them on which the ac-
ton was taken.
Mr.. Laycock was found at his home. He
left the church after Moderator j. Cum
mings Smith read the verdict. Mr.. Lay
cock said he had anticipated no other YER
dict, considering the manner of his trial and
the animus back of it. Night before last
the Session met for the trial. Mr. Laycock
had on hand nearly hundred witnesses to
disprove a specification in the formal
charges that he had been a breeder of
strife, but the charges were modified so as
to prevent the Introduction of evidence on
this score, by the striking out the allegation
that the facts were known to members of
the church. Hearsay' evidence, Mr.. Lay
cock says, was introduced to show he had
been guilty of embezzling 800 shortly after
the war, long before he was church mem
Der. 1t was charged $150 had been given
him by a cOmrade, named Powell, to bring
home to his family, and that he only ac-
counted for $780, Mr.. Laycock says he bor-
rowed the 800, and that it was paiG years
ago. He introduced in evidence a. receipt
in full for the money, with interest, paid in
1869. AT the trial Friday night an affidavit
was introduced from William Rowe, resi-
dent of the State of Washington, who had
employed Mr.. Laycock to build two houses
twenty-five years ago. 1t was the intention
to show by this affidavit that Mr.. Laycock
had been guilty of cheating and dishonesty.
He objected to it's Introduction, as under
the laws of the church it ought to have been
taken by a commissioner before a repre-
sentative of the defendant, in order that the
aftiant might be cross-questioned Mr.
Laycock had witnesses present who had
We're not permitted to testify. Last night
he explained that the Session had found
him guilty of embezZling in the Powell case,
but had dismissed the Rowe case. He was
also found guilty of unchristian and I'm
charitable conduct for refusing for two
years to hold converse with three elders on
of the Session.
II shall again appeal" said Mr.. Laycock
and gave the Session notice of this fact
This is practically the old case revamped
TWO years ago the same men who are now
prosecuting this case made charges against
me after I refused to resign. At that time
the whole proceeding Illegal, as a
higher court subsequently held. The Pres
bytery, however. sustained my suspension.
The Synod refused to hear my appeal, when
the action of the Synod, Presbytery and
Session was overruled and l was restored
to my office and privileges. 1t was when
demanded to be recognized as a ruling
elder that the old case was revived, and in
addition the charge of embezzlement was
made. The trial was illegal. The Session
was in contempt of the General Assembly
The same men who made the charges
against me were the accusers, witnesses
Jurors and judges. Witnesses that l might
have introduced were not allowed to testify
A friend of mine said it was the Session
on trial before the church, not before the
cation appeared to testify for me Friday
night as ordinarily attend the services of
the church. BY limitation my Office would
expire next April Had it been the edif1ca-
ton of the church they were seeking they
might have waited until then and allow the
congregation to re-elect me or not, instead
of seeking to dispose me now
To say that the action of the Session has
created a good deal of feeling but poorly
expresses the conditions that exist in the
Seventh Presbyterian Church. Some have
predicted for two years that the ultimate
result will be a serious split. Mr.. Laycock
was for several years an elder of the Sixth
Presbyterian Church before his transfer to
the Seventh, over twenty years ago. His
friends call attention to the fact that the
transaction on which he is charged with
embezzlement occurred just after the war,
before he was in any way connected with
the church, and that even if he had been
guilty, which they stoutly deny it is
strange that it is dug up now after he has
been so long an honored church worker.
They say also, in regard to the business
disagreement with Rowe, for whom Mr.
Laycock built the two houses that this oc-
Cured while he was an eler of the Sixth
Church, to which Rowe then belonged. No
charge of dishonesty was ever preferred
while the Sixth Church had Jurisdiction and
Mr.. Laycock was afterward reelected elder
of that church. His friends are much in
censed