The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1899-11-02

-
church trialf FOR stdndertug q sister
and Was found guilty, and we say
IL yet, Notwithstanding Rev. Deaver
and Prices friends squirmlng before
the. awful truth, and which truth we
will now proceed to prove.
On the 22nd day Of August the fol-
clo@ihg charges weie-filsd.1n the u.
B. church against Porter Price:
Fo-Mr. Porter Price, Sir;-You are
hereby notified of the following
-charges-preferrcd against-you,wfich
you will be expected to answer, to in
NGehnrch trial: ta'AS1''@ ~ ~
/. False and malicious talk about
meand my home, in which you in
dicate that my home is unchaste
and not a fit place for'anyone to- go.
2. Accusing me Of being an advisor
and helper of uncliaste young girls.
8. or saying that you have seen In
ny home an obscene and vulgar
picture of myself.
4. vi blduubI dBdluob lllbs
(Signed) EMMA JAMES.
These are the charges filed against
Edward Porter Price by Mrs. James
on the above date We understand
the second and third coupts were
altered a little but the last especial
Iy stoodds 1t Is hereystated, "For
SANDER against me y The case was
set for trial and many witnesses
sppoened. The Jury chosen were
Martin Brown, Frank Rhoads and
William North and the case was held
before Rev. G.. w. Geiger. Porter
Price represented himself with an
armload of law books and Tom Col
lins represented Mrs. James, with a
bible and church manuel for his
guidance. The jury after hearing
the case returned the following YER
dict:
To the Rev. G. Geiger, Chairman: !:
We, your committee appointed by
the Quarterly Conference tf Logan
Mission, Scioto Conference, Ohio, in
the case referred to US between EN-
ma James and Porter Price do find
the following:
1. We do find this TO be very sad
affair.
2. THAT BRO. PRICE DID USE
INJUDICIGUS LANGUAGE.
3. That the trouble and nOtOrity
Of this is sufficient penalty.
4. We advise both parties to drop
this unfortunate matter and de-
vote their time to building up the
Masters Kingdom.
(Signed) MARTIN BROWN,
FRANK RHoADs,
WILLIAM NORTH
Committee.
The above ia the verdict Of the jury
and we will add to 1t that Martin
Brown said to a friend that they let
Porter Price down as easy as they
could. Now this same committee
publish card in the late Journal
Gazette saying that Porter Price had
no suit for slander, and If there were
any "strings pulled" (chargss made)
they know nothing about it. Why,
dear sirs, what kind of a perform.
ance was that you had around at
yJur church In which you were the
jury. Were you rehearsing for
comedy, or was it church trial in
earnest. What manner of affair do
you call it, when charges of SANDER
are made against member of the
church, trial had and a verdict
rendered. Is it not suit for sland-
er in that church? What constitutes
a suit for slander? Is it not, "charges
made Of slanner, a trial had and
verdict rendered" Did you mon
not sit as a jury on church trial be-
tween Emma James and Porter
Price, the former accusing the latter
OF slandering her, and did you not
hear the testimony, and render
verdict that "Porter Price did use
injudicious language against Mrs.
James," which was equivalent to
verdict of guilty, but you let him
down easy as Mr.. Brown said? Ger
tainly you did, and If you signed
that card In the Journal you are
merely trying to evade the truth.
You are trying to plaster up a false
statement made by Elder Deaver.
Why don't you come out like men
and say "yes, we had church trial
against Porter Price for slandering
Mrs. James and we found him guilty
but we wished to harmonize matters
and let him down easy In the YER.
dict and advised dropping of the
unfortunate affair" That is the
fact and you know 1t Is the fact.
Chnroh Wnhdinn