The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1900-12-04
Who wins !?
Vice Chancellor's decision
in Tabernacle Case
Pleases Both
Sides.
THINKS SALE. is VOID
But Permits the Elks to Go on
With Their Repairs
to Building.
THINKS SALE is VOID

to Building.
Vice Chancellor Emery is certainly a
great ann. When he had finished the
hearing in the Tabernacle case he made a
ruling which caused each party to the
| suit to go away from the court room con-
| vinced that he had won. AS stated in
the Jersey City News" yesterday the
matter came before the court on the re-
turn of the order to show cause why the
temporary injunction restraing the Elks
from taking possession of the Tabernacle
and remodeling it and the Trustees of the
First Congregational Church from COM
pleting the terms of the sale pending the
suit to have the sale set aside should not
benz ade permanent. Wi liam D. Edwards
and James P. Northrup appeared for the
complainants; Charles Thompson and
Frank H. Hall, represented the trustees
OF the church and John DENIM loked after
the interests of the Elks. None of the
complainants were in court but Charles
Smith. John OMelia and P. J. Powers. of
the local lodge of Elks sat within the bar
and tok deep interest in the proceed
ings
which was given in 1.-THE Jersey city
News" yesterday, were read and then
Mr.. Northrup addressed the Court. He
reviewed briefly the history of the trouble
between the uptown and downtown fac
tions in the church, and said the case
was the record of an unfashionable
church" He spoke of a pastor who was
anxious to get into fashionable church
! md dxxyn1 H.
Boyd and Bergen avenues as compared
with the plain brick church in the less
fashionable neighborhood.'
Undue haste he declared, was manifest
ed in the fact that the deed for the sale
of the Tabernacle was executed one af-
ternoon and placed on record at 9:05
o'clock the next morning In speaking of
the uses to which the Elks proposed to
put the old Tabernacle, he declared that
a house of worship should not be diverted
from the purposes for which it was built
and put to other uses without the con-
sent of the society This he claimed was
not obtained in this case, as the meeting
which authorized the trustees to sell the
church was not regular. He spoke of the
devotion of the people who remained with
the Tabernacle to the church where they
and their fathers had worshiped so many
years and asked: Are these people to be
thrown out to pay the debts of the big
stone church on the HIP"
In reply Mr.. Thompson read the by
laws of the church, which provided that
the property of the church could not be
sold without the consent of the society
and pointed out how consent was to be
given. The complainants, he said. claim
ed that no notice of the mailing at which
such consent was given was sent to
them. The bylaws did not provide that
notice should be sent to each member
through the mails, but that it should
be given out from the pulpit at stated
times, which Mr. Thompson declared was
exactly what was done in this case. Of
course, the notice was not read from the
pulpit of the Tabernacle because no
church was held there at the time, but
it was read from the pulpit of the edi-
fee occupied by the First Congregational
Church. The affidavit of the treasurer
of the church, which accompanied the
trustees answer, Mr.. Thompson said,
showed that the eomp,ainants had not
| contributed to the support of the church
recently and there might be some ques-
| At this point the Vice Chancellor asked
| if the Elks had contracted out for the
alteration of the building and was told
| they had. H said that that fact should
have been brought to his attention when
| the preliminary injunction was granted
| for if he had known he would not have
| given restraining order. In disposing OF
| the matter the court said that the status
of church trustees was established by a
decision of the late Chief Justice Beasley
| in 1871 and they could not act in matters
of this kind except as they were directed
| by the society in accordance with the
rules and regulations of the governing
body of the particular church. In the
case under consideration the law provide
| that majority at regular meeting
| could authorize the trustees to sell prop
erty. The thought that the law provided
that the meeting should authorize the
trustees to make special sale and not to
sell when and where they could, as was
done in this case The present view of the
case, he said was that the sale
| should be- set aside and on that
the Tabernacle people claim they won
! but no order to that effect was made
The Vice Chancellor based this on the in
| depreciation of the law that the meeting
should have directed the sale specially
He also intimated that another meeting
could remedy this defect and make the
sale good.
The Vice Chancellor further said that
| he would discharge the stay as far as
It related to painting the outside of the
building, and on Thursday morning he
would announce whether he would make
the injunction permanent or allow the
Elks to go on and alter the building. In
this the Elks claim they won, as the Vice
| Chancellor, they say, would not allow
them to spend their money on the build
| ing if he did not intend to decide in their
| favor finally.