Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1906-07-09
tlmportant Decisions?
CHAIRTNR Is DENIED.

In re First Church OF Christ, Scien-
list, 55 Atk. Rep. 1886, the supreme court
of Pennsylvania denied an application
OF II number Of persons known as TIL!
First Church of Christ, Scientist, for
Il charter. The application set up thai
the purpose of the society was to "es-
tablish and maintain place for the
support of public worship, and ia
preach the gospel according to the doc
trines Of Christ Jesus as found in the
Bible and the Christian Science text
book, Science and Health. with the
Key to the Scriptures" by Mary Baker
G. Eddy" The court in handing down
the opinion denying the application for
a charter said: I'VE are not to con-
slider the matter from either theology
cal or metaphysical standpoint, but
only In It's practical aspects. 1t is not
a question as to how far prayer for the
sick may be efficacious. The common
faith of mankind relies not only upon
prayer, but upon the use Of means
which knowledge and experience have
been crystallZed into legislative en-
actments. declarative Of what the good
of the community requires in the treat
ment of disease, and of the qualiflca-
tons of those who publicly deal with
disease, anything in opposition thereto
may fairly be taken as injurious to the
community Our laws recognize dis
ease as grim reality, to be met and
grappled with as such. To secure the
safety and protect the health of the
public from the acts OF incompetent
persons, the law prescribed the qualifi-
rot nf .,,b1 bal ln MI n
to attempt the cure or healing Of dis
ease. 1t Is not for the purpose Of
compelling the use of any particular
remedies or of any remedies at
all. 1t Is only designed to secure COM
retent service for those who desire
nied. attention. In certain dis
eases the individual affected may be the
only one to suffer from lack Of proper
attention; but in other types, of con-
tasious or infectious nature, they may
be such as to endanger the whole COM
nunity. And here 1t Is the policy of
the law to assume control, and require
the use of the most effective known
nieafs TO overcome and stamp out dis
ease which otherwise would become
EPIDEMIC. In such cases failure to
treat OF attempt to treat, by those not
possessing the lawful qualifications, are
equally violative of the policy of the
law. II may be said that the wisdom
power of inaudible prayer alone in the
cure of disease is for the parties who
invoke such remedy. But this is not
wholly true, for none of us
liveth by himself, and no mar
dieth to himself and the co3
sequence Of leaving disease to
ru:, unchecked in the community is 80
serious that sound public policy for
bids it. Neither the law nor reason
has any objection to the offering o
prayer for the recovery of the sick
Bur in many cases both law and com
nor sense require the use of other
means which have been given to us for
the healing Of sickness and the cure of
disease. There is ample room for the
office Of prayer in seeking for the
of restored health, even when
we have faithfully and conscientiously
used all the means known to the sci
ence and art of medicine.
DEEDS - DELIVERY.
Complainant's testator executed a
deed In 1885 to his wife and deposited
in with his attorneys. The envelope
the deed was endorsed
Deed to be delivered in case of death
Of r. Fl. Conner, grantor.' The gran
tee did not know of the execution of
the deed or of its existence until she
and her husband were i'll, when she
sent for B., an attorney. The husband
stated that the coed was with his at
and B. at the husbands re-
quest, brought the deed where grantor
and his wife were i'll. B. read the
deed to the wife, and asked her do
you wish to keep this deed, or shall
I keep it?" The grantor said keep it.
and when we get we'll we will go down
to your office and attend to it togeth-
err" The wife died before the husband
and the executors Of the husbands es-
tate filed bill to have the deed sur
rendered and declared void. The SUI
preme court sustained verdict of the
trial court declaring the deed void, and
held that there was no delivery of the
deed to the wife.
Conner ct al, VS.. Rivard ct al D. L.
N. Vol. 13, III (Mich.)