Honolulu star-bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1912-2010, 1914-08-15
MOOSE DISPUTE
SETTLED THROUGH
MEDIUM OF COURT

Iby the various subordinate lodges
/ throughout the country concerning the
/ long civil suit affecting the ownership
Of the furniture seized by the supreme
officers ct al from the Los Angeles
! lodge No. 1856, l. o. o. NJ, lncorpor-
ated. and to give the readers of this
publication complete and compre-
hensive understanding as to the legal
phase of this celebrated case we print
! herewith a synopsis or resume of the
case as prepared by our attorneys,
Brother Ingle Carpenter. Georgia p.
Bullock and Charles w Fourl, says
the Los Angeles Moose Messenger.
Judge Wellborn's decision. in SUBJ
stance, was as follows:
, Judge Charles Wellborn, superior
! Judge for the state Of California. eoun-
( ty of Los Angeles, department five,
superior court, gave in substance the
! following opinion in deciding the case
Of the Supreme Lodge of the World,
Loyal Order of Moose, VS.. the Los An
geles lodge. No. $50, Loyal Order of
Moose, a corporation. The action was
an action which is technically known
as claim and delivery action, and
arose upon the supreme lodge and
the members of an unincorporate
lodge, recently formed by the supreme
lodge, sued for the property. including
the furniture of the defendant incor-
porated lodge, claiming that the prop
erty had been dedicated to the SUI
preme lodge and that upon the SUI
preme lodge revoking the charter of
/ the defendant lodge the property was
| forfeited to the supreme lodge for the
benefit of the new lodge referred to-.
! In this action the supreme lodge
! had taken by repleyin the furniture
and property from the possession of
the defendant lodge and its members
upon filing bonds in the sum of 100000
to pay all damages which might re-
suit should the judgment be in favor
tof the defendant lodge ri.
Judge Wellborn first considers the
question as to whether or not the con-
tention of the plaintiffs attorneys that
the local defendant lodge was legally
incorporated is true or not. and holds
| that inasmuch as the local lodge was
doing business as corporation in
/ good faith and Incorporated In good
faith and are being sued as a corpora
, ton and answered as a corporation,
! that it does not make any difference
legally whether or not they were prop.
erlv incorporated.
The court then considers the ques-
ton of the claim that said property was
dedicated to the supreme lodge or its
purposes and states that an examin-
alton of the constitution and laws and
purposes of the supreme lodge and
the dispensation granted to the subor-
dinate lodges, does not show that the
supreme lodge has any principles or
any ideals in any way different from
the ones that are generally adopted In
civilized countries among all fraternal
organizations.
The court further holds that there
| is nothing In the constitution or by
laws of the supreme lodge or the de.
PENDANT lodge that in any way indi-
Gates or sets apart the property for
any principles or ideals except the use
of the property by the members of
the defendant lodge themselves.
The court then holds that there Is
no analogy between cases of ecclesias-
tical societies upon this point and
cases of fraternal societies similar to
the Loyal Order of Moose, especially
where property rights are involved.
The court then holds that the prop
erty has always been in the posses
sion of the defendant lodge and its
members and was found in their pos
session when this acton started and
that he can conceive of no theory or
legal proposition upon which the plain.
tiffs can consider or assert that they
are entitled to the possession of the
property or to any rights in said prop
erty. " 80.
The court then holds that the new
/ lodge, known as New 1856. formed un-
der a new disDensation from the su.
preme lodge, is a separate and dis
tinct association from the old asso-
citation and has no connection in any
way whatsoever with the old 3S6.
| The court then orders the return of
the property to the defendant corpor-
alton or the payment of its value.
(which the court approximates at about
500, 900, together with 100000 dam
ages for depriying the defendant cor.
poration and its members of the fur
Initure, and the sum Of approximately
100000 damages for the injury in the
i depreciation of the property through
its removal. ~.
In accordance with the above deci-
sion the attorneys for the defendant
corporation have prepared the findings
for the court to sign, upon which he
passes his decision and the law re-
quires that these findings shall be
served upon the attorneys for the
plaintiff five days before the court
shall finally sign same. and upon such
findings being signed the court enters
a judgment which requires that the
property be returned.
Should the plaintiffs attorneys at
tempt to hold the property pending
an appeal. they must file sufficient
bonds in double l1e value Of all dam
ages, together with the value Of the
property. pending the appeal and In
/, asmuch as the court has held that the
DO rv,auou . - r.1>n affrnlI1 |I000 10 r1Hr7