Evening journal., 1916-10-28

record that When II was pTOpOheu "
seize our church property In Dover
and hold II as II under the authority
and for the use Of other than Metho-
dist Episcopal interests there. you
Brother Hughes, presented TO major
ity OF the then Board Of Trustees In
attendance, the following resolution
and on his further motion II was
adopted: Resolved. That the chair
man of the Board Of Trustees OF Wes-
ley be and he is hereby authorized
and directed TO make a deed for Yves
ley Church and parsonage property IN
favor OF an individual among your num-
Der here mentioned the ultimate
purpose being Il Is further said In the
resolution. 10 have said church and
parsonage property reconveyed TO the
trustees of Wesley Church in trust.
and not subject TO the provisions OF
the Discipline and to the usage and
ministerial appointments of he Meth
odist Episcopal Church, but for the
use and benefit of the society or con-
gregat ton Of said church. and under
its exclusive control.
TN pursuance Of this resolution
that It is OF record you as a trustee
offered and that II IS further said, was
adopted two deeds we're executed OF
date July 2. 1908, one from the ma
iority OF the then trustees OF Wes-
ley Church, including yourself, to
gentleman OF your umber named;
the other deed from this gentleman
and his wife to the trustees OF Wes-
ley Church for the use and benefit Of
the society or congregation strictly
, of said Wesley Church The consid
Grafton mentioned as rendered for all
OF this church property thus conveyed
and reconveyed in the effort to dis.
possess the Methodist Episcopal
Church of her own of century long,
was the munficent sum of 500 in
the case of each deed OF conveyance.
Both of these deeds we're held In Sc
cret possession and not offered for
record In the recorders office until
March 20, 1909. II was believed at
the time. az may reasonably be pre-
sumed by your recorded participation
as trustee leading up TO II, as above
cited. that you prepared the deeds.
1T is a principle In law, and back
of that in common sense and sheer
decree Of the chancellor that your
deeds. noted above. were invalid. and
property to the real owners.
decency in ethics that no one but the
owner can take out Of a deed TO prop
erty rights therein lawfully expressed;
and that even the owner cannot put in
a deed to property rights not belong
ing TO him az the time he conveys IL.
How impossible, therefore. for trus-
tees holding the property In trust for
the owner under express limitations Of
control and Of administration, 70 do
that! You knew that, Mr.. Hughes.
full well the day You offered the
above resolution for passage in the
then existing Board OF Trustees OF
Wesley Church Of which you thus APP
pear to have been in that act, at least.
leading member.
Fairness to two members OF that
Board Of Trustees impels me to say
that they we're not acting with you
IN the matters herein reviewed.
THE sequel 10 this action that you
as trustee thus furthered was clear
ly contemplated by you.
when the lawfully appointed pas
tor Of Wesley Church came to Dover
to taxi charge. the church doors were
locked against him and the loya
Methodist congregation that greeted
him for associate divine worship. And
when the representatives Of the Meth
odlst denomination took action In the
Court of Chancery. as was thus
| forced upon them 10 do, to compel
the opening Of the church doors, you
appeared IN that court as attorney for
Yourself and your associate trustees
| to defend and maintain your unlawful
] a ~ y
/ In litigation that IL is no part of the
purpose OF this communication TO re
| cite. further than to say that Il made
plain. II there was at any time need
! for Il, the utter futility of your ef
fort our chief counsel brought 10 us
: Information OF proposals from you for
/ peaceable settlement OF the conten
ton. that was to include, what was
certain 10 be the decision later. the
For the sake of ending the litiga
ton and entering at once into the
enjoyment of divine worship in ouI
church property, of sacred Methodist
history and traditions. we agreed to
the terms OF your proposal rs brought
10 us by our attorney. Not because
be Il said, we thought all the term:
offered by you for such peaceable set
Element we're right or could be de
Tended in law or In ethics But be
cause we had a holy yearning FOL
the communion and for the altar firel
of our Methodist sanctuary. and W.
were willing even to suffer wrong Z
hasten our return thereto. One o
these terms made 10 appear essentia
TO that peaceable settlement was thu
astonishing proposition that we pa!
you and your associate counsel $780,
for your services as attorneys IN be
half of your acting Board Of Trusteel
10 dispossess us OF our church prop
erty Of century's tenure.
Permit me now to state tho case Il
summary. of your relation 10 this ei
fort 10 seize and possess our Metho
dist Episcopal Church property II
Dover for the proposed unlawful uses
81. You as one OF the trustees o
the old board offered IN board meet
} ing the resolution outlining the plal
TO do this. u Is presumed that sine
. you offered that resolution and sine,
you we're the only lawyer in tina
J Board of Trustees. that you wrot,
!, those two so-called deeds for the uu
, lawful conveyance of that churcl
property which the chancellor decreei
in formal decision invalid.
20. You as one OF that board act
! ing took your part with the rest II
employing yourself as the senior at
} torney TO defend in the court that il
! legal procedure that you had befor
II ts. A