Evening journal., 1917-01-23
Clayton l.. Crew
To HeV. RObert Watt. D. D.
President of the Appellate Court

To Rev. Robert Watt. ID. d.
President of the Appellate Court
Having acted in the capacity OF
counsel for The church in the trial OF
Clayton L. Grew which occurred in
Wesley Church on Wednesday even
ing, January 10. and upon request of
Frank d. Boyer and Mrs. Frank d.
Boyer. accusers Of Mr. Crew in that
trial that I act as their counsel I'm
the appellate court, ! hereby reply TO
the grounds or reasons for an appeal
as stated in a document received by
me Friday evening. January 10. 1917,
and signed by Caleb T.. Burchenal.
counsel for Mr.. Crew.
Il. The appellant has forfeited his
right 10 an appeal by misconduct
Since his trial ne has not attended the
services of the church. He has alb
sented himself from the public preach
ing services, also from prayer meet
ings and class meetings. See para
graph 313 Section /, Dis. 1915 The
appeals regularly taken shall be heard
by the proper appellate court unless
Il shall appear to the said court that
the appellant has forfeited his right TO
appeal by misconduct This is eX-
planned by Bishop Merrill in Digest
OF Methodist Law page 256. The
idea is held that whoever would avail
himself Of the right Of appeal must
conduct himself so as TO be in condi-
ton to enjoy the benefit which the
successful prosecution OF his appeal
would bring to him. He must also be
so related to the church that in the
event Of restoration to membership. or
the removal ow censure. his amenabil-
ity for his conduct during the pend
ency of the appeal would be com
piete, No one can use the Discipline
Of the Church, occupying the time Of
those charged with It's administration,
without at least protesting to be loyal
10 its authority
"2. objection 0). OF defendant
requires no answer as there is no pro-
vision OF the discipline where the
District superintendent can lawfully
. interfere with a church trial, to stop
proceedings.
90. Objection (2). Two days was
sufficient time 10 prepare for every
thing that was proper and legitimate
in defense at the trial. In the opinion
of the pastor the extension was re-
quested for improper ends. The case
was simple and the witnesses Of easy
access.
-. Objection 90. The pastor re-
fused to recognize the counsel Sc
lected for the reason that a previous
experience has convinced him that
they did not have proper regard for
the law of the church and would re-
sort to improper means to defeat the
ends OF justice.
"5. Objection (4). There is no evi.
dence produced nor can there be to
show that the trial committee was
biased or prejudiced in any way. This
criticism is unjustifable. counsel fol
the defense well knowing the oppos
ite to be true. They we're Christian
men and women whose only aim was
TO perform this simple duty in the
.ase. That they had expressed an
opinion in reference to the wrong do
ing of Mr.. Crew. if any of them did
was only what any Christian would
do under the circumstances. The rec
ords OF the trial show that he was
convicted solely on reliable evidence
submitted to the court, and that none
of his rights or privileges were de
MED. This fact is well known to his
counsel.
%. Objections ., &. Z. These obiec
tions are groundless and worthless. Ih'