Evening journal., 1917-01-24


and leaving them stunned and with
out guidance.
The Rev. V. s. Collins then began
TO read the answer Of Pastor Cooke
to the objection filed by the appel
lants. After having read the pre-
amble and the first three answers and
having been stopped by DR.. Watt who
ruled out the preamble and the third
shjeati0n on the ground as the first
had not been objected to before the
trial and the third objection consti-
tuted slander. refused to read the re-
mainder Of the answers.
DR.. Collins then contended the
powers OF the pastor as outlined in
the discipline did permit a pastor. II
need be for the honor and glory OF
the church TO act at a church trial
as presiding officer, counsel and wit
ness.
The question for tho jury, Mr.. Col
Inns said. Is whether the matters at
issue were Of the sort that could be
construed as having wronged the ap-
pellant Crew. The question was how
the law should he applied. The
preacher was left with large discre-
tionary powers. DR.. Collins said. The
church was a great machine for get
ting people into the church but was
a poor machine for getting people out
Of the church.
The question Of law. he said IN the
case of the trial was perfectly clear,
the matter to be decided by the COM
mittee was whether the powers of the
pastor had been unjustly or unwisely
applied
Mr.. Burchenal closed the case for the
appellant He declared the appoint
ment Of Mr.. Crew as his own counsel
was contrary to all church law. The
accused had already selected counsel,
he said, and the presiding officer had
no right to debar that counsel, the
Rev. e. II. Dashiell and Mr.. Burchenal,
unless they had been put out of the
/ church or otherwise disbarred.
The right OF counsel he said. was
as old as literature and fundamental
not only in civil and criminal law,
but in church law.
Sustaining OF the decision OF the
verdict at the trial meant, he said,
that the statement Of Mr.. Cooke that
the trial "set the fashion" was a seri-
Gus matter, as Il might set a precedent
( in a double manner, both as to the
pastors serving as presiding ofncer,
/ counsel and witness, and as to recog-
milton by triers Of appeals that such
! a proceeding was perfectly regular.
He characterized the trial OF Mr
Crew as farce" It was not a trial
he said, and yet the right OF a trial
had been the bulwark OF English lib
critics and was regarded as a sacred
right OF man.
Mr.. BurchenaI declared the charge
to the jury by Pastor Cooke at the
trial OF Mr.. Crew was in violation OF
ell legal traditions and amounted "a
directions to the jury to bring in a
verdict of guilty.
Such a thing. no declared, amounted
to an error.
II was when Mr.. Burchenal de-
clared the Crew trial was a farce that
Mr.. Cooke interrupted and left the
court room. Mr.. Burchenal explain
ed that he was not insulting Mr.
Cooke, that he believed Mr. Cooke
/, was honest In what he had done bu
that he had erred In his actions. Mr.
Cooke gave no answer to this. anC
l declaring he felt such language from
counsel was an insult, left the room
% At the close OF the address of MI
/
e the officers OF the court, the triers o
appeal and the stenographer. Ate
a short absence every one was recall
ed and Mr.. Johnson announced tn
decision OF the triers OF appeals tina
the decision at the trial OF Januar.
. 10 be reversed.
/, DIR. Watt then asked II IL was in
! tended 20 continue with the appea
OF Mr.. Thorp and Mr.. Burchenal sug
gested that as the bill OF complaint
was practically the same for tn
Thorp case as for the Crew case, h
thought the records OF the trial q
January 10 might be read, togethe
with the bill of complaints and tn
arguments dispensed with.
DIR. Collins. counsel for the church
declared he had no objection to thi
and DR.. Watt called the court to OF
der. Just previous to this, howevel
william Deakyne was excused as
I committee member on the ground tha
{ he lived out OF the city and II wa
B growing late.
DR.. Watt announced that as thi
r still left nine of the Triers OF Appeal
e the hearing could proceed withou
= the other member of the committee.
4 ANuAAuE AAt AtiAAAAh VI AAAN A1NNA
I Mr. Burchenal objected to certain POI
n tions marked exhibit" on the groun
that they we're not produced at tt
9 trial.
Mr.. Collins suggested that witho'
q objection on the part OF Mr.. Burcl
: email. the alleged record be read an
II objection to it noted. Mr.. Cooke ha'
ing left the place there seemed
b be no one TO explain certain apparei
l. irregularities in the record, and d
y Watt although insisting that the ma
Q ter should not be read unless a pa
"a of the record, said that In view of Il
e doubt in the matter without obje
tion they might be read. This W;
e done and the objections OF the al
Z pellants counsel noted.
y Mr.. Burchenal then read the al
o peal. Dr Collins as counsel for Il
j. church said he had nothing to sa
3 all hut court officials. triers o.
= peals and the stenographer RI
a for a few minutes and we're 500 r.
s called to hear the verdict.
Ie Mr.. Johnson gave the decision
the Tricrs OF Appeals that the decisi'
: in the trial OF Mr. Thorp OF Janua'
W 12 be reversed.
a CHARGE MAID WITH THEFT.
I, Nellie Blake. colored, was held Vi
: der $500 bail for court by Judl