New Britain herald., 1920-03-06

 Frank s. Streeter. of Concord, N H.; William G. Thompson, of Boston, ana F. c. Demond, of Concord, N. H., rep represented Dittemore, and former Governor John l.. Bates and E.. E. Dane, of Boston; F. A. Krauthoff, or Washington, and Judge Clifford F. Smith, of Boston, appeared for the directors.
 The trustees of the publishing so- ciety asked the court to enjoin the directors from interfering in the man agement of the affairs of the society or enga ging in competing business. Judge Dodge, in his findings, says:
 The provision of the trust deed that the trustees should manage the business under their own responsibil- ity, and subject only to Mrs. Eddy's supervision, prevents me from finding an intention or purpose on her part, then existing, to subject them to su- pervision by any other constituted authority of the church. I am unable to find, as requested, that she in tended all branches of Christian Science activities instituted by her to be carried on under unified super vision of the constituted authorities of the church to which the deed refers.
 ''No such intent or purpose on her part seems to me very clearly mani fested at any time. It is to be gath cred if at all, only from bylaws ap- proved by her at a later period, after the trust established by the deed had been for some years in operation, and as the various branches of Christian Science developed in number and importance, and it appears to have later formed rather than one existing when the deed was made.
 '"The trust deed of 1898 seems to me to contemplate a church whose voting members were to elect the new members and make it's bylaws; and a publishing society in close al- iance with, but not under the rule of, the church or it's officers. The provisions of the deed do not seem to me to contemplate, or to suit, a church absolutely ruled, in these and in other matters by an independent board, or a publishing society under the rule of the board.
 Changes in Terms.
 Changes in the terms of the trust which Mrs. Eddy omitted to make are necessary in order to bring them into harmony with the plan of church government adopted and followed after 1901, or give them the effect contended by the defendants As they stand, I cannot consider them cap able of construction such as would give them that effect"
 Referring again to the removal of Rowlands, Judge Dodge says that if the supreme court should decide that the directors of the church had the power to remove Rowlands without J>x-f 10 ff1rct bers' of the church, the vote dismiss ing him would still be illegal and in- effective, as it was not a majority 1 vote.
 In considering this aspect of the l case Judge Dodge draws a distinction l between the two sets of directors. Merritt, who voted to remove Row lands was elected on, July 19. 1917, to l fill a vacancy occasioned by the death ! of Archibald Mcclellan. The latter l was made a member of the board of directors when that board on Febru- 1 ary :, 1903, adopted a bylaw to in crease their number from four to five. Such action, Judge Dodge be- lieveS, was in violation of Mrs. Eddy's declaration of trust. which provided for four directors only, and therefore neither MT. Mcclellan nor MT. Merritt was ever a legal member of the board.
 Tn aOOpllnS tue IeSOluLlOI, JuuSe Dodge says. the defendants Dickey, Neal, Merritt and Rathvon, but not the defendant Dittemore, were acting in pursuance of a plan to bring about the retirement of the plaintiffs and to install in their places trustees who would admit the directors final au- thority. The result was to be obtained by making the anticipated refusal of Eustace and Ogden to appoint a suc- cessor to Rowlands ground for their removal also. AS the result of the foregoing rulings, I find that Row lands removal was not lawfully af- fected and that he is still d trustee"
 Mir. Dittemore is declared by Judge Dodge to be a member of the board of directors instead of Mrs. Knott, Dittemore being entitled to the office, he save, both under the deed of Mrs. Eddy nd the by-lws of the church.
 For the purpose of a fair hear ing" Judge Dodge says, none of the charges preferred against Dittemore, were sufficiently definite to time, place or circumstances. Just what was as complained of could not be known from them. Until made more specific they could not be intelligently met. If believed to be true by the members of the board who adopted the resolution, their belief was not founded upon first hand knowledge, but upon report only. They were in- adequate grounds for any but a purely arbitrary dismissal
 "If it may be said that what had passed within the board was neces- Sarily present to the minds of all it's