The county record. [volume] (Kingstree, S.C.) 1885-1975, 1922-03-23

ly as previously answered by forme,
!; witnesses.
Question 2. Who was the person
that extorted the promise and from
whom was it extorted?
Answer. George McCutchen wa.
the person that cxtorted the promise
and Leonora Montgomery was tht
person from whom it was extorted
and violated it.
Miss Nj. NJ. McGill.
Miss Leonora Montgomery's Evidence
on 3rd Charge.
Question 1. Did George McCutcher
take you out at George Cooper's ant
nave talk with you respecting dane.
ing?
Answer. Yes.
Question 2. Were you not very
badly scared?
Answer. Yes.
Question 8. Did you not make a
promise to him that you would not
dance?
Answer. Yes. was so badly
scared l hardly knew what l said.
Question a. Did you break that
promise again!
Answer. Yes.
Question 5. Did you impute the
blame to Mr.. McCutchcn?
Answer. He die not attempt t,
frighten me into a promise.
Question 6. Did he cxtort 4 prom
lie.
Answer. No.
Signed, Leonora Montgomery.
The Evidence here Closed.
The Session of Indiantown church,
after hearing the above testimony,
and being apprised By the moderator
that it was now about to discharge
the duties of the judicatory Of the
church in giving 4 decision in 4 case
tried before it, the prosecutor Of the
case being also apprised that he could
not vote on the trial. It then pro:
ceeded to give judgment That Mr..
Samuel McGill was guilty in the first
charge alleged agsinst him. Also, it
was their opinion that the defendant,
Mr.. McGill, was guilty of the End
charge to the extent it was alleged
against him on the Bird charge, there
were circumstances which went to
extenuate Mr.. McGill's language OF
conduct. Whereupon, it was resolved
by this Session, that Mr.. Samuel Nc
Gill be admonished and rebuked this
afternoon in presence of the Session
end witnesses present.
Mr.McGill was then called in and
advised of the determination. Upon
the moderator informing Mr.. McGill
Of this judgment, he declared it his
purpose to appeal from this decision
It being further stated to him that
the appeal must 60 up to the Pres
bytery from the session, he declined
the regular course cf ecclesiastical
procedure, but expressed his wish
that the object be placed before the
Indiantown Congregation, whether
they should be sustained as officers
Of the church by those who had in
vested them with this trust, confin-
ing the decision of the case to the
communing members OF Indiantown
church.
Upon motion it was then resolved
that the congregation be called te
meet as a church on Thursday, the
21th instant, and punctual attendance
required.
July, 1881. The Session of Indian
town church met at the request OF
two of the Eldership, constituted witt
prayer. After maturely celebrating
upon the judicial proceedings of June
%, last, resolved to refer for ultimate
trial and decision the 3ri ccharge
preferred against Mr.. Samuel Nc
Gill to the Presbytery of Harmony
ct its next stated session, notice Of
which was Immediately communicates
to the Rev. R. w. James.
November 8, 1881. The Session Of
Indiantown met, constituted witt
prayer. On motion, resolved that thu
body proceed to make out a form Of
reference to the Presbytery OF Har
mony for the purposes specified OF
Its minutes of 25th of July, last, which
was accordingly done, and information
the same day was given to Mr.. Sam
uel McGill by George Barr and u
ID. Wilson, Ruling Elders.
The committee appointed on the 7ti
of May last, to visit some persons
il. full communion in this church re
nortad Their report YVES received