15. Dismissed in Absence of Appellant, with Privilege of Renewal. a. The appeal of Dr. James Snodgrass against a decision of the Synod of Pittsburg was called up, and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the appellant has not appeared, either in person or by proxy, to prosecute said appeal.

The Assembly, however, give to Dr. Snodgrass the privilege of prosecuting his appeal before the next General Assembly, if he can then show sufficient cause for its further prosecution.-1832, p. 376.

b. In regard to a future prosecution of his appeal, the appellant must present his case, with reasons for previous failure, before the next General Assembly, whose province it will then be to decide upon the whole subject.-1850, p. 463, O. S.

16. Where an Appeal has been Dismissed in Error, the Assembly grant a Restoration after a long Interval, when Satisfied of the Error.

The business left unfinished in the morning, viz.: the consideration of the report of the Committee to which had been referred the Rev. T. B. Craighead's letter, was resumed, and the report was adopted, and is as follows, viz.:

In the year 1811, an appeal from a decision of the Synod of Kentucky, by T. B. Craighead, accompanied by a letter from the same, was laid before the General Assembly. But Mr. Craighead not appearing in person. to prosecute his appeal, permission was given by the Assembly, on the last day of their sessions, to the members of the Synod of Kentucky, who were present, to enter a protest against the prosecution of the aforesaid appeal, at any future time. This was supposed to be required by a standing rule of the Assembly. The appeal of Mr. Craighead was therefore not heard, and the sentence of the Synod of Kentucky was rendered final.

It moreover appears, that the General Assembly of the year aforesaid, having adopted the protest of the members of the Synod of Kentucky as their own act, did declare that Mr. Craighead had been deposed, whereas, the decision of the Synod was suspension; and, although the Synod did direct the Presbytery to which Mr. Craighead belonged, to depose him, if he did not, at their next stated meeting, retract his errors; yet this sentence could not have been constitutionally inflicted, because Mr. Craighead appealed from the decision of Synod, the effect of which was to arrest all further proceedings in the case, until the appeal should be tried; therefore the sentence of the Assembly declaring Mr. Craighead deposed, does not accord with the sentence of the Synod, which was suspension.

From the above history of facts, your Committee, while they entirely dissent from many of the opinions contained in Mr. Craighead's letter, and consider its publication before it was presented to the Assembly indecorous and improper, are of opinion, that he has just ground of complaint in regard to the proceedings of the General Assembly of 1811 in his case, and that the construction put on the standing rule of the Assembly was not correct; for personal attendance on the superior judicatory is not essential to the regular prosecution of an appeal. Moreover, the sentence of the Assembly, being founded in error, ought to be considered null and void, and Mr. Craighead ought to be considered as placed in the same situation as before the decision took place, and as possessing the right to prosecute his appeal before this judicatory.

Ordered, that the stated clerk forward to Mr. Craighead a copy of the foregoing minute.--1822, p. 52.

17. The Original Rule as to Abandonment of an Appeal.

On motion, Resolved, That in case of an appeal or complaint entered in in inferior judicatory to a superior, if the appellant or appellants do not appear at the first meeting of the superior judicatory, protest may be admitted, at the instance of the respondents, at the last session of such meeting, that the appeal is fallen from, and the sentence so appealed from shall be considered as final.-1794, p. 39. See 1791, p. 45.

a. A Case of Thomas B. Craighead.

The Committee to which was referred the letter and appeal of the Rev. Thomas B. Craighead, reported that, after having carefully attended to the duty assigned them, they did not discover any sufficient reason why he has not come forward to prosecute his appeal before the Assembly, nor why his case should not now be brought to issue; and therefore recommend that the representation from the Synod of Kentucky be permitted, if so disposed, to enter their protest in proper time against a future prosecution of his appeal, and thus give effect to a standing order of the General Assembly, that the sentence of the Synod be considered as final.

Resolved, That the foregoing report be accepted, and that Mr. Craighead be furnished with an attested copy of this decision in his case.

The members of the Synod of Kentucky brought forward their protest, which being read, was accepted, and is as follows:

The Rev. Thomas B. Craighead having appealed to the General Assembly from a decision of the Synod of Kentucky, made in the month of October last, by which decision the said Synod directed the Presbytery of Transylvania to depose the said Thomas B. Craighead from the gospel ministry, which was done accordingly, and whereas the said Mr. Craighead has not prosecuted his appeal to the General Assembly, and the subscribers, members of the Synod of Kentucky, have waited till the last day of the sessions of the Assembly, to afford opportunity for the prosecution of said appeal; we do, therefore, now protest, in our own name, and on behalf of the Synod of Kentucky, against the future prosecution of said appeal, and declare the sentence of the Synod final, agreeably to a standing order of the General Assembly.-Adopted 1811, p. 481.

b. From the records of the Synod of Kentucky, it appeared that Guernsey G. Brown had appealed from a decision of that body in his case to the General Assembly. As Mr. Brown has not appeared to prosecute his appeal, and the commissioners from the Synod of Kentucky required that his absence may, according to a rule of the Assembly on the subject, preclude him from a future hearing; therefore, Resolved, That Guernsey G. Brown be considered as precluded from prosecuting his appeal.-1821, p. 30. c. The appeal of Benedict Hobbs from a decision of the Synod of Kentucky was taken up, and the appellant not being present to prosecute his appeal, it was dismissed, and the sentence of the inferior court affirmed. d. The appeal of Chloe G. Giles, from a decision of the Synod of Utica, was taken up, and the appellant not being present to prosecute her appeal, it was dismissed, and the sentence of the inferior court affirmed.—1834, p. 452.

e. An appeal of Mr. Thomas Davis from a decision of the Synod of Memphis. The committee recommended the following action in this case -viz.: Whereas, Mr. Thomas Davis has failed to appear before this Assembly to prosecute his appeal from the Synod of Memphis; therefore, Resolved, In accordance with the rule of the Book of Discipline (Old), in this case provided, that his appeal be dismissed from the further attention of this body.-1852, p. 212, O. S.; 1861, p. 304, O. S.

XCVIII. Neither the appellant, nor the members of the judicatory appealed from, shall sit, deliberate, or vote in the case. [VII. iii. 12.] [See also chap. ix., sec. iii., sub-sec. xc.]

1. The Moderator, being a Member of the Judicatory Appealed from, will not Sit.

a. Resolved, That no minister belonging to the Synod of Philadelphia, nor elder who was a member of the judicature when the vote appealed from took place, shall vote in the decision thereof by this Assembly.

The moderator, being a member of the Synod of Philadelphia, withdrew, and Dr. McKnight took the chair.-1792, p. 56.

b. The appeal of Mr. Pope Bushnell was resumed. The moderator being a member of the Synod appealed from, Mr. Jennings, the last moderator present, took the chair.-1826, p. 184.

c. Judicial Case No. 1 was taken up. The moderator being a party in the case, vacated the chair, and on motion, Dr. Krebs was requested to act as moderator during the trial of the case.-1866, p. 48, O. S.

d. The moderator, on the ground of his being a member of the Synod complained of, voluntarily relinquished the chair, while this case should be pending.-1852, p. 164, N. S.

2. An Interested Party should not Sit on a Trial.

The records of the Synod of Genesee were, on recommendation of the Committee, approved, with the following exception: Of a decision of the moderator, recorded on page 151, that a member of a Synod, who might be interested in a case under trial, cannot be challenged; which decision is unconstitutional, and ought to be reversed by that Synod.-1846, p. 20, N. S.

3. Members of the Judicatory Appealed from may not Vote.

a. The Synod of Mississippi acted unconstitutionally in permitting the Presbytery of Louisiana to vote on the adoption of the report of the Judicial Committee on the complaint of Rev. Mr. Smylie.-1850, p. 481,

O. S.

b. The action of the Synod of Harrisburg in the complaint of Ebenezer Erskine declared irregular and unconstitutional, inter alia, "3. Because the Presbytery of Carlisle was allowed to vote in the case, contrary to the Book of Discipline (Old), chap. vii., sec. iv., sub-sec. vii."-1874, p. 74.

4. Members of a Judicatory Appealed from may Speak on Postponement.

Appeal and complaint of R. S. Finley, etc., against the Synod of New Jersey.

A motion was made by James Hoge to postpone the trial of this cause to the next General Assembly.

This motion was discussed at length, the moderator deciding, in the course of the discussion, that the members of the Synod of New Jersey might speak on such a motion.-1858, p. 291, O. S.

5. An Elder Belonging to the Judicatory Appealed from, though not a Member of the Judicatory when the Case was Issued, may not Sit.

A question was raised by Mr. Cunningham, an elder from the Synod of Philadelphia, who was not a member of Synod at the meeting at which the case of Mr. Barnes was tried and issued, whether he has a right to

vote in this case in the Assembly. After some discussion, the moderator decided that Mr. Cunningham, and any other members of the Assembly from that Synod similarly situated, have a right to vote in the Assembly. From this decision of the moderator an appeal was taken, when, by a vote of the Assembly, the decision of the moderator was not sustained, and it was decided that Mr. Cunningham, and others similarly situated, have no right to vote on the case in the Assembly.-1836, p. 265.

6. Ministers who have been Dismissed to other Bodies before the Action Complained of are not Excluded.

A motion was made that Dr. Skinner and Mr. Dashiell, who, at the time the trial was commenced in the Second Presbytery of Philadelphia, were either not dismissed from that body, or had not yet connected themselves with any other, though they did not meet with the Presbytery, and before the meeting of the Synod were members of other Presbyteries, should not sit in judgment in the case of Mr. Barnes. This motion was decided in the negative.-1836, p. 266.

7. A Case is Remanded where Members of the Judicatory Appealed from Act in their own Case.

Second and third. Cases of Mr. Jefferson Ramsey and Rev. Andrew B. Cross vs. the Synod of Baltimore.

The persons named appeal from a decision of the Synod, by which a complaint of Mr. Ramsey against the Presbytery of New Castle, and one of Mr. Cross against the Presbytery of Baltimore, were dismissed as having no ground, on report of the Judicial Committee of the Synod.

Your Committee learn from the records of the Synod that one clergyman and one layman respectively from each of these Presbyteries were members of the Judicial Committee: that the moderator of the Synod was a member of the Presbytery of New Castle, and the moderator, pro tem., who was in the chair at the time of the action complained of, was a member of the Presbytery of Baltimore; that the case was not stated in any form to the Synod, but when the Judicial Committee reported, in each case, that there was no ground of complaint, their report was adopted under the call for the previous question. From all these facts, the Committee are of opinion that the cases should be readjudicated by the Synod of Baltimore, and so recommend to the Assembly.

Adopted.-1873, p. 508.

XCIX. When due notice of an appeal has been given, and the appeal and the specifications of the errors alleged have been filed in due time, the appeal shall be considered in order. The judgment, the notice of appeal, the appeal, and the specifications of the errors alleged, shall be read; and the judicatory may then determine, after hearing the parties, whether the appeal shall be entertained. If it be entertained, the following order shall be observed:

(1) The record in the case, from the beginning, shall be read, except what may be omitted by consent.

(2) The parties shall be heard, the appellant opening and closing. (3) Opportunity shall be given to the members of the judicatory appealed from to be heard.

(4) Opportunity shall be given to the members of the superior judicatory to be heard.

(5) The vote shall then be separately taken, without debate, on each specification of error alleged, the question being taken in the form : "Shall the specification of error be sustained?" If no one of the specifications be sustained, and no error be found by the judicatory in the record, the judgment of the inferior judicatory shall be affirmed. If one or more errors be found, the judicatory shall determine whether the judgment of the inferior judicatory shall be reversed or modified, or the case remanded for a new trial; and the judgment, accompanied by a recital of the error or errors found, shall be entered on the record. If the judicatory deem it wise, an explanatory minute may be adopted which shall be a part of the record of the case. [VII. iii. 8-10, largely amended.]

[Section lxxxvii. provides that "in cases of complaint involving a judicial decision, proceedings in an appellate judicatory shall be had in the order and as provided in sec. xcix., chap. iv., entitled "Of Appeals."

For decisions as to due notice of appeal, and the filing of the appeal and specifications in due time, see under sec. xcvi. above; also under sec. lxxxiv. of complaints.

Under the former book it was held by many that when an appeal or complaint was "found to be in order" it must necessarily be tried. The Assembly of 1874, p. 74, decided "that the action of the Synod of Harrisburg in dismissing, without trial, the complaint of the Rev. Ebenezer Erskine against the Presbytery of Carlisle, is hereby declared irregular and unconstitutional, for the following reasons: 1. Because the Synod dismissed the case without trial, after having admitted that the papers were in order." See below, sec. xcix.

On the other hand, appeals and complaints found to be in order have been dismissed for reasons assigned, e. g., case of Mr. Smylie, 1847, O. S., p. 385; below, sec. xcix. 3, 1874, p. 62; because the decision of another case covered the one presented, 1872, p. 62.

1878, p. 117. The complaint of the Rev. Drs. N. West and Thomas H. Skinner against the Synod of Cincinnati: The papers are found in order, and an order of trial adopted. But, p. 117, leave was given the complainants to withdraw their complaints, "the ground of said complaint having been virtually covered by the report of the Committee on the records of the Synod of Cincinnati."

1881, p. 586. Complaint of the Rev. Arthur Crosby vs. the Synod of Long Island. The Committee (Judicial) find the papers in order, but recommend that the complaint be dismissed, for reasons assigned. See above, under sec. lxxviii. 7, b.

1881, p. 588. Appeal of the Rev. Harlan P. Peck from the Synod of the Columbia. The Judicial Committee report the papers of the appellant in order, and recommend that the appeal be sustained and the action of the Synod set aside, for the following reasons—viz. :

1. No formal minute of the action of the Synod was entered upon its records and no reasons for its action given.

2. The investigation, having been entered upon by the Presbytery on its own motion, was under its control and could be lawfully discontinued