II 13091 C 8324.180 HARVARD LIBRARY ENTERED according to Act of Congress, in the year 1834, by EDWARD HOPPER, in the Clerk's office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. THOMAS B. TOWN, PRINTER, 112 WALNUT-STREET. INTRODUCTION. THE following argument contains such a full and explicit history of the case, that a very minute account from the publisher is rendered unnecessary. But for the information of those who may be entirely unacquainted with the names of the parties who were immediately engaged in the suit, and who are alluded to in the argument, it may be proper to state, that before the separation in the preparative meeting at Crosswicks, Joseph Hendrickson was the treasurer of the schoolfund in question. As treasurer of said fund, he had loaned part on interest, to Thomas L. Shotwell, who gave the bond and mortgage upon which this suit was instituted. After the Orthodox party had withdrawn, the preparative meeting appointed Stacy Decow, as the successor to Joseph Hendrickson, who, in connexion with the Orthodox party, had seceded from it. Thomas L. Shotwell, who held the money, was unwilling to recognize Joseph Hendrickson as the rightful treasurer of the preparative meeting of the Society of Friends at Crosswicks. Under these circumstances, Joseph Hendrickson exhibited a bill of complaint against Thomas L. Shotwell, in the Court of Chancery of the State of New Jersey, to foreclose his bond and mortgage. After this bill was filed, Thomas L, Shotwell exhibited a bill of interpleader against Hendrickson and Decow, who were the treasurers of the adverse parties, setting forth the pretensions and claims of each respectively. Joseph Hendrickson filed an answer to this, in which was a repetition of the grounds set forth in his original bill. Stacy Decow also filed an answer to the bill of interpleader, in which he denied the grounds set forth in the bill filed by Hendrickson. After these were completed, the evidence of witnesses was taken at Camden, N. J. before J. J. Foster, an examiner in the Court of Chancery, which, with the pleadings and exhibits in the cause, was published in two large volumes. In consequence of the Chancellor having been, while at the bar, of counsel for one of the parties, (the Orthodox), he selected Chief Justice Ewing, and Judge Drake, to decide the case; they heard it argued in the First-Month, 1832, and gave separate decisions in the Seventh-Month following, in favor of the Orthodox party. From this decision the aggrieved party appealed to the Court of Errors, before whom the case came on for hearing on the seventeenth of Seventh-Month, 1833. About two weeks were occupied in reading the two volumes of Evidence, &c., when the arguments of counsel commenced, and continued about the same length of time. Garret D. Wall opened for the appellants, and was followed by George Wood and Theodore Frelinghuysen, on behalf of the Orthodox party; the case was then closed by Samuel L. Southard, who occupied four days in delivering the argument reported in this volume. After the counsel had finished, a Judgment was given, af.firming the decision of the Court of Chancery. The vote stood as follows; Board, M'Dowell, Green, Clark, Wood, Merkle, and Seely, (Governor), for affirmance; and Holmes, Campion, Clawson, and Townsend, for reversal. After the decision was pronounced, the president made a communication, in which the Court recommended to the parties concerned in the controversy, "to make a speedy and amicable adjustment of all their disputes and difficulties." The argument which is here reported, was listened to by an overflowing audience, of all persuasions and both sexes, with a marked and untiring attention; and it will be found to possess much of a highly interesting character, in relation to the discipline and order, and also the doctrines and history of the Society of Friends. Should, however, any errors be discovered in any of these points, it must be understood that the Society are not to be considered accountable for all the views expressed by their intelligent and highly gifted advocate. The object of the reporter has been to give a faithful representation of the sentiments and language delivered. In justice to the speaker it is proper to state, that he had no opportunity of revising his argument before it went to press, and could not therefore make those corrections which extemporaneous composition generally requires. This circumstance is regretted by the reporter, but as S. L. Southard had taken his seat in the U. S. Senate, before the manuscript was completed, it was unavoidable, unless the publication was deferred until the interest of the occasion would necessa-. rily be diminished. It is believed however, that the report will be found to be full and satisfactory. |