58 – Richard Hill

1: Before proceeding with the cross examination of Mr. Hill, I have a notion to make to the following effect, Plaintiff now moves the Court to exclude from the record all the tax receipts offered in evidence here-to-fore on behalf of the defendants, for the reason that they show on their face that the property which they purport to be the receipts for taxes paid thereon, was not liable to taxation, being church property.
 

2: Mr. Hill, where do you live?
In Independence.

3: In Independence, in Jackson County, Missouri?
Yes sir.

4: How long have you lived here?
Since the spring of 1868.

5: Well how many years have you lived here in Independence, Missouri?
About twenty three years, I think, this month, – if I am not mistaken that is the length of time I have lived here.

6: What position do you hold in the defendants’ church?
In what?

7: In the defendant church?
In the Church of Christ?

8: Yes sir?
Elder. 9 (This number is missing)

10: Well what other position do you hold, if any?
I hold the office of bishop.

11: Well what other position, if any?
That is about all, I believe.

12: You are an elder and the bishop of the church?
Yes sir.

13: When were you ordained an elder?
If my memory serves me right it was, – I believe it was about 1870. I am not positive about that, but I think that was about the date.

14: In 1870 you were ordained an elder in the defendant church?
Yes sir, in the church I was.

15: When did you first become a member of the church?
In 1840.

16: That was when you joined the church?
Yes sir.

17: Where did you become a member of the church?
In England.

18: Who baptized you?
I think the man’s name was Mitchell that baptized me, but I am not really sure about that, it was so long ago I can’t remember his name positively.

19: Did you hold any office in that church?
In what church?

20: In the church that you first joined?
Yes sir.

21: What office did you hold?
The office of a priest.

22: The office of a priest you held in that church?
Yes sir.

23: Was it by ordination?
Yes sir.

24: Who ordained you to the office of a priest?
I believe that the man’s name was, – let me see, – I believe the man’s name was Broderick.

25: Did he ordain you in England or in this country?
In England.

26: When were you ordained a priest?
In 1848 I believe.

27: About what time in the year?
In the latter part of the year I think it was. I am not telling any of these things positivyly, but as near as my memory will serve me.

28: Have you been baptized more than once? Come answer the question?
Well I don’t know that it is necessary for me to answer that question. I don’t think it makes any difference whether I have been baptized once or twenty times.

29: Well we think it is necessary, and we insist upon your answering it. Have you been baptized more than once?
Well I don’t think it is necessary for me to answer that question, – I don’t know that that is necessary at all.

30: Have you been baptized more than once?
I have answered the question.

31: No sir, you have not, and I insist upon the answer?
I have given you all the answer you will get.

32: Do you decline to answer the question?
Yes sir, I decline to answer it.

33: Why do you decline to answer it?
Because it has nothing to do with this case.

34: For what reason other than that do you decline to answer the question?
I decline to answer it because I think it is not important, and has no reference to the court, or to the case at all.

35: Is it not true that you never were baptized but the one time?
I decline to answer that question.

36: Well I insist upon an answer.
 

37: Will you answer the question? I insist that you answer the question.
Well I think best not to answer it.

38: Therefore you decline to answer it?
Yes sir.

38: When did you unite with the Hedrickite church?
There is no such a church.

39: Well when did you unite with the faction that is generally known as the “Hedrickite faction” of the church?
I don’t know of any such a faction.

40: Well if you are bound to stand on technicalities, I will say the defendant church. When did you unite with the defendant church?
I don’t know of any faction.

41: Well I asked you when you united with the defendant church in this case?
When did I unite? What has that to do with this case I would like to know?

42: You can answer the question? Answer it?
When did I unite with it, –

43: Yes sir, when did you unite with it, and let the record show that counsel for the defendants one of whom is the witness, notifies witness when he can answer a question asked him?
It is not necessary for any one to tell me when to answer a question, I know when to answer questions without being told to do so.

44: Well answer the question?
What is the question? I have forgotten it.

45: I asked you when you united with the defendant church in this case?
Well, –
I consider that I became acquainted with this church that you call the defendant church, when I first joined the church in England in 1848.

46: That is the way you look at it?
Yes sir, that is the way I consider it, for I consider that it is the same church.

47: When did you unite with it?
In 1848.

48: With the defendant church?
Yes sir.

49: That is the time you united with it?
Yes sir.

50: Did you at any other time?
What is that?

51: Did you ever at any other time unite with the defendant church except at the time in 1848, as you have here-to-fore stated?
I can’t say that I did.

52: Can you say that I did not?
No sir, I can’t say that I did or did not, for I claim that the church that I am not associated with is a part and parcel of the church that I first associated myself with in 1848.

53: You claim that you are a member of the same church now that you associated yourself with, or joined in 1848?
Yes sir.

54: That is your claim?
Yes sir.

55: Were you not baptized into the defendant church after 1848?
I decline to answer.

56: For what reason do you decline to answer?
Because it did not have anything to do with the case at all.

57: That is your reason, and your only reason for declining to answer the question?
Yes sir, I don’t consider that the face of whether I was baptized or not baptized cuts any figure whatever.

58: You do?
Yes sir, I do, – it don’t make any difference whether I was baptized once or a hundred times that I can see. Many people are baptized many times.

59: have you been baptized into a church since the year 1868?
 
No sir. 50 (Mistakenly listed as number 60)

59: Did you say that you had not?
No sir, I have not.

51: Have you not been baptized into a church since the year 1860?
Not that I remember of.

52: Well will you swear that you have not been.
No sir, for I do not remember. I would not swear that I have not been. I am only testifying about these things to the best of my memory.

53: Who baptized you the last time you were baptized?
I decline to answer.

54: That is another of the questions that you decline to answer?
That is what I said.

55: For what reason do you decline to answer that question?
For the reason I stated before.

56: Well state your reason again?
Well for the reason that it has nothing to do with the case that I know of.

57: Well suppose it has something to do with the case that you don’t know of, would you then decline to answer it?
Well I will not answer it.

58: You claim to be the trustee of the defendant church in this case, do you not?
Yes sir, I am.

59: And also claim to be a member of the defendant church?
Yes sir.

60: And an elder in the defendant church?
Yes sir.

61: And to hold this property in trust for the defendant church?
Yes sir.

62: And adversely to the plaintiff church?
Yes sir, it necessarily would be so, I reckon.

63: That is the way you claim to hold it?
Yes sir.

64: And that you never were a member of the plaintiff church?
Yes sir.

65: Do you mean that you never were a member of the plaintiff church?
Yes sir.

66: Who baptized you into the defendant church?
Into the church that is defendant?

67: Yes sir?
Well I am claiming that it is the church that I was baptized into at the start, – it is the same church, we claim that was founded on the 6th of April 1830.

68: Who claims that it is the same church?
Well I for one claim it is the same church.

69: Who baptized you the second time into the defendant church?
I decline to answer.

70: Were you baptized after the year 1860 into the defendant church by any body?
I decline to answer the question.

71: Or were you baptized after the year 1860 into any other church?
I decline to answer.

72: And you declile to answer for the reason that you think it is not material to this case?
I do not conceive that it would be of any importance to the case at all, or cut any particular figure whatever.

73: When was the defendant church, of which you say you are a member, first organized?
As I understand it, it was in 1830.

74: By whom was it organized?
By Joseph Smith, Oliver Cowdery and a few others.

75: At what place?
As I understand it, it was at some place in New York State.

76: You stated in your examination in chief that you had paid certain taxes on the property in controversy in this case?
Yes sir.

77: You paid them for the defendant church?
Yes sir.

78: The defendant church has a church organization?
Yes sir.

79: Now tell me when that church, – the defendant church I mean, – was first organized, and who the presiding officer was at the time it was first organized, and who the presiding officer was at the time of the payment of the taxes?
I believe that I was presiding myself at the time that a goodly portion of these taxes were paid. I think I was.

80: You were the presiding officer at the time the taxes were paid?
Yes sir, I think I was at the time that a goodly portion of them were paid.

81: Who was the presiding officer at the time that the church was first organized?
First organized, – did you say.

82: Yes sir?
I suppose Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery and others were the first officers.

83: Who was the first president of the defendant church?
Joseph Smith.

84: Well who succeeded Joseph Smith in the Presidency of the church?
The first Joseph Smith?

85: Yes sir, – Joseph the Seer?
I don’t know that any body ever succeeded him. I don’t know of any one who did.

86: Well who succeeded to the Presidency of the church after the death of Joseph Smith the Revelator, Prophet and Seer?
I don’t know. I don’t know of any one. There were several that claimed to succeed him but I don’t believe that any one did succeed him.

87: Now did you happen to be Presedent of the defendant church?
Well it was, – how did I happen to be President of the church?

88: Yes sir.
Well I was made so by the church.

89: You were made President of the defendant church by the church?
Yes sir.

90: Were you the first President of the church after the death of Joseph Smith?
No sir.

91: Who was the President, – the first President after the death of Joseph Smith, – that is of the defendant church?
I believe Granville Hedrick was. He was made President.

92: When was he made President, if you know?
I will only state as near as my memory serves me.

93: Well that is right, and that is all I expect you or anyone else to do?
I think it was about 1863. I don’t remember just the time, but it was somewhere near that time, or just about that time.

94: What office did he hold?
Office in the church?

95: Yes sir?
Before he was made president?

96: No, what office did he hold in the church when he was made President?
Elder.

97: He was an elder?
Yes sir.

98: Was he anything else?
Not that I know of. I don’t remember whether he was or not.

99: Well he was made President by the defendant church?
Yes sir.

100: Was he made prophet, seer and revelator?
No sir, I don’t think he was, I believe a man, – I believe he might be that, but I don’t believe that man can make a man a prophet, seer and revelator.

101: Well in the ordination of Granville Hedrick, was he not ordained to be a prophet, seer and revelator?
I can’t say about that.

102: You do not know about that?
No sir. There might have been some such words used, but there was no understanding that the man who ordained him had any authority to ordain him a prophet, seer and revelator.

103: There was no authority to ordain him in that capacity?
Yes sir, he could be, but it could not be done by a man agency as I understand it. No man had any authority to ordain him in that way, although he might have used the words.

104: Did not Granville Hedrick, after his ordination, and while he was President of the church, publish the fact of his ordination, and state that he was ordained a prophet, seer and revelator? Did he not after his ordination so claim the fact to be?
No sir, he did not claim any such thing I believe, but others might have claimed it for him, but if they did I don’t think he consented to any such a thing.

105: Well do you say he did not publish it?
I don’t think he did.

106: Well do you say he did not?
No sir, I say I don’t think he did. I am quite sure he did not, but others might have done it without his knowledge, for I believe he never authorized any one to make any such claim on his behalf. I don’t think he ever consented to any such thing if it was done. Others may have done it, but he did not consent to it, and I do not by any means say it was not done.

107: Look at the pamphlet I now hand you and see if you can identify it?
Yes sir.

108: You have seen that before?
Yes sir.

109: Who was the editor of that pamphlet?
I cannot just remember.

110: You don’t know?
No sir, I don’t just remember who had that in charge. I don’t know really who was the editor of that. If I ever knew I have forgotten.

111: You took it during the time it was published?
Yes sir, I took it at different times of course, but I don’t know that I took it all the way through.

112: You took it at times then and recognize the paper?
Yes sir, I recognize it.

113: Were the editors of this paper the heads of the defendants’ church?
I believe they were.

114: Was Granville Hedrick on the editors?
I think it is very likely although I am not certain, for I was not close by them when that was done.

115: Now I will ask you this question, was Adne C. Haldeman a member of the defendant church?
I think so.

116: Well do you know whether he was or not?
I believe he was.

117: I mean at the time that Granville Hedrick was the President?
I think he was. I am positive he was.

118: And was he with Granville Hedrick at that time, one of the editors of the paper or publication I handed you, called the “Truth Teller”?
As I stated before he might have been, but I cannot be positive as to that.

119: Well it is a fact is it not, and you know it to be a fact that Haldeman was one of the editors of the Truth Teller?
I say I am not positive whether he was or not. I don’t just remember whether he was or not.

120: Mark this exhibit “106” and I will read from page thirty one of the pamphlet so marked, entitled the “Truth Teller” as follows, The Truth Teller Will advocate the Primitive Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which was organized on the 6th day of April 1830, and maintain her doctrines in all truth. Also an exposition of all the false doctrines that has been imposed upon the church. Tell the truth, The truth will tell, And tell it well, Truth will prevail, And never fail. Volume I Bloomington Published by the Church 1864 Now in this paper or pamphlet, mark exhibit “106”, on page thirty one, the first column, is this language, “The awful scourge that awaits this nation, how, when and where you can flee to escape it, is plainly shown. Remember this, that these revelations were given through him whom the Church in General Conference selected by vote, and was ordained President, prophet, seer and revelator of the church by members of the quorum of Twelve. About 17 persons were present on these ever-memorable occasions when the God of Israel, in answer to fasting and prayer, filled the house where they were assembled with his spirit, which make every soul present rejoice in the God of their salvation. Breather it will never be forgotten by those who were thus favored with the privilege of being present when God again spoke to his church through the means he had ordained.” Do you remember reading that before? 745 that this line of cross examination is a most outrageous abuse of the privileges of cross examination.”

115: Now I will ask you this question, – was Adna C. Haldeman a member of the defendant church?
I think so.

116: Well do you know whether he was or not?
I believe he was.

117: I mean at the time that Granville Hedrick was the President?
I think he was. I am positive he was.

118: And was he with Granville Hedrick at that time, one of the editors of the paper or publication I handed you, called the “Truth Teller”?
As I stated before he might have been, but I cannot be positive as to that.

119: Well it is a fact is it not, and you know it to be a fact that Haldeman was one of the editors of the Truth Teller?
I say I am not positive whether he was or not. I don’t just remember whether he was or not.

120: Mark this exhibit “106” and I will read from page thirty one of the pamphlet so marked, entitled the “Truth Teller” as follows, – The Truth Teller Will advocate the Primitive Organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints which was organized on the 6th day of April 1830, and maintain her doctrines in all truth. Also an exposition of all the false doctrines that has been imposed upon the church. Tell the truth, – The truth will tell, – And tell it well. Truth will prevail, And never fail. Volume I. Bloomington. Published by the Church. 1864. Now in this paper or pamphlet, marek exhibit “106”, on page thirty one, the first column, is this language, – “The awful scourge that awaits this nation, how when and where you can flee to escape it, is plainly shown. Remember this, that these revelations were given through him whom the Church in General Conference selected by vote, and was ordained President, prophet, seer and revelator of the church by members of the quorum of Twelve. About 17 persons were present on these ever memorable occasions when the God of Israel, in answer to fasting and prayer, filled the house where they were assembled with his spirit, which made very soul present rejoice in the God of their salvation. Brethren it will never be forgotten by those who were thus favored with the privilege of being present when god again spoke to his church through the means he had ordained. Do you remember reading that before?
 

121: Do you recognize that?
Yes sir, I do.

122: Was that true as to the ordination of Granville Hedrick?
 

123: Did that occur as to the ordination of Granville Hedrick?
I can’t say. As I said before man did not have the power to ordain man to the office of prophet, seer and revelator.

124: Well did they in fact attempt it as is stated here?
I don’t know for I was not there.

125: Granville Hedrick, in 1864, the time that this transaction occurred as recited here in this pamphlet, was an elder of the church that was established in 1830, was he not?
Yes sir.

126: And he had been an elder for five or six years?
I expect so and as many more.

127: Well how long had he been an elder?
Well I think that he was an elder in the very first year or two of the church’s existence. Ssy in ’32 or ’33, – I am not certain which, but I think that is the fact.

128: I will read now from the same exhibit “106” on the same page commencing at the last word in the fist column at the bottom, as follows, – “Granville Hedrick, Washburn, Woodford County, has been an elder in the church for about twenty two or twenty four years?”
Well I said I did not know I don’t know how long he was an elder, for I was not there when he was baptized, and all I know about it is what I heard.

129: Then you say that statement is correct as you recollect it?
I don’t know about that. I don’t know a thing about it. I don’t know whether it is true or not.

130: Well do you know whether Granville was an elder in the church for twenty two or twenty four years prior to 1864?
Well all that I know is that we held a personal talk about it, and he told me that he was an elder in the church in Joseph Smith’s day, and as far as I recollect he stated that he was made an elder at an early date.

131: Do you know who ordained him an elder?
No sir.

132: He did not tell you that then?
I don’t remember whether he did or not.

133: Now was it not W.O Clark of California?
I don’t know sir.

134: A member of the plaintiff church?
I don’t know any such a name.

135: You do not know whether that was the man or not whom ordained him?
No sir.

136: Now you say you were President of the defendant church at one time?
For a time I was.

137: Who ordained you President of the defendant church at the time you helt that office?
Well I can’t remember who it was now. That is something that I do not call to mind.

138: Well you were ordained were you not?
Yes sir.

139: Where were you ordained?
At Independence. Missouri.

140: You were ordained to the office of President of the defendants church here at Independence?
Yes sir.

141: And you do not recollect who ordained you to that office?
No sir.

142: Well was there any one ordained you to that office?
I expect there was. I expect they did.

143: Can you name any body that took part in the ordination?
Well now I don’t remember the names of the people that took part in it, and there is no use of your asking me anything more about it, for I have told you all I can about it.

144: Has the defendant church a record of your ordination to the Presidency?
I expect they have.

145: Who was the record?
I have.

146: You have that record?
I have it under my control, but it belongs to the church.

147: Did you ever read the record?
Well I expect I did, I can’t say whether I did or not, but it is likely I did. I can’t tell anything about it.

148: Well have you read it?
I don’t know that it is necessary for me to tell whether I have read it or not. It is under my control, and it is bery likely that in laying around I may have read it, but whether I did or not is something I can’t say now.

149: Well what office or offices did the parties hold who ordained you to the Presidency?
I expect they wee elders.

150: Can you name any of them?
I have told you that I do not remember.

151: Do you know that they were elders?
Yes sir.

152: How many of them ordained you?
I don’t remember how many there was took action in it. That is something I can’t remember as I have told you time and again.

153: What house was it at that you were ordained?
Well now I don’t remember whether it was at my house or at some other brother’s house. I can’t remember as to that.

154: You don’t remember whether it was at your house, or at the house of some other brother that you were ordained President of the defendant church?
No sir, I do not remember that just now.

155: How many were present at the time of your ordination?
I don’t remember that.

156: Can you name anybody else that was present except yourself?
Yes sir.

157: Well who was it?
Well I think Mr. Frisbie was present.

158: George Frisbie?
Yes sir, I think he was there.

159: Did he take a part in the ordination?
I can’t remember, as I told you before the parties that took part in it. I can’t remember I don’t think it is necessary to remember.

160: How far back does this record go?
The record of the church?

161: Yes sir?
I do not remember? It is away back though. to somewhere in the fifties, I don’t remember though how far back it is.

162: You do not – remember either how far back that church record goes that you refer to?
No sir.

163: Nothing further than that it is to somewhere in the fifties?
Yes sir, somewhere about 1850 I think. I don’t remember that positively either, but it is somewhere along about that time, I think.

164: Does the record show who was the President of the church, – the first one?
I think it does.

165: Who was it?
I believe it shows who it was.

166: Well who was it?
I believe it was Granville Hedrick.

167: Who succeeded him?
A man by the name of Judy.

168: John Judy?
No sir.

169: Well what was his name?
David Judy.

170: David Judy succeeded Granville Hedrick as President of the church?
Yes sir.

171: How long was he the President of the church?
I don’t know, but I think it was something like there or four years.

172: Who succeeded him?
I did.

173: Who succeeded you?
There is no one succeeded me yet.

174: Then you hold the Presidency of the defendant church yet?
No sir, I don’t hold the Presidency yet.

175: Well who is the President of the defendant church now?
At the present day?

176: Yes sir.
Mr. C.A. Hall.

177: Yes sir.
Mr. C.A. Hall in this case? 178 (This question and answer are missing)

179: Was he ordained President?
Yes sir.

180: Who ordained him?
I don’t know who they all were sir.

181: Do you know any of the partied who took a part in ordaining him?
I believe I was one of them.

182: And who assisted you?
I believe it was George Cole.

183: George Cole?
Yes sir, – G.D. Cole.

184: Was there any one else participated?
Yes sir.

185: Well who were they?
I don’t remember who the other parties were.

186: What office did you hold when?
An elder.

187: What office did Cole hold?
Elder.

188: When did it take place?
Whey did what take place?

189: When did the ordination of C.A. Hall as President of the church take place?
I don’t remember exactly but it was three or four years ago, or something like that. I can’t tell you just when it was, for I have no papers with me with which to refresh my recollection.

190: Do you remember the Charles A. Hall who was formerly a member of the plaintiff church?
I don’t remember or know anything about the members of the plaintiff church. I don’t know who were the members of the plaintiff church.

191: Don’t you know whether he was or was not formerly a member of the re-organized church or not?
No sir, I don’t know any such a thing. 192 (The question and answer are missing)

193: Do you say that he was not a member of the re-organized church at any time?
He might have been for anything I know to the contrary.

194: Did he claim to be a member, – to be an elder when he came to you?
Not that I know of.

195: Was he ever baptized into the defendant church?
Not that I know of.

196: He was never baptized that you know of into the defendant church?
I was not there to see whether he was baptized or not. I understood he was baptized into the Church of Christ some time ago, of which we both claim to be members.

197: But you did not see him baptized?
No sir.

198: Therefore you don’t know whether he was or not?
No sir.

199: Now is it not a fact that he was baptized the only time he ever was baptized for anything by an elder of the re-organized church?
I don’t know sir.

200: Well will you swear that he was not??
How could I swear that he was not when I don’t know.

201: When I say the “re-organized church” I mean the plaintiff in this case?
Yes sir, I understand.

202: Well will you swear that the, – will you swear that it is not a fact that the only baptism he ever received was at the hands of an elder in the plaintiff church?
I have stated that I did not know whether it was or not. How can I swear to something that I don’t know, and I will tell you that you are not going to get me to swear to something that I don’t know anything at all about.

203: You state that these taxes that you testified to as having paid, you stated that you paid them for the defendant church?
Yes sir.

204: Who composed that churh?
Who composed it.

205: Yes sir, sate who composed the church, – the defendant church?
I don’t know that I understand what you mean?

206: Well I asked you to state who were the members of the defendant church, – who composed it in other words?
Well that is something I could not do. I couldn’t name all the names.

207: Well name all you can?
Well there is myself and George Frisbie and his wife, and my wife, and Daniel Border and is wife, and James Hedrick, – is it necessary that I should tax my mind with trying to remember the names of all the members of this church. I would like to know if it is necrccary that I should do that.

208: Yes sir, – all that you can recollect?
Well I will say that I can’t recollect any more just now.

209: Do you say that you cannot recollect any more?
Now now, – not right off at the present time. Of course if I could and would tax my memory, I could remember them, but I can’t say that I remember any more at the present time, but I could state more if I could remember them, for there is no manner of doubt but that we have a good many more than that in our church.

210: Are you present here for answering such questions as you see fit to answer?
What is that?

211: Are you present here as a witness to answer only such questions as you see fit to answer, – just to answer such question as you seems necessary to answer?
I don’t so understand it, but I don’t see any necessity for answering these questions.

212: Why do you say you cannot see any necessity for answering this question?
Well because my memory don’t bring it all back to me at once in a way so that I can state it. I can’t remember all in a moment the names of all the members of the church, and I don’t think I should be expected to remember them, for it is almost an impossibility to do so, even for a person with the best memory. That is the reason I don’t see the necessity of requiring me to answer these questions all off-hand, for I can’t do it, and anyway it is my opinion that they have nothing to do with this case, but that is not the reason that I don’t answer the question, – I have answer it as well as I could, but I can’t remember all their names all at once.

213: Well these names you have given are the only names of members of the defendant church that you can remember?
Well C.A. Hall and his wife are two others. There is several children of his and several children of Frisbey’s that are also members of the church, and there are others besides these.

214: How many members are there in the defendant church at the present time?
How many belong to the church?

215: Yes sir?
Well at the present time there is perhaps fifty or sixty, – perhaps somewhere between fifty and sixty.

216: Well are you willing to swear that there is that many?
Well I think I could swear that there is that many. Well now I don’t know either that I could swear that there was that many, but still in swearing positively one would make a difference, – I believe there is about that many, – possibly there is more than that, but still I could not swear positively, for I don’t know just how many members there is in the church. Allow me to say that between fifty and sixty is as near as I can remember.

217: Is there any others that belong to this branch here, except those you have mentioned?
Do you mean any other members of the church?

218: Yes sir?
That belong to this branch?

219: Yes sir, any other members others than these you have mentioned that belong to this branch ere?
Yes sir.

220: Well name all the members that belong to this church or branch here?
Well I think the names I have mentioned is the most of them that belong to the branch here, if you include the children I have mentioned in the Hall and Frisbie families. All these families belong to the church.

221: Is Mrs. Granville Hedrick a member?
She is of the church, but not of the branch.

222: Is she a member of the church?
Yes sir, that is what I stated.

223: You swear to that, do you?
No sir, I think I am mistaken. I think she has been disfellowshipped from the church.

224: She was the wife, and is not the widow of Granville Hedrick the President of the church during his life time?
Yes sir.

225: What was she disfellowshipped for?
Well now, maybe I might answer that question by asking you one. What were you disfellowshipped from the church for? Maybe you might be able to give me some information on that point?

226: Well sir, I belong to the great big church where they don’t disfellowship people, and from which you cannot be disfellowshipped. They don’t disfellowship any person unless they send them to the penitentiary?
Well I am glad to know it sir. You want to know what we disfellowship members for, and I will tell you what it is done for. We disfellowship members for improper conduct, – for unchristian conduct.

227: Was not Mrs. Hedrick disfellowshipped because she would not consent to the mortgaging of the property in controversy in this case, and for no other reason?
I don’t know that is the reason.

228: Do you say that is not the reason?
I don’t know that it is. I am not aware that that was the reason.

229: Will you swear that is not the reason?
I don’t know anything at all about that reason. I don’t know of any such a reason at all, but I would be willing to swear that it was not for that reason.

230: Well was there not a man by the name of Franklin belonged to your church at one time with is wife?
Yes sir.

231: Are they members now?
No sir.

232: What became of them?
They were disfellowshipped.

233: What were they disfellowshipped for?
For unchristian conduct, sir.

234: What did this unchristian conduct consist of?
I don’t know that I shall state that. –

235: You say that they were disfranchised or disfellowshipped for unchristian conduct?
Yes sir.

236: And you decline to state what the reason, – that this unchristian conduct consisted of?
Yes sir, – that is something which has nothing to do with this case, – –

237: Were not Mr. Franklin and his wife disfellowshipped because they would not dress in a particular uniform?
I stated that it was for unchristian conduct that they were disfellowshipped.

238: This money that you paid taxes with – where did you obtain it?
I decline to answer that question sir.

239: Was it paid out of the church funds?
yes sir.

240: Who contributed it?
That I decline to answer.

241: You can answer that question as near as you can. Just state it as nearly as you know?
The funds came into my hands from different members of the church at different times and in different amounts, and so far as to state just what particular money I got from this one or that one it is utterly impossible for me to do so.

242: Well Id id not ask you that. I suppose the proper answer to the question would be “I don’t know, but it was paid to meny different members of the church?”
Well that is my answer.

243: Did Franklin and his wife contribute anything?
Not that I know of.

244: Are you prepared to swear that they did not?
Well I could swear to the best of my knowledge and belief that they did not.

245: You don’t know that they did?
I don’t remember of their ever putting in anything.

246: Now you say that this money with which you paid the taxes that you paid, was contributed by different members of the church?
Yes sir.

247: Well did Mrs. Granville Hedrick contribute?
No sir, – not that I know of.

248: If she contributed anything you don’t know it?
No sir.

249: Well do you swear that she did not contribute?
Well I would be willing to swear that she did not contribute, not to my knowledge, for I never knew her to contribute anything.

250: Did Mr. or Mrs. Haldeman contribute anything toward that fund?
Not that I know of.

251: Mrs. Haldeman and all her family have been disfellowshipped, have they not?
Yes sir, I think all of them but one.

252: Mr Sole and his family have been disfellowshipped also have they not?
Well we so hold. Well now I don’t know that name, but there is a man by the name of Soly.

253: S O L A, – is that the way it is spelled?
No sir, it is not spelled that way, – there is a “C: in it.

254: Is it spelled S c h o l y?
Well yes sir, I think that is pretty near it anyway, – if it is not spelled that way, that is something pretty near it at any rate.

255: Well did they contribute anything towards the church funds?
No sir.

256: They did not contribute anything to the funds of the church for the payment of these expenses?
No sir, not to my knowledge.

257: Do you know a gentleman by the name of White down at Richmond, Missouri?
What is that?

258: Do you know a gentleman by the name of White down at Richmond, Missouri?
White?

259: Yes sir, – he is a gentleman who was a high priest at one time?
No sir.

260: You don’t know anything about him?
No sir. I don’t remember that name.

261: He used to live here, but now lives down at Richmond?
I don’t remember that name at all.

262: Did you have a member of your church organization here at any time by the name of White?
White?

263: Yes sir, that is what I said?
I don’t remember that name at all. No sir, I haven’t now any recollection of that name.

264: Who was, – you had a member in your church here who was an elder in your church and lived down in Richmond, did you not? He is the one that gave up his license in your church at your conference here one time?
Perhaps so.

265: What was that man’s name?
That I can’t remember. I don’t remember any one’s name at all who was a member of the church by the name of White. I can’t remember any such a person.

266: Well perhaps his name was not White, but he is the man who gave up his license because he had been prohibited from preaching that Joseph Smith was the prophet, seer and revelator of church?
I can’t answer such questions positively, because I don’t know how it is, but there might have been such things done.

267: What other officers do you have in your church besides elders?
In our church?

268: Yes sir, – in the defendant church?
We have the offices of priest and teacher.

269: Is that all?
And high priest.

270: Well is that all?
Yes sir.

271: Have you any deacons?
Yes sir, I believe we have deacons.

272: Then you have high priests, priests, elders and deacons?
Yes sir, and teachers.

273: Teachers and deacons?
Yes sir.

274: Any others?
No sir.

275: Then you don’t have any bishops?
Well if you call that another office, – if you call that a different office, of course we have. We have the office of bishop, – I thought you understood that before.

276: You have a bishop?
Certainly.

277: Is the President the prophet, seer and revelator?
No sir.

278: You do not claim any such power then for your president?
No sir.

279: Who ordains the president?
How is that?

280: Who ordains the president of your church?
I have told you.

281: Answer the question?
What is that?

282: Who ordains the president of the church?
I believe he was made president by a vote, – by the consent of the church.

283: By common consent?
Yes sir, as near as I can remember.

284: Well is the president ordained, and if so by whom?
I don’t remember anything about it.

285: You don’t remember of any ordination?
No sir, I don’t remember anything about his being ordained.

286: That is Mr. C.A. Hall, the present president?
Yes sir.

287: Well do you say he was not ordained?
I don’t think he was. I can’t remember. 288 (Written as the second 283)

287: He was just elected by a vote of the body?
I think so. I think that was the way it was done.

289: How many members, – how many elders did you have in the church?
Do you mean with reference to the church here, – with reference to the local church here in Independence?

290: In the whole of the defendant church, how many elders have you?
I don’t know.

291: About how many?
I don’t know. Some five or six or seven. Something like that.

292: And that is some fiver or six or seven?
Yes sir, but I can’t say positively, for I don’t remember just at the spur of the moment.

293: How many high priest have you?
I can’t say for certain but there is some four or five.

294: There is some four of five high priest you say in the defendant church”?
Yes sir,-something like that.

295: Who are the high priests?
I am one.

296: Who are the others?
Cole is another.

297: What are his initials?
G.D. Cole,-he is another.

298: C.D. Cole is another?
G.D. Cole.

299: Who else,-who is another high priest?
G.P. Frisbie is another.

300: Who is the other one?
C.A. Hall is one.

301: Is that all of them?
I can’t remember any more just now.

302: Well now you have elders in your church you said?
Certainly.

303: Well who are your elder?
I believe all these I have mentioned are also elders. The ones I have mentioned as high priests are also elders.

304: Who also are elders besides the ones you have named?
I can’t remember just who they are. Yes, James Hedrick is one of them. I can’t remember all of them just now.

305: Then the high priest and elders are the same ones besides Hedrick who is an elder but is not an high priest?
Yes sir, he is an else, but not an high priest?

306: Then altogether you have five officers?
Yes sir. You can count them up and see. You have been putting them down and can see how many there is .

307: Do you recollect David Frampton?
Yes sir. I recollect that name.

308: Now don’t you recollect that he is one who delivered up his license to your conference,-don’t you recollect that he is the man who did that?
Yes sir.

309: You recollect that?
Yes sir, I believe he did.

310: Do you know why he did that?
No sir.

311: Did he not state why he did it at the time he delivered it up?
I don’t recollect that he did.

312: Did he not state at the time he delivered up his license, that the reason he delivered it up was because he was preaching that Joseph Smith the seer was a prophet, seer and revelator?
No sir, I don’t so understand it.

313: Do you say he did not so state, and his license was delivered up for that reason.
I remember that his license was delivered up, but I don’t know that it was for that reason.

314: You swear positively that it was not for that reason that he delivered up his license?
No sir, I don’t say any such a think. I say I don’t recollect what his reasons were for doing what he did.

315: Is it not true that the elders in the defendant church are prohibited from preaching and teaching that Joseph Smith the seer was a prophet, seer and revelator?
No sir, not to my knowledge. I don’t know of any such a prohibition.

316: Does the church believe he was a prophet, seer and revelator, and so teach?
Do mean old Joseph Smith?

317: Yes sir?
Yes sir.

318: Now who were,-now do you remember a man by the name of Martin that belonged to the church?
Martin?

319: Yes sir? A man by the name of Martin?
Yes sir, at one time I recollect the name, and recollect at one time a man by that name that belonged to the church.

320: Was he an-high priest?
Yes sir.

321: And also an elder?
Yes sir.

322: Was he dis-fellowshipped?
Yes sir.

323: What for?
What has that to do with this case I would like to know?

324: Answer the question, -what was he disfellowshipped for?
For unchristian conduct.

325: Now did not this unchristian conduct for which these (?) parties were dis-fellowshipped, consist, -and especially in the case of the Haldemans and Mrs. Hedrick, -did it not principally consist in their refusal to consent to the mortgaging of what was known as the temple property to certain parties in Salt Lake, to raise funds?
 

326: Is that not true?
what is not true?

327: Is not the unchristian conduct for which these parties were disfellowshipped, -did it not consist in their refusal to permit the mortagaging of this temple property to parties in Salt Lake to raise funds for the purpose of defending this suit, and other purposes?
No sir, it is not true.

328: You swear it is not true?
No sir, -not that i know of.

329: Did not the parties so claim in the meeting, -at your own meeting on the temple property, at the time they were disfellowshipped or before?
No sir, I don’t know anything about such doings at all. I don’t know anything about it at all.

330: At the time you were trying to mortgage the property , were you not?
What property?

331: The temple property, -the property in controversy in this case?
At what time?

332: At the time these parties were dis-fellowshipped?
I don’t know anything about mortgaging any property. If there is anything of that kind going on I don’t know anything at all about it.

333: Well was not that question discussed in your meeting at one time?
Not that I know of.

334: Was that question discussed at any time in any of your meetings?
Not that I know of.

335: Did not your president Charles A> Hall, have a revelation, or claim to have a revelation, authorizing that property to be sold?
To be sold,-

336: I should say mortgaged, -did he not claim to have a revelation authorizing that property to be mortgaged?
No sir, not that I know of.

337: Did he not so state it?
No sir, not that I know anything of.

338: Did not anybody, – did not somebody or anybody so state the fact to be in your meeting in the presence of Hall and yourself?
No sir, I don’t believe that they did.

339: Well do you say that they did not?
I say I don’t know anything about it. If it ever was done I don’t recollect it.

340: Was it not so stated in the presence of Mrs. Haldeman and Franklin and Mrs. Franklin?
No sir, not that I remember.

341: And Mrs. Hedrick and Alma Owen, the party that was on the witness stand here on Saturday?
I don’t know anything about any such an arrangement.

342: You don’t?
No sir.

343: Do you swear that you never heard that stated in any of your meetings?
I swear that I don’t recollect anything about it if there was.

344: Do you swear that there never was any such thing contemplated?
Not that I know of. Of course I don’t know anything about it if there was, – that is what I say.

345: If there was any such thing contemplated, it was without any authority from the church, was it?
If there was any such a thing, done, –

346: Contemplated, I said?
I don’t know of any such a thing being done.

347: If the Presedent of the defendant church, C.A. Hall has written any such a statement as that to parties who were members of the defendant church at any time he did it without any authority from the church did he not?
I don’t know anything about it at all, if it was done. If he has done that, and I don’t know that he has, he has done it on his own resources.

348: Do you know a man by the name of Reynolds?
Yes sir.

349: Who is an elder in the defendant church?
He was a member of our church at one time.

350: He was a member of your church you say?
Yes sir.

351: Wasn’t he an elder in the defendant church?
Possibly so. I don’t remember.

352: He was disfellowshipped, was he?
I don’t remember. He is not a member of the church now I believe but whether he was disfellowshipped or has withdrawn I don’t know how that is. I am not sure about that, for I don’t remember about it exactly.

353: Is it not a fact that he withdrew from the defendant church for the reason that the president of that church, C.A. Hall claimed to him (Reynolds) by written correspondence that he had a revelation authorizing the mortgaging of the property in controversy?
 

338: Did not anybody, – did not somebody or anybody so state the fact to be in your meeting in the presence of Hall and yourself?
No sir, 1 don’t believe that they did.

339: Well do you say that they did not?
I say I don’t know anything about it. If it ever was done I don’t recollect it.

340: Was it not so stated in the presence of Mrs. Haldeman and Franklin and Mrs. Franklin?
No sir, not that I remember.

341: And Mrs. Hedrick and Alma Owen, the party that was on the witness stand here on Saturday?
 

342: You don’t?
No sir.

343: Do you swear that you never heard that stated in any of your meetings?
I swear that I don’t recollect anything about it if there was.

344: Do you swear that there never was any such thing contemplated?
Not that I know of. Of course I don’t know anything about it if there was, – that is what I say.

345: If there was any such thing contemplated, it was without any authority from the church, was it?
If there was any such a thing, done, –

346: Contemplated, I said?
I don’t know of any such a thing being done.

347: If the Presedent of the defendant church, C.A. Hall has written any such a statement as that to parties who were members of the defendant church at any time he did it without any authority from the church did he not?
I don’t know anything about it at all, if it was done. If he has done that, and I don’t know that he has, he has done it on his own resources.

348: Do you know a man by the name of Reynolds?
Yes sir.

349: Who is an elder in the defendant church?
He was a member of our church at one time.

350: He was a member of your church you say?
Yes sir.

351: Wasn’t he an elder in the defendant church?
Possibly so. I don’t remember.

352: He was disfellowshipped, was he?
I don’t remember. He is not a member of the church now I believe but whether he was disfellowshipped or has withdrawn I don’t know how that is. I am not sure about that, for I don’t remember about it exactly.

353: Is it not a fact that he withdrew from the defendant church for the reason that the president of that church, C.A. Hall claimed to him (Reynolds) b written correspondence that he had a revelation authorizing the mortgaging of the property in controversy?
 
What is that?

354: I asked you if it is not a fact that Mr. Reynolds withdrew from your church for the reason that the President of the defendant church through the medium of written correspondence claimed that he had a revelation authorizing the mortgaging of the temple property, – the property in controversy?
I don’t know a thing about that at all.

355: And for that reason he withdrew?
I don’t know anything about it at all.

356: Did the president of the defendant church, C.A. Hall ever claim to you that he had such a revelation?
No sir.

357: Are you the trustee of this property in controversy?
Yes sir.

358: For what church do you hold it as trustee?
For the church of Christ.

359: The church of Christ organized the 6th day of April 1830?
Yes sir.

360: Of which Joseph Smith, Jr. the seer, was the president?
No sir, I don’t think he ever was a president of that church.

361: Do you say he was not its president?
I don’t so understand that he was.

362: I mean the original Joseph Smith, who was called Joseph Smith, the Seer?
Who are you talking about? Is it the one that organized the church on the 6th day of April 1830?

363: Yes sir?
Yes sir. It is not the present Joseph Smith, for he is in the church while his father was the church. He is the one I mean and not this Joseph Smith.

364: Then you refer to the church of which Joseph Smith Jr, the Seer, was the President?
Yes sir.

365: And it is the same church that you claim to hold the property in controversy in this case, in trust for?
Yes sir, – he is the one, – he organized the church on the 6th of April 1830 as I understand it.

366: And you hold the property in trust for the succession of the church that was organized in 1830?
No sir, – we hold it in trust as that church for the church. We claim to be a part and parcel of that church, and hold this property in trust for that church, which we are.

367: And for the church that is in the succession?
 

368: is that not true Mr. Hill?
Of course I do, and we claim to be the original church. That is our claim and we hold it for the church, which we claim to be.

369: Is it not true that you claim, and hold, and have always so claimed and held since you have been the trustee, to hold the property in trust for the legal succession of the church that was organized in 1830?
In no owner way have we held it than for the church, and we claim to be the church in legal succession from 1830 down to the present. We are holding it in trust for the church that is represented by us, and which we claim is the church which was organized by Joseph Smith on the 6th day of April 1830 as history records it. We claim to hold this property in that way, as being part and parcel of that very church organized at that time.

370: Have you not stated on different occasions that you were willing to turn the property over to any church that would show it was the legal successor of the church organized in 1830?
No sir.

371: Yo swear that you did not make that statement to any one at any time?
I did not.

372: Did you not make that statement to Alexander H. Smith here at Independence?
No sir.

373: You did not?
No sir.

374: And also did you not make that statement to E.L. Kelley, Bishop of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, here at Independence?
No sir.

375: You solemnly swear that you did not make that statement neither to Alexander H. Smith or to E.L. Kelley at any time, here in the city of Independence?
No sir, – not in that manner, –
Now understand I don’t deny that I had a conversation with them in which I said anything worded the way you have it. I did not word it as you state it for I know what I said. I remember that all right.

376: Well word it just as you state it?
No sir, I did not state it that way.

377: Well I say for you to word it just as you stated it to Alexander H. Smith? Word it just as you stated it according to your version, to Alexander H. Smith and E.L. Kelley?
I stated it like this, if I stated anything at all, that if the Lord would make it known that there was any one he wished as the instruments in his hands to use that property, that we would say amen to it, and that He was welcome to it.

378: That was what you said?
That was about the substance of what I said if I said anything.

379: Well now did you not say at the same time and place, that the legal successor to the original church was the proper party to hold the property?
What is that? Say what?

380: That the legal succession to the original church was the proper party or parties to hold the property?
No sir.

381: You did not state that?
No sir, I did not so state it.

382: Do you swear that you did not make that statement to Alexander H. Smith and E.L. Kelley?
No sir, I did not say that.

383: Do you not say now that the legal succession to the original church established in 1830 is the proper beneficiary of that property?
 
I can’t say.

384: Do you not state that now?
What is the question?

385: I asked you if you do not say now that the legal succession to the original church established in 1830 is the proper beneficiary of that property?
I don’t remember that I said that.

386: I am not asking you if you said that then. I am asking you if you say it now?
I say that those who have held themselves faithful in the doctrine and laws of the true church are the proper successors t the original church. That is what I say, and I say that they are the right ones to have it.

387: Who are they that comply with this requirement?
The ones that have conducted themselves right, and have not violated any law of the church, the ones that have not transgressed any law are the proper ones, for they are the rightful possessors of the property.

388: You say they are the ones that ought to have control of it?
Now you have asked for my opinion and I have given it to you for what is worth, and that is all I have to say on that question.

389: Well you have also expressed your opinion upon the other subject?
Well I don’t know that I have. I don’t know that it is necessary for me to do that.

390: If you knew that the reorganized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was the proper and legal successor of the original church established in 1830 would you still decline to turn the property over?
If it is necessary for me to answer that question I can answer it.

391: It is not necessary in my opinion, but still it is about as necessary to answer it as it has been for you to answer nearly every question that has been asked you.
 

392: Do you decline to answer that question?
Yes sir.

393: What is your reason for declining to answer it?
For the reason that I think I have answered enough.

394: Then I am to understand that you would not be willing to surrender the property, even if you knew absolutely that the plaintiff in this case was the legitimate and true succession to the original church established in 1830?
 

395: What is your answer?
What is the question? It is so long since you asked it that I have forgotten what it was.

396: First, I will ask you if your powers of trustee are a matter of record?
Yes sir.

397: Where?
I don’t know.

398: Don’t you know where the record is that contains your powers as trustee?
No sir, I don’t know whose hands that record is in now. That is something I don’t know.

399: Well, what is your best impression as to where they are?
I cannot say, for sometimes one of the brethren of the committee has them, and sometimes another, and I can’t say which one has them now. We pass them around from time to time for convenience, and I can’t say where they are now.

400: Did the plaintiffs in this suit ever make a demand on you for the property in controversy in this action?
 

401: Prior to the payment of a part of these taxes that you have testified to here as having paid?
I decline to answer that question.

402: You decline to answer that question also?
Yes, sir.

403: Why do you decline to answer it?
 

404: Did the plaintiffs in this suit ever make a demand for the possession of the property in controversy in this suit prior to the time of the payment of a portion of the taxes that you have testified here as having paid? Now, you will understand that the plaintiff I refer to is an incorporated orgainization with headquarters at Lamoni, Iowa?
Did you say preious to paying any taxes?

405: No, previous to paying any part of them?
When?

406: That is for you to say. Previous to paying any part of the taxes you have testified as having paid – say within the last four or five years?
Yes sir, if I remember right they served a kind of a notice on me at one time.

407: Was that four or five years ago?
I don’t remember.

408: Well was it about that time?
I don’t recollect the time, but is was some years ago. I don’t remember just when it was, but I would say that it was at least that long ago.

409: Was it not about the time that you were fixing to build that house there?
I can’t say, for I don’t remember about that, but I recollect anyway that they served a notice on me.

410: You recollect the fact that they served a notice on you, but you don’t recollect the time it was done?
Yes sir, I remember about the notice, but I don’t remember the date.

411: Do you recollect who it was served that notice on you at that time?
I can’t say that I do.

412: Now is it not a fact that that notice was served on you by E. L. Kelley for Bishop Blakeslee, is that not the fact. Mr. Hill?
E. L. Kelley was the one that read the notice to me I believe if I remember right. I did not remember that at first, but I do now that you call my attention to it. Yes sir, that was the way it was probably.

413: Well, E. L. Kelley was the man that served it on you?
Yes sir, I presume you would call serving it on me, -he read some kind of notice to me.

414: The demand was recited in that notice to turn the property over to Bishop Blakeslee, was it not?
I don’t remember anything about that.

415: Well, do you remember that it did not recite that demand?
I say that I don’t remember anything about that. I remember that fact that what you call the notice was read to me, but I don’t remember what its contents were.

416: You may state what are the geographical limits of what is known as the branch here at Independence?
Do you want to know how far it extends?

417: Yes sir?
Well I believe it has a radius of five miles. That is its limits if I am not mistaken.

418: When was that radius fixed?
I don’t remember.

419: How long ago, about, was it that that limits was fixed as the geographical limits of the branch here at Independence?
That I cannot say. It was several years ago, but I don’t just remember when it was.

420: Was it from three to five years ago?
Some where about that I think.

421: Was that the rule in the original church established in 1830?
I can’t say as to that for I don’t remember whether it was or not.

422: Well was there any rule on that subject?
That I don’t remember. That is something I can’t remember. I don’t remember what the rule was in the church at that time.

423: Well was there any rule on that subject?
That I don’t remember.

424: You were, you are familiar with the rules relating to branches, and if there was ny rule in the original church relating to them in respect to defining their limits, you were familiar with that rule-were you not, if there was such a rule in the original church?
Not so very much, for it was so long ago, and I was young then, and I can’t remember as well as I could once.

425: Well can’t you recollect from reading?
Well not very much.

426: Well was there any rule at all with reference to that question in the original church?
I can’t remember.

427: You say the defendant church established that rule from three to five years ago?
I should judge it was about that long ago as well as I can remember.

428: What was your answer?
I said I should judge it was about that long ago.

429: That was from three to five years ago?
Yes sir.

430: Now is it not a fact that the members of your own church without a, – beyond a radius of five miles, are not permitted to vote in your own church meetings here in Independence?
I don’t hardly understand. There is a common consent for all the members to take part in proceedings at different times. We don’t prohibit them, if the rule would.

431: Is there a common consent here in your church meeting is in Independence, for all the members of the church outside of the five mises limit to take part in it?
No sir, they are not permirred to do so, except by the courtesy of the branch here, if they live outside of the limit.

432: Then these parties that live outside of the five mile limit are not permitted to vote?
No sir, not in all the meetings, but in some of them they are.

433: How many of these high priests are outside of the five mile limit?
I can’t say.

434: Are Hall and Cole outside of the five mile limit?
Cole is.

435: Is Hall outside of it?
No sir.

436: Is Frisbie outside of the five mile limit?
No sir.

437: He is inside it?
Yes sir.

438: Is Alma Owen outside the five mile limit?
Alma Owen?

439: Yes sir?
He is not an high priest.

440: Well how many of the elders of the church are outside of this five mile limit?
I can’t say.

441: Well about how many? Give us your best recollection.
I do not just remember.

442: Is Martin?
I don’t remember.

443: Is James Hedrick outside?
No sir.

444: James Hedrick is within the limit?
Yes sir.

445: Is Alma Owen?
No sir, Alma Owen is out of the limit.

446: Is it not a fact that the church here at Independences, Missouri, has not to exceed fourteen members?
I don’t know.

447: Well do you say there is that many, or more than that many?
Well I would not know without taking the books and counting them up. I can’t just remember off hand how many members there is.

448: Well will you swear that there is more than eleven belongs to this branch here at Independence?
I don’t want to swear at all as to how many there is, because I don’t remember.

449: Does the defendant church believe in a prophet?
Does the church belive in what?

450: Does the defendant church believe in a prophet?
Believe in a prophet?

451: Yes sir?
(laughing) Well that is kind of funny. That is a funny question to ask a Mormon, – to ask him if he believes in a prophet. Well, well that is a new experience to me.

452: Well answer the question?
Of course they all believe in a prophet s far as my understanding goes. I have yet to see one who did not, for if he did not he could not belong to the church.

453: They all believe in a prophet, you say?
Yes sir, they all do as far as my understanding and knowledge goes. I have never seen one that did not.

454: Then the defendant church believes in a prophet?
Why certainly it does.

455: And they believe that it is proper to have one in the church, do they?
They believe it is a good idea to have one if they can get a genuine one.

456: Well do you have any prophet now?
I don’t know, –
I don’t know sir.

457: Do you decline to answer that question also?
Yes sir.

458: Why do you decline to answer the question?
Because I do not think it is necessary.

459: If you know you may answer the question, with the object to the question that it is wholly irrelevant and immaterial?
What is the question? Did you ask me if we had a prothet?

460: Yes sir?
I don’t remember that we have at the present time.

461: Do you have an apostle?
No sir.

462: Do you have anybody?
What is that?

463: Do you have anybody who claims to be a prophet who is a member of your church?
No sir, I don’t know of any one who claims to be a prophet.

464: Has there been any revelation received by the defendant church within the past fifteen years?
 

465: Answer the question?
Well am I to understand, – revelations accepted by the church or given to the church.

466: Given or accepted, – received, – given to any member of the church and received by the church and accepted by the church?
I don’t know of any being accepted.

467: Do you know of any being received by the members of the defendant church?
No sir.

468: You don’t know of any revelation being presented to the church by any member of it for acceptance?
No sir.

469: What is that?
I said no.

470: Then you don’t know anything about any revelation being presented to the church by any member of it for acceptance?
No sir.

471: You don’t?
No sir, that is what I said two or three times.

472: If there had been would you have known it?
I can’t say, I might have known it if I had been there at the time it was presented.

473: Well you attend regularly don’t you?
I attend as regularly as I can.

474: You attend as regularly as you can, – well how regularly is that?
Quite regularly.

475: Do you know of any important meeting of the church that you have not attended in the last five years?
Will the meetings are all important to me. I don’t know any difference in their importance to me for one is just as important as another to me.

476: They are all important to you?
Yes sir, to me they are all important, and I don’t know of one that is of more importance to me than another.

477: Who is your church recorder?
G.P. Frisbie.

478: Who is your church librarian?
We haven’t any.

479: Who is your church secretary?
G.P. Frisbie.

480: He is your recorder and secretary both?
Yes sir.

481: Why do you call him secretary?
We call him the secretary because he acts in that capacity.

482: What rule, if any, has the branch of the defendant church here in Independence, made within the last two years with reference to the matter of dress?
Dress?

483: Yes sir, the dress of its members?
 

484: What is your answer?
It has made no rule at all.

485: Do you swear there has been no rule adopted by the church with reference to the question of dress?
No sir.

486: There has been no rule.
No sir. No rule.

487: Has there been anything done on the question?
Yes sir. There has been exhortations on that question, but there has been no such rule adopted.

488: No body has been disfellowshipped on that account?
On what account?

489: Because they would not comply with the rule on dress?
No sir. I said that there had been no rule adopted on dress, – that was merely a matter of exhortation and advice to the church but there was not anything in the nature of a rule about it.

490: Will you say that there was no one dis-fellow-shipped on account of their failure to observe the rule, so called, on account of dress?
No sir, not that alone.

491: Have they not been charged with that particular thing, or has that not been a part of the charge?
I don’t remember. It might have been.

492: Could it be a part of the charge unless it was a rule of the church?
Well yes sir, I think it could.

492: You think it could?
Yes sir.

495: That is, you think the charge against a member of the church could maintain a specification regarding the matter of dress, even though the question if dress was not a rule of the church?
Yes sir.

496: The it is a fact that in the defendant church members can be charged with misdemeanors that are not against the rules of the church, and can be expelled from the church on that account? Is that what I understand you to say?
Well no. I don’t say that.

497: Well what do you say about it?
I don’t think they can be expelled for that. I don’t think that is so, but they can be charged with conduct that the church thinks is unbecoming if it is taken in connection with violation of specific rules of the church, while in itself this conduct would not cause them to be expelled, still it can be considered in connection with other offences against the rules of the church. They cannot be expelled unless there is rules or something to that effect governing the matter.

498: Well if there were members expelled with charges against them for not complying with the rules relating to dress, it would be because of the rule of the church on that subject would it not?
 

499: Answer the question?
I don’t hardly know how to answer that question.

500: Well, if members had been expelled, or have been expelled from the defendant church, where the charge has been disobeying the rule or usage in regard to dress, it would be because the church had established such a rule would it not?
I don’t think anybody has been discharged for that matter. I think the ones that have been disfellowshipped have been so treated because of other things. I don’t think the matter of dress was the cause of their being disfellowshipped.

501: Well that is hardly an answer to my question. I will repeat my question, – if members have been expelled from the church to which you belong, where the charge has been disobeying the rule or usage of the church in regard to dress, it would be because the church had established that rule, wouldn’t it?
Well not necessarily.

502: It would be for that and other things together?
Yes sir.

503: That would be the way it would be?
Yes sir, and I think it has been for that and other things together, but for me to testify what it was in any individual case I could not do it, for I don’t remember.

504: Were not Franklyn and his wife disfellowshipped for refusing to comply with that particular rule, and for nothing else?
No sir, I don’t think it was for that and nothing else. I think there was other things.

505: Do you know what the other things were?
No sir.

506: Was not that the only thing that was specified in the charge?
I don’t remember.

507: Well do you say that was not the only thing?
I don’t remember whether it was or not.

508: Was not the charge for rebellion?
I don’t remember.

509: Do you say the charge was not rebellion?
I say I don’t remember.

510: Were you not one of the judges of the trial court, so to speak?
Yes sir, I believe I was.

511: Well what was the charge?
I don’t remember how the charge read. I don’t remember at this time how the charge read.

512: As a matter of fact was that not the only thing?
What was the only thing?

513: That the charge ws the charge of rebellion, and that was all there was to it?
I don’t remember whether or not that was the only thing. I don’t remember whether it was that along or something else.

514: Do you remember anything else that was in the charge?
I say I can’t remember whether that was the only thing or not. There might or might not have been other things in it. I can’t say now whether there was or not.

515: Well was that not a part of the charhe?
Yes sir I believe that was a part of the charge.

516: That was because Franklyn and his wife refused to dress in the uniform or particular kind of dress that had been prescribed.
 

517: Do you say that it was not the case?
I say that we had not prescribed any kind of dress. We have not done that, and never have.

518: Well you prescribed it under the name of “plain dress” did you not?
That was all that was done, but as for the description or uniform pattern of it that was not done. We did not prescribe any kind of a pattern or uniform to be worn, – that is, one of any particular pattern.

519: Did you not go further than that and prescribe a certain kind of cloth as a sample or pattern?
No sir, not by any rule of the church.

520: Did you not get the samples and present them to the members?
Yes sir, there were some samples got.

521: Still you say there was no rule on the members to conform to this pattern?
Yes sir, I say there was no rule of the church that prescribed it, – it was simply advisory, – they were not to be forced to conform to it unless they saw fit. It was left to the individuals to decide for themselves what they should wear.

522: Why did you charhge a man with rebellion when he was violating no rule of the church?
I don’t know that we ever done such a thing. I don’t know that we ever charged any body with rebellion unless they had been guilty of rebellion. (Question 523 is missing)

524: Did you not charge Franklyn with rebellion, and the only thing he had been guilty of was in refusing to dress according to the samples that you and Hall presented to him?
No sir.

525: Frisbie and Hall I mean?
No sir.
No sir. We are not guilty yet of attempting to dic- tate to a man as to what he shall wear or what he shall not wear. We have not got fown to that yet.

526: You have not attempted that yet?
No sir, we haven’t attempted it yet, and it is very unlikely that we ever will.

527: And you are just as positive of that statement as you are of anything else you have testified to?
Yes sir, just the same, for I know what I am talking about all right enough.

528: And you are positive of the fact that Mrs Haldeman was not excluded for the same reason and for nothing else?
What is that?

529: I asked you if you were just as positive of the fact that Mrs. Haldeman was not excluded for the same reason and for nothing else?
Did I say she was disfellowshipped?

530: Well answer the question?
She was not dis-fellowship, – she was not disfellowshipped at all, – she withdrew and wasn’t dis-fellowshipped.

531: Well she withdrew because she would not comply with your ruling in relation to dress? Is that not the cause of her withdrawal?
I don’t know.

532: Did she not so state it in your meeting?
Not that I heard of.

533: Do you say that she did not make that statement in your meeting?
I never heard her make any such a statement. I never heard her say any such a thing.

534: Will you swear that there was anything else than that that cause her to withdraw.
I don’t know of anything that cause her to withdraw. She knows herself what caused her to withdraw.

535: Do you know why she withdrew?
No sir. I don’t know anything about it. She just withdrew and did not tell me why she withdrew, and I never had any talk with her on the subject.

536: You said I believe before we adjourned for noon, that you did not know why Mrs. Haldeman withdrew?
No sir, she did not tell me anything about her reasons that I remember anything about. Now before you ask me any further question I want to say that there are several matters that I did not fully understand when you questioned me regarding them, and I have though of them since and want them corrected on the record. One was in regard, –

537: Well that may be done by questions asked by your attorney on your re-examination?
Well it was in relation to Mrs. Franklin, –

538: Well what is it?
If I understood it correctly I understood Mr. Kelley to say or ask me if they dis-fellowshipped and I said they were. Well I was mistaken in that, for they were not dis-fellowshipped but withdrew. Now that is the facts in relation to them; and another thing is in relation to Daniel Border and his wife who were members. If they were members I have forgotten the fact, but his wife is not a member at the present. His wife is not a member of the church at the present time, but my recollection of my testimony is that I gave you to understand that she was, but when I come to refresh my recollection I know she is not a member. Now that is the correction I wish to make together with the correction regarding the Franklins, for they withdrew and were not disfellowshipped. The question was a little past my memory so as to be able to answer it at the time it was asked correctly, but when I come to look it over I remember that they were not disfellowshipped but withdrew. I can’t think of all these things off hand, so as to answer them without reflection, but I have done the best I could under the circumstances. Now that is not all for I made a in regard to Soehle. I stated that his family were disfellowshipped. Now that is not the truth, for they were partly disfellowshipped, and partly they withdrew.

539: Some were disfellowshipped?
Yes sir, and some others of the family withdrew. Now that is all I wish to state now by way of explanation, further than to say that the Haldeman’s were in the same way, some of them were disfellowshipped and some of them withdrew, and if in my prior testimony I failed to make that statement with reference to the ones that withdrew and the ones that were disfellowshipped I do it now. Perhaps I did not state how many withdrew and how many were disfellowshipped, and that is the reason that I make this statement now. I do not know of anything further that I can say by way of explanation. These questions were asked so quick, one after another, that I could not answer them definitely as I would like to have done, and did not know it was necessary, particularly necessary that I should do so.

540: Is that all?
That is all the correction I wish to make.

541: During the intermission have you refreshed you recollection sufficiently to be able to state the exact number of members that belong to the branch of the defendant church here at Independence?
No sir, but I believe I can come pretty near it. Now I wish to say that you asked me that before, and it was one of the questions which I think I did not understand you in. I supposed you asked me how many members there was of the church. I did not understand you to say the branch. I don’t know whether you asked me that or not, but I think now that was the question you asked me.

542: I asked you both questions, first I asked you with reference to the church, and then with reference to the branch? I will ask you how many members there are in the branch?
Well I believe as near as I can remember in the branch here there is about twelve or thirteen members. Now that is my opinion, for I cannot say positively as I have not counted the members in the branch.

543: Have you not examined the record during the intermission so as to see how many members the defendant church actually has in its members?
No sir, I did not.

544: Do you know how many members there is who actually belong to the defendant church?
No sir, I do not.

545: What other property, if any, except the property in controversy in this suit, are you the trustee in trust to the church for? I mean the defendant church?
Do you mean what other property outside of this property?

546: Yes sir?
None. I know of none.

547: Are you the sole trustee?
I believe I am.

548: Are you the sole bishop of the church?
Yes sir.

549: Under the law of the defendant church does the property of the church necessarily go into the hands of a bishop or trustee?
 

550: What is the answer?
I don’t know.

551: You don’t know what?
I don’t know that I am able to answer that question. I can’t say that I am able to answer that. I would if I could, but I don’t beleive I can do so.

552: Is there any law of the church regulating that subject, and if so in that book can it be found?
Do you mean by what means the property comes into the hands of the bishop?

553: Yes sir, under what law does it come into the hands of the bishop, or under his control, if there is a law governing that subject?
Yes sir, I believe there is a law governing that, but I don’t remember what the law is or where it is.

554: Is it by virtue of a revelation found in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that was promulgated through Joeseph the Seer?
I haven’t the proper books here to ascertain whether it is the fact or not and therefore I cannot say.

555: Is it by virtue of the same law that creates the office of bishop?
 

556: What is your answer?
I don’t just remember how the law reads in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

557: Then you do not know where the law is to be found, if there is such a law?
I think there is a law on the subject, but I can’t just bring my mind to where it is, so that I can say where it is.

558: Well do you refer to the revelation in the book of Covenants that was given through the prophet Joseph Smith, the Seer?
 

559: Well I don’t assume that he does,- I am asking him if he does?
I don’t remember any thing about it at all.

560: Well do you say you don’t recollect what is said about it in the book of Doctrine and Covenants? Do you say you don’t know what it is that is stated in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
There is some law there on that subject I think, but I do not know what it is, or where it is.

561: Well do you refer to any law that is recorded in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Well I say I don’t know where that law is recorded. At what time that was received I don’t know. There is some revelations there in that book of Doctrine and Covenants that I don’t have any use for.

562: Is that one of them?
I can’t tell unless I know the date when that one was received,- that is the date where it is recorded, for there are a good many that I don’t hold to or recognize as authoritative.

563: Is the law in,- is it by virtue of the revelation that is set out in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that was given through the prophet Joseph Smith, the seer, about the year 1832 or ’33, which you refer to?
 

564: What is your answer?
What is the question, – I don’t recollect the question?

565: I asked you if it was by virtue and under the authority of the revelation that was given about the year 1832 or ’33 through Joseph Smith, as it is set out in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
I do not feel able to answer that question understandingly.

566: Do you say you don’t know what the rule of the original church was on that subject?
I forget now what it was.

567: Well do you say you ever knew?
I might have known on the start, but if I did I have forgotten now what it was. It is so long ago that I can’t remember it, if I ever knew it, for it is a thing that I have not charged my memory with.

568: Were you ordained a bishop by the President of the church?
 

569: You may answer?
I don’t believe I can answer that question.

570: Why can’t you answer it?
Because I don’t feel like answering it.

571: Way don’t you feel like answering it?
What is the question you asked me?

572: I asked you if you were ever ordained a bishop by the President of any church?
Yes sir.

573: You were?
Yes sir. I expect I was. 574 (Written as the second 573)

573: Who by?
Who ordained me?

575: Yes sir?
Let me see, – I believe it was by Frisbie and Cole and Hall. I think it was them that did it.

576: By Frisbie and Cole and Hall?
I think they were the ones that did it as near as I can remember.

577: Are you positive that these were the fellows that ordained you?
What is that?

578: I asked you if you were positive that these were the men that ordained you?
No sir, I am not real positive about it.

579: Well if they did it, – if these three parties did not ordain you were you ordained at all?
No, I reckon not.

580: Well now was that ordination conducted?
I don’t remember.

581: How long ago has it been since you were so ordained if at all?
I don’t just remember but I expect it was over two years ago, I think it was about two years ago.

582: It was about two years ago?
Yes sir, something like that I think. It was probably over two years ago.

583: You were ordained bishop over two years ago.
Yes sir, something in that neighborhood, I think.

584: Is that all the time you have been bishop of that church?
Yes sir.

585: For two years or a little over?
Two or three years I think. I don’t remember just how long it was but I think it was about that time, – two or three years amore or less.

586: Were you the first bishop of the church here?
No sir.

587: Was there a bishop before you?
Yes sir.

588: Who was the bishop before you?
William Eaton, I think.

589: How was he the bishop or was he simply the trustee?
He was the bishop. 590 (Question and answer missing for this number)

591: Who ordained him?
I don’t know.

592: Was he ever ordained the bishop?
Well I don’t know who ordained him. I did not see him ordained, and consequently I don’t know that he was the bishop but I will say that I understood that he was the bishop of the church, and that he acted in that capacity.

593: How long was he the bishop?
He was bishop I should say four or five years.

594: Four or five years?
Yes sir, maybe five or six years, – I don’t know just how long he was the bishop.

595: Who was the bishop before his time?
That I don’t know.

596: Who was the President of the church while Eaton was the bishop?
Who was the President of the church at that time, – that is while William Eaton was bishop?

597: Yes sir?
Granville Hedrick.

598: How many members were in the church at the time when you were ordained bishop?
Well I declare I don’t know. I declare I cannot tell you.

599: Well about how many was there?
I could not say.

600: Approximate it. I don’t care about having the exact number but you surely can approximate it, can’t you?
Well anything I would tell you would be simply guessing, and I don’t like to do any guess work in a thing like this.

601: Well give us your best judgment as to the number?
Well I say I don’t like to do that, for that would be guess work.

602: Well how many more was there in the church then than there is now?
I can’t say.

603: Well was there one hundred?
No sir.

604: There was not one hundred more members in the church then than there is now?
No sir, I don’t think so.

605: Was there fifty?
Hardly that.

606: Was there forty?
I don’t remember, but maybe there was that many.

607: Well then there was several more members in the church then than there is now was there not?
Yes sir, there was several more, but I can’t say how many there was.

608: Well how was your appointment as bishop brought about?
 

609: Answer the question?
How was I appointed bishop?

610: Yes sir, – how did your appointment as bishop come about?
In the usual way.

611: Well how was that?
By a simple vote of the church.

612: Was it by a simple vote of the church, or was it by a revelation?
Well I reckon it was by a vote of the church, but there might have been some such thing as a revelation, but I do not now remember how that was. I don’t remember just positively how that was.

613: How what was?
Whether there was a revelation or not. I do not just remember how that was.

614: Who contributes the funds necessary to defray the expenses of the defendant church in this suit?
 

615: Now in asking that question I do not refer to the individuals who contribute in their individual capacity?
 

616: What is the answer?
Well I furnish some of my own. I know that.

617: Does any body else. I know I don’t furnish it all.
I expect it is likely they do. I know I don’t furnish it all.

618: Can you name any of them that furnish funds to assist in the defraying of the expenses of the defendant in defending this suit?
What is that?

619: Can you name any of the other parties who contribute towards this object?
I don’t know as I can just now.

620: You can’t name any others just now?
I can’t remember their names just now. I can’t remember the names of the parties who have put money into my hands at various times for that purpose, – that is, I can’t remember their names just now.

621: How much, if any, has been contributed by what is known as the Salt Lake Mormon church which at the present time is under that leadership of Wilford Woodruff, – how much, if anything, has been paid by them to defray the expenses on the part of the defendant in this suit?
I don’t know of any.

622: Or by any member of that church?
I don’t know of any.

623: That is all?
 

624: You have been asked Mr. Hill if you claim this property as trustee, by virtue of your, – of the church which you represent being the successor of what is called the original church here?
 
What is that?

625: I say you have been asked how you claimed this property here?
Yes sir.

626: How you claimed the property in controversy here, and I want you to explain how you do claim it Mr. Hill?
I think I have stated that full enough.

627: Well state how it is?
Well sir, the reason is because I have control of the property by reason of the fact that we own it legally because we have bought it and paid for it. That is the way we own it and that is the reason we consider it ours.
(continued) We bought the property and paid for it, and I have had proper deeds to it for quite a number of years, for twenty years I suppose it has been ours, and we have had deeds to it.

628: By what authority do you claim this property down here known as the temple property or lot?
Well that is it.

629: Now you have been inquired of as to your authority. Now what authority do you claim for your exercise of the rights of ownership over that property? Explain fully by what authority you claim it?
By being the legal trustee of the church.

630: I wish you would explain how you, in whose authority you claim it, or under whose authority, as the successor of whom?
Of Granville Hedrick.

631: Do you claim any authority that Granville Hedrick did not possess?
No sir.

632: In speaking of this Church of Christ, concerning which you have testified, explain whether you mean a particular organization or not?
 

633: Explain whether you mean a particular organization or not?
Why certainly I do.

634: What organization do you mean?
The organization here at Independence and no other.

635: Well then if you claimed it by reason of the fact that you were, because you claimed you church to be the successor of the original church, organized in 1830, did that express your meaning?
Well if you want me to explain what I meant I will try and do so. I will do the best I can.

636: Well do so?
We claim that we are members of the church that was organized in 1830.

637: Upon what do you base that claim?
Well because of our claim, -because of our belief in the doctrines that were taught by that church, and we as a part of an parcel of the church that purchased this property. That is the way we claim it.

638: Don’t you claim it primarily because you have purchased it and paid for it?
Yes sir.

639: That is the reason you claim it?
Yes sir, I don’t see how we can have any other claim to it.

640: The claim that you have to it is based upon the purchase of it, is evidence by the deeds that you have introduced in evidence here is it not?
Yes sir.

641: You base your claim upon the deeds that have been put in evidence here from the parties that were members f your church, that is the basis upon which you base your claim as well as upon the claim that your church is the true church in succession from the original church?
Yes sir. From the deeds that we have in our possession.

642: That is the ground upon which you base your claim?
 

643: I have the right, as I consider it, to cross examine this witness upon matters brought out by the plaintiffs which was not proper cross-examination. You went into it in a manner that makes your cross examination, so called, of this witness in reality examination in chief and I take it I have the right to cross examine him upon these matters. He was asked questions concerning matters which were not referred to in the examination in chief, and for that reason I insist I am examining him properly.
 

644: well we will let the Court determine this matter. Now Mr. Hill you have been asked about where you obtained the money expended for this property in the payment of taxes and other ways?
Yes sir.

645: I will ask you if you got any of it from the organized church?
No sir.

646: You did not get any of it from the re-organized church, – the plaintiff in this suit?
 

647: And you asked the other question too. I think you did. Well let the record stand as it is, – it satisfies me if it satisfies you, gentlemen. Now are you cognizant of where any of the money was obtained that purchased this property as shown by the deeds in your possession?
I know where some of it came from.

648: Well where did it come from?
I paid some of it myself.

649: Can you state as a matter of fact where it came from, – that is with reference as to whether or not the re-organized church, the plaintiff in this suit ever paid any of it?
I have no knowledge that they ever did.

650: In answer to a question asked you by the plaintiffs you spoke about the successorship from what you termed the “original church” established in 1830. Now will you please state to the reporter how far you hold to the doctrines of the original church, – in what years of his history?
 

651: From what time?
We believe in and hold to the doctrines of the original church at least to ’33 or ’34.

652: Now then you have been inquired of here as to whether you claim successorship from the original church, – do you have any claim of successorship from the original church after that time?
No sir.

653: Is it not a fact that you repudiate the original church after that time?
Yes sir.

654: As it existed from the years ’34 and ’35 or about that time?
Yes sir.

655: Now the question I asked you is whether or not you repudiated the church as it existed in ’34 or ’35 or after that time, – whether or not you repudiated the general organization of the church after the years 1834 or ’35.
Yes sir. We repudiated the doctrines that were taught in many senses after ’34.

656: Now when you have spoken of the original church here, have you spoken of the general organization or the special organization, or of the local organization?
I don’t know as I understand the question about repudiation. Am I to understand it like this, – tcis, – that the doctrines after that time that we repudiated is repudiated in the general organization? Is that the way I am to understand it?

657: Well I don’t know that I understand what you mean? I will ask you what you understand the organization of the church to be?
Well the general organization and the location organization.

658: Well now have you any general organization here?
Yes sir.

659: You have a general organization here?
Yes sir.

660: Well, what does that organization comprise?
It comprises the members of the church in different parts of the country, wherever they may be.

661: It comprises the membership of the church in different places?
Yes sir.

662: Different sub-divisions of the church, you mean?
Yes sir.

663: The whole of which comprises the general organization?
Yes sir.

664: Now where are they that belong to your church?
Well there is one out at Bonner Springs, and there is another in the Indian Territory, – I don’t know just what places they are, but it is down there in the Indian Territory somewhere.

665: Is that all there is?
No sir, there is scattered members of the church in different parts of the country, that belong to the general organization of the church.

666: Then what is a local organization of the church?
Well we are a local organization here at Independence.

667: Where are you a general organization?
What is that?

668: Where are you a general organization?
In the different parts of the country.

669: How are you organized generally?
How am I to understand the question? I don’t hardly know how I am to answer the questin, or what I am to answer.

670: What do you understand by the local organization in 1830?
Well it was an organization of just a few members.

671: It was an organization of just a few people?
Yes sir.

672: How many?
Well that I don’t know, but it was probably just four or five or six.

673: What do you understand by a general organization after that time, – that is after 1830?
The church became enlarged, – that is its membership became enlarged, and its members were not all in one place, for they were scattered abroad in different parts.

674: Now which was it? You said you repudiated the organization that existed after ’34 or ’35, – now which it is that your church repudiated here, – the general organization or the local organization?
The general organization.

675: Now in the management and control of the church property here in Independence, do you understand that the property belongs to the local organization or to the general organization?
To the local organization, of course.

676: That is what you mean to be understood as saying when you refer to the term, local organization?
Yes sir. Certainly. Of course.

677: And not to any general organization?
No sir. I do not mean that it belongs to the general organization, but to the local organization.

678: No in testifying here the property belongs to the church of Jesus Christ, do you wish to be understood as saying that it belongs to any general organization of that church?
No sir.

679: You do not wish to be so understood?
No sir.

680: You have been asked by plaintiff’s counsel to say whether there was any bonds specified, – specified bounds to the membership of the local organization, you brethren, – and you have answered that there was a limit?
Yes sir.

681: That you were governed by a limit as to distance?
Yes sir.

682: And whether or not there was a geographical limit?
Yes sir.

683: And you testified that that geographical limit was prescribed by the action of the church here?
Yes sir.

684: You have answered all that?
Yes sir.

685: Now do you claim that there was any authority that you recognized that authorizes the limitation of the bounds of a local branch?
I think so.

686: Well is there?
I think so, I don’t think we would have assumed to do so unless there had been authority for it.

687: That is all? Re-cross examination by P.P. Kelley, –
 

688: Now I believe you stated that there was a general organization of the defendant church?
Yes sir.

689: Also a local organization?
Yes sir.

690: That is what you stated?
Yes sir.

691: Are you the trustee of the general organization?
No sir.

692: Do you say you are not the trustee of the general organization?
Yes sir.

693: Well what are you the trustee of?
Of the local organization.

694: Well now let me see about that? Are you the bishop of a general organization?
I don’t know whether I was made the bishop of the general organization or of the local organization. I can’t say ow that was. That is a question I am unable to answer.

695: You can’t say whether you are the bishop of the general organization or the local organization?
No sir.

696: Well say you don’t know how to answer that question?
No sir.

697: Well you now whether or not you are the bishop of the general organization don’t you?
Well I expect I am.

698: You expect you are the bishop of the general organization?
Yes sir.

699: Well are you the trustee of the general organization too?
I expect so.

700: Who are the other officers of the general organization?
I don’t know of any but the elders.

701: There is yourself and some of the members and elders that you named in your examination this morning?
Yes sir.

702: Is that all?
I know of no others.

703: And the same officers that belonged to the general organization are the officers of the local organization, are they not?
No sir, I reckon not.

704: You reckon not?
No sir.

705: Well who is there that belongs to the general organization that does not belong to the local organization?
Well Cole belongs to the general organization and he does not belong to the local organization.

706: Who is the president of the general organization?
I don’t know of any specified president of the general organization.

707: How is the general organization made up?
What is that?
How is that made up?

709: Yes sir?
I don’t know how to answer that question.

710: Well what constitutes the general organization?
The members of the church?

711: The members of the church constitute the general organization?
Yes sir.

712: Where are they? Are there any members of the defendant church outside of Jackson County, Missouri?
Yes sir.

713: Well where are they, – or any of them?
There is some at Bonner Springs.

714: Well how many are there?
At Benner Springs?

715: Yes sir?
I think there is ten, or eleven or twelve, – somewhere along there.

716: You say there is 10 or 11 or 12 members of the defendant church there at Benner Springs?
Yes sir, I think so, but I don’t know just how many there are there. I don’t remember just how many there is there.

717: Did you not say that there was some in the Indian Territory?
Yes sir.

718: Well how many is there in the Indian Territory?
I believe there is nine or ten. I think there is that many there.

719: When was the organization at Benner Springs effected?
When was it effected, did you say, or how was it effected?

720: When was it effected?
I think about two or three years age as well as I remember.

721: Was not the organization there effected last year, – in 1891, – was not that the time that that organization was effected?
I don’t remember, but I think it was before that, though I don’t remember.

722: You cannot say just what time the organization at Bonner Springs was perfected?
No sir.

723: Well what time was that branch in the Indial Territory organized?
No sir.

724: Now you say there is 10 or 11 members there at Bonner Springs?
Some where about that number, – I think it is 12 or 13. I could not as I said before state positively the number.

725: Where abouts in the Indian Territory is that organization of the church located?
That I can’t tell you.

726: You don’t know then where it is?
I can’t state the county.

727: Do you know whether there is any organization there or not?
Yes sir.

728: You are positive there is an organization there?
I am.

729: Who is the president of that organization?
I don’t remember his name.

730: Who presides over it?
I think his name is Clarke.

731: Is he the trustee?
No sir, I think he is the president.

732: Who is the trustee?
I don’t know. I don’t know that they have any.

733: Well do you know who is the bishop of that organization in the Indian Territory?
I don’t know.

734: Who is the president?
I don’t know.

735: Did you not say that Clarke was the president?
No sir, I said I thought he was the president, if there was one at all. I am not positive, but I think he is the presiding officer, but I may be mistaken about that.

736: How did you come to get any information about that branch or organization down there?
In the Indian Territory?

737: Yes sir?
Well we have elders who go down there preaching and they bring the reports back.

738: Who gets these reports?
I don’t know what you mean.

739: Well do you as bishop get them?
It was reported to the conference.

740: Who reported it? Was it Franklyn?
No sir, it was G.D. Cole that reported it. He is the man who reported it.

741: Was he in the Indian Territory preaching?
Yes sir.

742: Was there any one with him at the time?
I don’t know.

743: Was he there with Franklyn?
No sir. He was not there with him.

744: Do you swear positively that they were not there at the same time?
Well I don’t know about that, but I think they were not there together. They may have been, but it is my impression that they were not.

745: Then you do not know whether they were there together or not?
No sir, but I don’t think they were there together.

746: What nation were they in down there?
If I understand it correctly they were in what is called the Cherokee nation. I think that was the nation, or some such a name as that. I can’t speak the names properly, but it was some such a name as that.

747: So the members of the defendant church down there are Indians, or are they American’s?
Some of them were, – are Indians, – I don’t know whether any of them are Americans.

748: You don’t know whether there is a general President of these churches down there?
No sir, other than I learn from the reports, and I learn from that source that they have a presiding officer down there when they call a president.

749: Did your church ever have any general conference?
Yes sir.

750: Who is the presiding officer?
Over the general conference?

751: Yes sir?
They make a presiding officer when they come together.

752: Who has he been, – who was it?
I believe I have bee, or Mr. Hall. Mr. Hall has been the presiding officer I believe at different times.

753: Hall was the officer presiding and in central this last spring when you held your conference was he not?
Yes sir.

754: And he was this last October?
I believe he was.

755: And the April before in ’91?
I believe he was.

756: Now what makes you say he is not the general presiding officer, – the general president of the church?
Well unless he is so by virtue of the fact that he is the president of this branch, if that makes him President of the conference why he is the President, but the conference selects its presiding officer, and I think he was chosen because he was the president of this branch here.

757: Well you are the general bishop of the church here aint you?
I am supposed to be.

758: Well there is no bishop but yourself that you know anything about in the church?
No sir.

759: And there is no other President of the church that you know anything about except C.A. Hall, is there?
No sir, not that I know anything of.

760: You are the only bishop in the church and he4 is the only president that you know anything about?
Yes sir, I expect so.

761: Now on your re-direct examination, you stated that you repudiated the general organization of the original church after 1833 or ‘4’ or ‘5 or some where along there?
Yes sir, but I don’t think it went that length, – that is not exactly what I meant to say.

762: Well what did you mean to say?
I meant to say that we repudiated the doctrines taught by the church in general. That is the way I meant to be understood as speaking?

763: Well then you do not repudiate the organization of the church, but simply repudiate its doctrines?
Well I don’t know how you blend it together.

764: Well that is for you to say?
Well I don’t know how you would blend it together, whether that would be repudiating the general organization or repudiating the doctrines of the church that were taught in the church. I don’t understand how you could combine that, but that is my understanding of it sir.

765: Well that is for you to say?
Well I don’t know how to explain it. That is my understanding of it however.

766: Now you said you were baptized into the original church?
Yes sir.

767: And I believe you stated that you was baptized into the original church in 1848?
Yes sir, I was baptized in 1848 as near as I can remember now.

768: Now did the elder who baptized you, repudiate the doctrines of the original church?
I don’t know.

769: Well when did you first repudiate them?
What?

770: The doctrines of the original church?
When I began to understand how it was, and when I began to learn from the books and learn that the teachings of the church were contrary to the teachings of the books, then I repudiated it.

771: Well when was that?
I don’t know what the date was.

772: Was that not after 1863?
No sir.

773: How do you know it was not?
I know that I examined the books long before that time?

774: Did you repudiate the doctrines and teachings of the original church before that time?
Yes sir.

775: That is before 1863?
Yes sir.

776: Well how long before that time did you repudiate them?
Well I don’t know, but it was earlier than that.

777: Was it as early as 1850?
No sir.

778: Then you were baptized in 1848 by an elder of the original church, and then in 1850 you repudiated the original church?
Repudiated what?

779: Repudiated the church doctrine or organization?
I did not say that.

780: Well you repudiated some of it?
Yes sir.

781: You repudiated all of it that was given after 1834 or 1835?
I said that I repudiated certain doctrines that were taught after 1834.

782: What were they?
I can’t tell you all of them.

783: Still the man that baptized you, he believed in these doctrines that you repudiated?
I don’t know.

784: Well he taught them to you before you were baptized did he not?
No sir.

785: Did not the organization to which he belonged, and into which he baptized you teach them?
Teach what?

786: The same things which you repudiated in 1850?
I never heard of them, for he taught me the principles of the gospel, and that is

764: Well that is for you to say?
Well I don’t know how you would blend it together, – whether that would be repudiating the general organization or repudiating the doctrines of the church that were taught in the church. I don’t understand how you could combine that, but that is my understanding of it sir.

765: Well that is for you to say?
Well I don’t know how to explain it. That is my understanding of it however.

766: How you said you were baptized into the original church?
Yes sir.

767: And I believe you stated that you was baptized into the original church in 1848?
Yes sir, I was baptized in 1848 as near as I can remember now.

768: Now did the elder who baptized you, repudiate the doctrines of the original church?
I don’ t know.

769: Well when did you first repudiate them?
What?

770: The doctrines of the original church?
When I began to understand how it was, and when I began to learn from the books and learn that the teachings of church were contrary to the teachings of the books, then I repudiated it.

771: Well when was that?
I don’t know what the date was.

772: Was that not after 1863?
No sir.

773: How do you know it was not?
I knew that I examined the books long before that time?

774: Did you repudiate the doctrines and teachings of the original church before that time?
Yes sir.

775: That is before 1863?
Yes sir.

776: Well how long before that time did you repudiate them?
Well I don’t know, but it was earlier than that.

777: Was it as eayly as 1850?
No sir.

778: Then you were baptized in 1848 by an elder of the original church, and then in 1850 you repudiated the original church?
Repudiated what?

779: Repudiated the church doctrine or organization?
I did not say that.

780: Well you repudiated some of it?
Yes sir.

781: You repudiated all of it that was given after 1834 or 1835?
I said that I repudiated certain doctrines that were taught after ’34.

782: What were they?
I can’t tell you all of them.

783: Still the man that baptized you, he believed in the doctrines that you repudiated?
I don’t know.

784: Well he taught them to you before you were baptized did he not?
No sir.

785: Did not the organization to which he belonged, and nto which he baptized you teach them?
Teach what?

786: The same things which you repudiated in 1850?
I never heard of them, for he taught me the principles of the gospel, and that is all that he taught me.

787: And he did not teach you anything else?
No sir, he taught me the principles of the gospel, and that is all, and whether he knew anything else, or taught any body else any other thing that that I don’t know anything about that. I know what he taught me and that is all that I do know about it. Whether he knew anything else or taught anything else I don’t know anything about that.

788: Well he taught you in 1848 that the church was organized with a President, did he not?
No sir, he never taught me anything of the kind.

789: Did the person that baptized you teach the doctrine that was contained in the book of doctrine and covenant?
I don’t remember.

790: Well what is your best recollection about it?
I don’t remember now about his saying anything whatever about it. He may have don so, but if he did I do not recollect it.

791: Well what did he teach you?
He just taught me the first principles of the faith as we understand them, which were faith, repentance and baptism.

792: Did he teach the book of Mormon?
No sir, and I don’t know that we had the book of Mormon.

793: You don’t know then what he taught you?
Yes sir-he taught me the first principles, faith, repentance and baptism,-that is what we call the first principles, and that is what he taught me.

794: Do you repudiate the book of Mormon along with the rest that you repudiate?
No sir.

795: The defendant church then, holds to the book of Mormon entirely?
Yes sir.

796: It does?
Yes sir.

797: Does the defendant church hold to the bible also?
Yes sir.

798: Entirely?
Yes sir, we look to it and accept it as part of our faith.

799: Did the person who baptized you teach you before your baptism that there was a prophet connect with the church?
Yes sir.

800: He taught you that there was a prophet connected with the church?
Is that the question you asked me before?

801: Yes sir?
No sir, I made a mistake in answering it for I did not understand it. I don’t recollect that he said anything about it at all.

802: Did you hear him say anything about Joseph Smith?
No sir, I don’t recollect that he did.

803: He never said a word about Joseph Smith?
No sir, I don’t remember that he did.

804: Was he a Methodist preacher?
No sir, not that I know of.

805: Well was he a Baptist preacher?
No sir, I don’t recollect that he did.
What is the questions?

806: I asked you if the man that baptized you was a Baptist preacher?
No sir, not that I know of.

807: What kind of preacher was he?
A preacher of righteousness.

808: Well what was he?
That was what he was.

809: Well what did he call himself?
An elder.

810: And elder in what church?
The church of Christ, or of Jesus Christ, – I don’t remember how exactly what words he used.

811: Was it not the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints? Is not that what the title of the church was of which he was an elder?
Not that I remember of.

812: Will you swear it was not?
No sir, I won’t swear anything about it positively, for I don’t remember what it was positively.

813: Don’t you know it was the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
I think there was a church at that time called the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.

814: Don’t you know he was a member, – and elder sent from that church which I have designated, by a general conference on a mission?
Don’t I know who was sent?

815: This elder who baptized you?
He was supposed to be an elder. That is what he said he was.

816: And he was not sent from a general conference of that church?
I don’t know anything about it. I don’t know whether he was or not, for he did not tell me anything about it one way or the other.

817: What conference was it in England?
What conference?

818: Yes sir.
Where?

819: I said in England?
I don’t remember any conference there, for I did not stay there long after I was baptized.

820: Well how long did you stay?
Well I come to this country in the fall of 1849.

821: And when was it you were baptized?
In 1848.

822: At what time in 1848 were you baptized?
I could not state the month.

823: Where did you go to first when you came to this country?
 

824: Answer the question?
Where did I go to, – is that the question you asked me?

825: Yes sir. Where did you go to first when you came to this country? That is, what place in this country did you first go to?
Where did I first live?

826: Yes sir.
 

827: Well go on and do so?
I first came to New Orleans and stayed there a while.

828: That is when you first landed in this country?
Yes sir.

829: Then were did you go?
To St. Louis.

830: Then where?
From there I went to Wisconsin.

831: From St. Louis you went to Wisconsin?
Yes sir.

832: Well how long did you live in Wisconsin?
Some where along about twenty years as near as I can remember it.

833: Did you go direct from St. Louis to Wisconsin?
Yes sir.

834: Did you stop at Nauvoo any time?
No sir.

835: You did not stop at Nauvoo?
No sir.

836: You stopped nowhere in Illinois?
No sir, I did not stop anywhere to make a stay, but I might have stopped a night or so when I was traveling.

837: Then you went directly from St. Louis to Wisconsin and did not stop at Nauvoo or any other place in Illinois for any length of time.
Nor sir, no more than a night or two when I was traveling.

838: What was the name of the place at which you lived in Wisconsin when you were residing in that state?
It was at a place by the name of Eagle.

839: What country is that in?
Waukeshaw county, I believe, I think it was in Wauheshaw county. I believe that is what they called it.

840: Were you connected with any church there?
No sir.

841: You did not join the church there?
No sir, for there were no members of the church around there that I knew anything of.

842: Were you connected with any church at all at that time?
What church?

843: Any church at all?
I was a member of the church that I had been baptized into.

844: That was the church that was organized in 1830?
Yes sir. I was a member of the church from the time I was baptized during all the time, but when I was living there at that place in Wisconsin I did not stay or identify myself with any particular branch or body of the church, for there was none of them there, but nevertheless I counted myself a member of the church.

845: Where was the church at that time?
What church?

846: The church that was organized in 1830?
I don’t know where it was.

847: Was there any church?
Yes sir.

848: There was a church but you say you did not know where it was?
No sir. It was scattered all over in different places, I understood, – that was my understanding of it.

849: And you don’t know where it was?
No sir. I know know where it was further than that. I know there were no parts of it any where near where I was.

850: Then you don’t know whether you were a member of any church or not?
No sir, I don’t know anything positively about it, but I reckon that I was a member of the church all the time. I reckon there is no doubt about that, but I did not belong to any branch faction or body of the church at that time, for it was scattered abroad in many places.

851: Now you say you “reckon you were a member of the church”?
Yes sir.

852: Where was the church then, if it was in existence at all, that you belonged to?
At that time?

853: Yes sir?
I stated that I did not know, but I supposed it was in the different parts, scattered abroad, and I was not attached to any particular branch of it.

854: It just consisted of straggling members, scattered abroad all over the country?
That is what I said, and for aught I know that was so. I know there were no members where I was that I associated with.

855: So then you claim that the church here in Independence is just a branch of the general church?
 

856: Is that what you claim?
 

857: What is your answer?
I don’t claim that.

858: I s that your answer?
I can’t answer that question.

859: Then you don’t claim this is the general church?
No sir.

860: You are positive as to that?
Yes sir.

861: Well then do you claim that it is a branch of the general church?
I can’t say.

862: Well I would like you to give an answer to that question?
I don’t hardly know how to answer that question?

863: Why?
I can’t tell why, as I know of.

864: Then you acknowledge that you don’t know anything about it?
I understand that it is a part and parcel of the church that was organized in 1830, but I don’t know how you would apply the connection between this and the original church. I know how we claim it is, and we claim it is a part and parcel of the original church that was organized in 1830, but just how it is I can’t explain.

865: Have you not frequently, here in Independence, both publicly and privately stated that this was a branch of the original church, and nothing more?
I don’t know what I have said, but I don’t think I ever said that for I never meant to be understood that way.

866: Do you say you did not say that?
I may have said that we as a people have claimed to be a part and parcel of that church that was organized in 1830 belief of the church as hey were taught and practiced in the original church at that time.

867: Do you claim to be the whole church or just a part of it?
Well I don’t think we are the whole church.

868: Well do you claim or believe that you are a part of it?
Well if you dissect it that way it would be so. I don’t know what you mean though.

869: Well you do not claim that these then or thirteen members out here at Bonner Springs is the whole church of course?
No sir.

870: You do not set up any such a claim on their account?
No sir, and I did not say I did.

871: Well what do you call them? Do you call them a branch?
Yes sir, just a branch I believe.

872: And you do not claim that the few members you have here in Independence constitutes the whole church, do you?
No sir.

873: It is called a branch too, is it not?
Well I really do not know what is the proper way to designate these things, but that is probably so.

874: Now the church here at Independence is a branch then?
I can’t say. If you choose to call it that, do so, – I have no objection.

875: Well if it is a branch was it not a branch before the organization of the branch down at Bonner Springs?
Well I reckon that is so.

876: What was it a branch of?
I don’t know.

877: Was it not a branch of the original church?
 
The original church that was established in 1830?

878: Yes sir?
Yes sir, for if believing in the same doctrines would make it that, it could probably be called that.

879: Well is that not what it would be?
I reckon so.

880: So that the church here in Independence is a branch of the church that was organized in 1830 by Joseph Smith, the seer?
If we believe in the principles of the same doctrines that he taught at that time, and we claim to do that, why then it might be called a branch, but as I said before I do not know how to designate these terms, for I am not a lawyer, nor yet am I a scholar.

881: Then do I understand you to say that the defendant church here in Independence is a branch, and as a branch accepts and believes in and teaches and practices the same tenets, doctrines and beliefs that was taught and practiced by Joseph Smith in the church organized in the year 1830, by Joseph Smith the seer?
Please state that again so I can understand it.

882: I asked you if I understood you to say that the defendant church, – that is the church here at Independence, of which you are a member and the bishop, is a branch of the church organized in 1830 by Joseph Smith, and as a branch of that church accepts and believes in and teaches and practices the same tenets, doctrines and beliefs that were taught and practiced in the church organized in the year 1830 by Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer?
Yes sir, to a limited extent.

883: To what extent?
We believe in the doctrines that were taught in the church in the first two or three years after its organization, but then after that we claim that it fell away from grace, and we do not follow it in its apostacy. We believe in what it taught in the first two or three years after it existence, but we do not believe in all that it taught right along, and don’t accept that by any means.

884: Then you repudiate what the church taught after the first two or three years of its existence?
Yes sir.

885: When was that repudiation made?
Why we have made it at least from the year fifty and perhaps before that. I was not with the church, – that is I was not present at the time that the first repudiation was made, but I understand that it was as early as the year 1850 and perhaps earlier. 886 (This question and answer are missing)

887: What did you do towards repudiating anything before the year 1850?
What did we do?

888: Yes sir?
We declared our disbelief of some of the doctrines that wee taught and advocated.

889: You were an elder in the church in 1849, were you not?
No sir.

890: You were not an elder in 1849?
No sir.

891: Well you were a priest, were you not?
Yes sir.

892: Now with whom did you meet at that time that belonged to the church?
Oh, I can’t tell, that was so long ago.

893: With whom did you meet in 1849, if any body, that is in church fellowship?
I don’t remember, it has been so long ago that I can’t remember who I met.

894: Did you meet with any branch of the church?
No, sir.

895: Did you meet with anybody?
Yes, sir.

896: Well, how did you meet with them?
I met with them as individuals, not with them as members of the church.

897: Where was that?
In St. Louis.

898: What church did they claim to be members of?
I don’t remember.

899: You don’t remember what church they belonged to?
No sir, but I suppose it was to the church-the Mormons.

900: Well at that time did you repudiate the doctrines of the church organized in 1830, or any part of them?
I did a part after that.

901: Then you repudiated the doctrines of the church?
Some of them. Now understand me, I don’t repudiate the doctrines that were taught in 1830. I do not repudiate the doctrines that were taught in ’31 or ’32 or ’33, but after that time there were doctrines introduced in the church which I repudiate. There was doctrines after that time that came forth that I repudiated myself individually as well as others, and never accepted them at all.

902: Granville Hedrick was an elder in the church in 1842, was he not?
I don’t know.

903: Well, he was an elder in the church about tat time wasn’t he?
I don’t know personally whether he was or not.

904: Well you know from reading don’t you?
Yes sir, that is what I understand, but I don’t know of my own knowledge wehther he was or was not.

905: He is the party that organized the repudiation of the doctrines that you have been talking about, is he not?
I don’t know that he organized any repudiation.

906: Well he was the leader of the party that repudiated ***** was he not?
I dont know that he was. I think there was people repudiated these doctrines before they knew anything of ****** him. I don’t think he was the first to do that.

907: Who were the parties that repudiated these objectionable doctrines before they knew anything of him?
I was one of them. I repudiated these doctrines before I knew anything of him.

908: You repudiated them–that is, you repudiated these docrines before you knew Granville Hedrick?
Yes, sir.

909: You repudiated them before you came to this country, did you not?
No sir, not before I came to America I did not.

910: Did you simply repudiate “Brighamites”?
 

911: Answer the question.
What is the question?

912: It was “Brighamism” that you repudiated, was it not?
Repudiated “Brighamism”? I dont know. I don’t understand what you mean by “Brighamism.” I thought I stated plainly that I repudiated as an individual that I repudiated these doctrines that I found were taught by various parties claiming to be the church wherever I found them.

913: Well was not it an Brighamite elder that baptized you in 1848? Was it not an elder in the Brighamite church that repudiated you at that time?
I don’t know.

914: Well what is your best recollection as to that?
As to what?

915: As to whether or not the elder who baptized you was or was not an elder in the Brighamite church?
I don’t know, and I did not ask him. I did not ask him what he was, – he might have been for all I know to the contrary.

916: Now you say you went to Wisconsin for St. Louis?
Yes sir.

917: And you lived in Wisconsin something like twenty years?
Yes sir.

918: Where did you go from Wisconsin?
From Wisconsin, where did I go when I left Wisconsin?

919: Yes sir?
I came to Missouri from Wisconsin.

920: You came to this place, – to Independence, did you not?
Yes sir. I believe it was Independence that I first came to.

921: How did you happen to come here?
Because I wanted to, I reckon.

922: Did you know anything about the history of the church here, before you came here?
The history of what here?

923: The history of the church in this county, – did you know anything about that before you came here?
No sir, not much.

924: You did not?
No sir, but very little.

925: Had your read the book of Doctrine and Covenants before you came here?
Yes sir.

926: Did you read that in England?
No sir, I did not have it in England to read.

927: Then you read it after you came to this country?
Yes sir, after I came to America.

928: Was there anything in the book of Doctrine and Covenants with reference to certain property here in Jackson County, Missouri, that had anything to do with your coming here?
Andy property?

929: Yes sir, – was there anything to do, – anything in the book of doctrine and Covenants with reference to any property here in Jackson County, Missouri, which you read, that had anything to do with your coming here at the time you did?
Yes sir, I read about it, but I don’t know that it had any inducement towards making me come here. I just came here because I wanted to do so, and I don’t think there was anything about property here that had anything to do with it. I did not come here to better myself in a temporal sense at all, – at least not in that way.

930: Was it on account of any particular places spoken of in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that brought you here?
Yes sir.

931: And it was with reference to that particular spot of ground known as the temple lot that was claimed by the original church, was it not?
Well yes, I guess that was it, maybe. I don’t understand that question yet. Did you ask me whether it was in reference to property here that caused me to come here?

932: No, I asked you if it was on account of anything you read in the book of Doctrine and Covenants that caused you to come here at the time you did?
I did not come here because of any special temporal benefit I expect to receive, but I came here on account of the teaching I had been taught to gather here in this country, – we called it “gathering to Zion.”

933: And you received that teaching from the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir.

934: Well you received it in part from the book of Doctrine and Covenants, did you not?
No sir, I don’t know that I did.

935: Did you not receive it in part from the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
No sir, I don’t know that I received it at all from it. It was taught to me from being preached to me and from what other information I could get in one way and another.

936: Well was it taught or preached to you by members of the original church?
What?

937: That the Latter Day Saints were to gather here at Independence or to Zion as it was called?
Well yes, I expect they were.

938: Well you had read the book of Doctrine and Covenants before you came here to Independence, had you not?
Before I came to Missouri?

939: Yes sir, put it that way if you want to do so?
Yes sir.

940: To what extent had you read it?
Well I had read it some.

941: Had you read the revelation in there with reference, – the revelation given in July 1831 with reference to certain property, – temple property here in Independence or in Jackson County?
Yes sir.

942: You had read that?
Yes sir, I reckon I had read that.

943: And when you came here you went and tried to find that particular property, did you not?
Yes sir, it was here plain enough to be seen.

944: I refer to that particular property that was spoken or referred to in that revelation?
Well I did not have to try and find it, for it was here plain enough to be seen, – it was plain enough to be seen and it was no particular trouble to find it.

945: Who showed it to you?
The temple property?

946: Yes sir?
I found it myself.

947: How did you find it yourself?
Well I came up right by it when I came up from the depot.

948: How did you know it?
In various ways.

949: Well state some of the various ways in which you knew it?
The people that were here before me told me that was the place that was called the “temple lot”, as well as by examining it and seeing for myself.

950: Then you were told where it was?
Yes sir, I expect I was.

951: When was that?
That was in about 1868 I think.

952: And that property is the same property on which you have your church building now?
Yes sir, it is the same place.

953: It was known as the “temple lot”; when you came here in 1868, and was pointed out to me as what they called the temple lot?
It was pointed out to me as what they called the temple lot.

954: And is it not a fact that it has been known by that name ever since 1868, – ever since you have been here?
I reckon so.

955: Ever since you have been here it has been known by that name has it not?
Yes sir, I reckon so.

956: Well has it not been known by that name and no other name amongst the people here when speaking of it, would they not invariable refer to it as the temple lot, ever since you have been here?
Yes sir.

957: Now how long before you came here, had you heard about that?
About what?

958: About the temple lot?
I don’t know how long it was.

959: Well about how long?
I don’t know how long ago it was. I cannot remember.

960: Well give your best recollection?
Well I say I can’t remember, and anything I might say would be simply guessing. I can’t tell but it would be several years ago, anyway.

961: Was it now as early as 1850?
I can’t remember whether it was or not.

962: Where is the head quarter of the general organization of the defendant church?
Where is it?

963: Yes sir?
Well it is wherever they have a mind to place it from time to time I reckon.

964: Well where is it now?
 

965: Where is the general head quarters of the defendant church now?
What kind of head quarters?

966: The general church head quarters?
Of the general organization?

967: Yes sir?
I don’t know.

968: Has it any head quarters?
Not that I know of.

969: I believe that is all.
 

970: Mr. Hill do you mean to be understood here in this examination, I don’t know to call it,-that has just been completed,-for I don’t know what examination it is or what to call it in law,-do you mean to say that any church claimed this property?
No sir.

971: That you knew that any church claimed this temple lot property now in controversy at the time you came here?
No sir, nobody claimed it,-that is no church claimed it.

972: Well do you mean to be understood as saying that when you came here in 1868 that any church claimed that property?
No sir.

973: You say that there wasn’t any such claim made?
No sir, no church claimed it at all.

974: Well somebody is trying to make that insinuation, and they are trying to have it understood that way?
Well there wasn’t any church claimed it then at all.

975: Now Mr. Hill do you mean to be understood as saying that you know that any church claimed this property known as the temple lot, or called the temple lot, the property in controversy in this suit,-that any church claimed that until it was bought for you church?
No sir.

976: Then if you did claim it why did you buy it?
We did not claim it.

977: The church of which you are a member did not claim it?
No sir, we bought it because we wanted it.

978: You did not claim it, and therefore you had to buy it and pay your money for it when you wanted to acquire it?
 

979: Now there is one other question I desire to ask you, and it is this, – now did you mean in answering the question here. that you were asked you, did you mean to be understood as saying that you were bishop of a church in the Indian Territory?
No sir.

980: Or at Bonner Springs?
No sir.

981: You did not mean to be understood as saying that you were bishop of a church at either place?
No sir.

982: Did you understand that you were to be the bishop of any other church than the one here at the time you were elected and ordained bishop?
No sir.

983: Well they have got you to say differently, and I wanted to get you right for I knew what you meant to say?
No sir, I did not mean to be understood as saying that. I am the bishop only of this church here.

984: I wanted to get you right, for I knew what you meant to say. That is all.
 

985: Who is the bishop at Bonner Springs?
Of the church there?

986: Yes sir?
I thought I stated before that I did not know of any.

987: Who is the bishop of the church in the Indian Territory?
I don’t know of any. I thought I stated all this before.

988: Well I don’t think you did?
Well if I didn’t I meant to do so. I meant to have stated it anyway.

989: You are the trustee of all the property of the defendant church, are you not?
 

990: Is that not what you stated, – did you not state that the church did not have any other property at any other place?
I don’t know of any other.

991: You are the trustee for all the property of the defendant church, are you not?
I am the trustee for the property here in Independence. I don’t claim to be the trustee for anything else.

992: With you permission Mr. Southern, I will ask the witness a few questions. It is regarding a matter which I understand and it will save time and trouble by my asking them.
 

993: Mr. Hill, I want to ask you a question?
 

994: Mr. Hill did I understand you to say that you accepted as true all the revelations given prior to 1833?
If you so understood me you understood me different from what I intended. I said I accepted and believed the revelations, not mean all of them however, that were given from ’29 up to ’33 and possibly ’34.

995: Well now can you state what ones you believe and what ones you do not believe?
Well I can’t exactly remember, but there is a good many that I don’t exactly believe in.

996: Well I mean the ones given from 1929 to 1833 or ’34, – what revelations given during that time do you not accept as correct?
Well, —I don’t know what you mean.

997: I understood you to say, – if I understood you correctly, – that the Hedrickite church repudiated some of the revelations, – in fact all of them, that were given subsequent to 1834, and that is the point at which they split from the rest of the believers in Joseph Smith? Now is that right?
No not exactly.

998: Now what revelations do you refer to that you do not believe in that were given prior to 1833? Can’t you mention one of them?
I don’t remember but there are, – there is one or two that we don’t know whether they are true, or not true, and we neither accept nor reject them.

999: Now can you tell what they are and the date of them?
No sir, not now.

1000: Or what they refer to?
No sir.

1001: You cannot tell that?
No sir, not exactly.

1002: Do I understand you to say that you cannot tell either what they refer to or the dates at which they were given, – that is the revelations that you rejent that were given prior to 1833?
No sir, I can’t do it now.

1003: Are they in the book of Doctrine and Covenants?
Yes sir, I think they are. They are all in there.

1004: Well then you spoke of having read the book of doctrine and covenants before coming here, did you at any time repudiate any of them before coming here?
Any of what?

1005: Any of the revelations before coming here?
Any that was contained in the book?

1006: Yes sir, did you at that time repudiate any of the revelations, – that is before you came here, did you at any time repudiate any of the revelations that were contained in the book of doctrine and covenants?
I don’t know what you mean, –

1007: Of course I know that you repudiated the revelations that were given after 1833,-it is the ones prior to that time I refer to?
Well I don’t understand that we repudiate them all,-we think they are liable to criticism, and we look upon them with suspicion that were given after that time. There was some that we did not undestand and wer just took them at what they were worth,-not rejecting them or accepting them,-we did not take them as correct or as false.

1008: You believe all these revelations with reference to Zion. You believe in these and accept them as correct, do you not?
Yes sir, partly,-not all of them, but part of them we do.

1009: You give them a qualified approval by way of accepting them?
Yes sir.

1010: In what part do you not approve?
I believe them like this as far as I understand them. I did not claim to have a correct understanding of all that, and I don’t claim to have a correct understanding now.

1011: Well there is one thing that you do understand do you not, and that is that this place here was appointed as a gathering place for the saints?
Yes sir.

1012: You believe that revelation?
Yes sir.

1014: Well now that revelation speaks of a gathering place for the saints,-it speaks of the gathering of the saints, and a place for the erection of the temple, does it not?
Yes sir.

1015: And that you believe of course?
Yes sir.

1016: Well now if you believe that, you believe that it came as a direct revelation from God?
Yes sir.

1017: You believe that?
Certainly.

1018: Through Joseph Smith, the prophet and seer?
Yes sir.

1019: Do you believe that is a revelation from God?
Yes sir.

1020: Then when that revelation says that the place for the temple is westward from the Court house, what do you understand by it?
What do I understand by it?

1021: Yes sir?
I understand by it just what it says. I think it is plain enough.

1022: That that was the place selected by God and designated by him through the revelation given by him through Joseph Smith, as the place for the temple?
Yes sir.

1023: So when you came here from Wisconsin you were like many others who had come here before you did, anxious to see the place which was suppose to be sacred ground?
Well I don’t know about that. I don’t know that I was so terrible anxious.

1024: Well you had some curiosity to see it, did you not Mr. Hill?
I might have had.

1025: Well did you have some curiosity to see it?
I might have had some curiosity to see it

1026: Well did you? That is the question,-did you?
Well I reckon I did.

1027: So you had curiosity enough to find out and look up the particular spot of ground, which had been designated by God Almighty as the place for the erection of the temple?
Yes sir, I think so.

1028: That is all?
 

1029: And your curiosity was sufficient was it, to make you willing to spend your money to buy it from the owners?
Yes sir.

1030: And you did that?
Yes sir.

1031: That is all Mr. Hill?