1: State your name to the Notary?
My name is C.E. Reynolds.
2: You may state where you live Mr. Reynolds?
Where do I live now?
3: Yes sir, – where do you live at the present time?
I live in Cedar County.
4: In what state?
Missouri. Cedar County, Missouri.
5: How long have you lived there in Cedar County?
Oh let me see, – about twelve years.
6: Where did you live before you went to Cedar County?
I lived in Cass County, and in Jackson County.
7: In Cass and Jackson Counties, Missouri?
Yes sir.
8: You lived in Jackson County before you lived in Cass County?
Yes sir.
9: Where did you live before you lived in Jackson County?
In Illinois.
10: Near what place?
Near Washburn in Woodford County.
11: Where were you born?
I was born in New York City sir.
12: How old are you?
In next October, on the 16th day, I will be seventy two years old.
13: Were you a member of the original church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
14: You were a member of the church at the time of the death of Joseph Smith?
Yes sir.
15: Where did you live then?
I lived in New York city.
16: At the time you became a member of the original church?
Yes sir.
17: Where did you become a member of the original church?
I was in New York City.
18: Who baptized you?
James K. Blakeslee baptized me sir into the church.
19: Were you ever acquainted with a man by the name of Granville Hedrick?
Yes sir.
20: When did you first become acquainted with him?
In Illinois.
21: I asked you when you became acquainted with him, – not where?
Well toes first time I saw the man, it was in Lakin, the county seat of Marshall County.
22: In what year was that that you became acquainted first with him?
Well I don’t remember exactly, but it was somewhere along about the year 1850. I can’t tell just exactly the date or the year, for I can’t remember it, but it was somewhere near along about that time.
23: Were you a member of any religious arganization with Granville Hedrick in Illinois, along about that time?
Yes sir.
24: Was Granville Hedrick an elder in the original church?
Yes sir.
25: Before Joseph Smith’s death I mean?
Yes sir.
26: Under whose direction did you come to Jackson County, – if you came under anybody’s direction?
Well we came here under his direction.
27: Whose direction?
Granville Hedrick’s.
28: When did you come?
Where”
29: When did you come to Jackson County first?
Well I came in the fore part of 1868.
30: How long after you came here was it before Granville Hedrick came, if at all?
Well I can’t say positively, but it was something like a year or two after we came here before he came.
31: That he came here?
Yes sir.
32: You say it was about a year or two after you came before he came?
Yes sir, something like that. I don’t recollect exactly how long it was, -I recollect however that it was a year or two or something like that that he came here, -but the exact date I do not remember.
33: I hand you now a book marked “Pl’ff’s exhibit W” and ask you to look at it and say if you ever saw it before? or one just like it?
Yes sir.
34: You have seen that before?
Yes sir, I have seen one like it. That is the work.
35: Whose work is it?
Granville Hedrick’s.
36: Does that contain the doctrine that was presented by Granville Hedrick, -the doctrine of what is known as the “Hendrickite church” That you all believed in at that time?
Yes sir.
37: And you say you have seen that before?
Yes sir.
38: Are you acquainted with C.A. Hall, one of the defendants in this suit?
Charles Hall?
39: Yes sir, -Charles A. Hall?
Yes sir.
40: Do you recognize him here?
Yes sir, that is the gentleman sitting there.
41: That is the man?
Yes sir.
42: When did you first become acquainted with him?
Well I would not be certain as to dates, but it was some two or three years ago anyhow. He had not been here a great while before I got acquainted with him.
43: By “here” where do you mean?
I mean here at Independence, I don’t recollect just when it was but it was not long after he came here that I got acquainted with him.
44: Was Charles A. Hall an early member in the Hedrickite church?
Yes sir. He professed to be anyhow, but I don’t know of my own knowledge anything beyond what he professed to be, and he professed to be an earnest member of the church.
45: The question is was he an early member of the Hedrickite church, -that is did he become a member of that church at an early date?
What did you say?
46: The question is, -did Hall become a member of the Hedrickite church at an early date?
No sir, I don’t think he was. I think he belonged to the re-organized church for quite a while if I understand it right.
47: When did C.A. Hall unite with the Hedrickite church if you know?
When did Charles Hall unite with the church known as the Hendrickite church?
48: Yes sir, when did that occur, if you know?
I can’t tell the time exactly.
49: Well about what time did it occur as nearly as you can recollect?
Well as I say I could not tell exactly the date, because he attached himself to the church before I knew anything at all about it.
50: You did not know anything about it at the time he became a member of the church?
No sir, I was a member of the church at the time, but I did not know anything about his having become a member of it until he was installed in position.
51: Can you tell about the time, -about the year that that was?
Well I ain’t positive about it, and therefore I could not state positively the year it was. I can’t state definitely the year it was, but I know it was but a short time until I heard of it, but I can’t refer to the year. My recollection is not very good on the matter of dates, and I can’t state when it was.
52: Well about how many years ago was it. I don’t care about the absolute time being stated, but about how many years ago was it according to the best of your recollection?
Well I would say, -to the best of my ability it was about four or five years ago.
53: Did you ever have any correspondence with C. A. Hall?
Lots of it.
54: You have had correspondence with him?
Yes sir, lots of it.
55: Look at the letter I now hand you, and say whether you received that from C. A. Hall?
Yes sir.
56: You received that from C. A. Hall, one of the defendants in this case?
Yes sir, that is his handwriting, and his name is signed to it.
57: Is that the letter which you received from C. A. Hall?
What is that you say?
58: Is that a letter which you received through the mails from C. A. Hall?
It is. The letter above referred to in the answer of the witness is hereupon handed to the Notary Public, and by him marked as “exhibit 200, J. M. Orr,” in accordance with request of counsel for the plaintiff.
59: I have not offered that in evidence yet Mr. Southern, but I want it marked so that it can be identified, -that is my only object in having it marked at this time. Look at this letter which I now hand you Mr. Reynolds and state if you ever saw that before?
Yes sir.
60: That is another one of the letters?
Yes sir, that is another one of the letters.
on the ground and for the reason that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not proper rebuttal.
When did Charles Hall unite with the church known s the Hedrickite church?
48: Yes sir, when did that occur, if you know?
I can’t tell the time exactly.
49: Well about what time did it occur as nearly as you can recollect?
Well as I say I could not tell exactly the date, because he attached himself to the church before I know anything at all about it.
50: You did not know anything about it at the time he became a member of the church?
NO sir, I was a member of the church at the time, but I did not know anything about his having become a member of it until he was installed in a position.
51: Can you tell about the time, – about the year that that was?
Well I ain’t positive about it, and therefore I could not state positively the year it was. I can’t state definitely the year it was, but I know it was but a short time until I heard of it, but I can’t refer to the year. My recollection is not very good on the matter of dates, and I can’t state when it was.
52: Well about how many years ago was it. I don’t care about the absolute time being stated, but about how many years ago was it according to the best of your recollection?
Well I would say, – to the best of my ability it was about for or five years ago.
53: Did you ever have any correspondence with C.A. Hall?
Lots of it.
54: You have had correspondence with him?
Yes sir. Lots of it.
55: Look at the letter I now hand you, and say whether you received that from C.A. Hall?
Yes sir.
56: You received that from C.A. Hall, one of the defendants in this case?
Yes sir, that is his hand-writing, and his name is signed to it.
57: Is that the letter which you received from C.A. Hall?
What is that you say?
58: Is that a letter which you received through the mails from C.A. Hall?
It is. The letter above referred to in the answer of the witness is hereupon handed to the Notary Public, and by him marked as “exhibit woo, J.M. Orr.” in accordance with request of counsel for the plaintiff.
59: I have not offered that in evidence yet Mr. Southern, but I want it marked so that it can be identified, – that is my only object in havung it marked at this time. Look at this letter which I now hand you Mr. Reynolds and state if you ever saw that before?
Yes sir.
60: That is another one of the letters?
Yes sir, that is another one of the letters.
61: That you received from C.A. Hall through the mails?
Yes sir, that is another one of them.
62: One of Whose letters?
One of Hall’s.
63: Don’t you mean C.A. Hall this gentleman here, and one of the defendants in this case?
Yes sir.
64: Did you receive that letter from him through the United States mail?
Yes sir.
65: What time was this letter marked exhibit “201” received by you with reference to the date that it bears, – was it received by you about the date that it bears?
I don’t know what month it was that I got that but it was in ’91. It says the 16th of some month, but the month is not stated there. It does not give the definite date of it, but it says ’91 and that is all you can make out of it.
66: Give the figures as they appear in the letter Mr. Reynolds?
The figures showing the date?
67: Yes sir?
Well it is here “December 3rd” and then there is a ’16-91″. That is the way I make it.
68: Would not that stand for the third month and the sixteenth day, – you said “December 3rd” Mr. Witness and I want to call your attention specifically to that and see if it does not stand for the third month and sixteenth day? Counsel for the defendants objects to the question asked the witness on the ground and for the reasons above set forth, and for the additional reason that it is leading.
Well if I read that right it says “Independence”.
69: So that the heading of the letter is Independence 3-16-91″?
Yes sir, I presume that is it, but it don’t say the date of the month or what it is, but I presume that is what it is.
70: Did you receive it about the date it bears, – did you receive that letter somewhere about the date that it bears?
I could not tell you about that.
71: Well did you receive it about the date it bears?
I say I could nor tell you about that.
72: Look at this letter marked exhibit “200” and state whether or not you received that about the date it bears?
Well it says “Independence”, and I take tha to be the “third” and the other “30-91.”
73: Well that date would indicate, would it or would it not indicate that it was written at Independence on the third month and thirtieth day of the month in 1891?
Well I would not be positive about that, for it might be the third month and the third day in the month, – I mean it might be the third month and not the third day.
74: Well it is immaterial I take it for they show for themselves. I will ask you if you were a member of the same religious organization with C.A. Hall, at the time that you received these letters?
Yes sir.
75: You both at that time belonged to the same religious organization?
Yes sir. 7 6
75: What was the title of that organization?
The “Church of Christ” commonly called the “Hedrickite Church”.
77: Did you have any correspondence with Mr. Hall with reference to mortgaging what is known as the “temple lot” or property, – the property that is now in controversy in this suit?
Yes sir.
78: Were the letters to which your attention has been called, – were these letters, or some of them with reference to that subject?
Yes sir.
79: There was some correspondence to that effect passed between you as evidence by these letters?
Yes sir.
80: Mr Hall wanted to mortgage it?
Yes sir.
81: Who did he want to mortgage it to?
What is that?
82: Who did he want to mortgage it to if you know?
83: Who did Mr. Hall want to mortgage this property called the “temple lot” to, if you know?
Well I understood from his letters that he wanted to raise money on these lots, and he wanted to mortgage them to somebody to get the money and I understood, – he never told me anything about it, but I understood that he wanted,
84: Well state just what you know about it and nothing else?
Well sir, all I know about it is what these letters say, – that is all I know about it, and they will speak for themselves, for they are here.
85: That is all you know about it?
Yes sir, that is all I know about that.
86: Well sir, I guess they are the best evidence of what their contents are. Now sir, look at that letter and state if that is one of the letters you received from C.A. Hall?
Yes sir, yes sir, that is one of the letters I received from him. The letter above referred to is hereupon marked exhibit “202” in accordance with request of counsel for plaintiff.
87: What is the date of that letter, -read the date?
It says “Independence. 8-11-90”.
88: Look at the letter I now hand you and state to the reporter whether or not that is a letter you received from C.A. Hall sometime in 1890 or ’91?
Yes sir.
89: What is the heading or date of that letter?
It is headed “Independence 6-17-90”. I don’t know what month that is or anything about it in that way. Whether he has reference to the date of the month or the month, or which is which, or anything about that I can’t tell from the way it is written.
90: From whom did you receive that letter?
Yes sir.
91: I asked you who you received the letter from?
From C.A. Hall.
The letter above referred to and identified by the witness, in accordance with the request of counsel for the plaintiff is marked exhibit “208”.
92: You received that from C.A. Hall, one of the defendants in this case?
Yes sir.
93: I can’t see that it calls for an opinion of the witness,-it calls for the plain, bare bald fact. Now the witness Hill in his testimony given in this case for the defendants, testified that there was no effort made, nor any proposition made or adopted or considered by the church, of which he was a member, looking towards the dressing of the members in the same same dress,-that is dressing the men all alike and women all alike. Now what do you know about that?
94: Answer the question Mr. Witness?
What is the question?
95: The witness Hill when giving his testimony on behalf of the defendants, testified substantially that there was no effort made, not any proposition made or adopted or considered by the church, of which he was a member and is now a member, looking towards the dressing of the members of that church in the same dress,-that is the women dressed in the one uniform pattern of dress, and the men all being clothed in an uniform pattern of dress as regards color, quality and texture?
Well I might say that I don’t know hardly anything about that of myself.
96: Well then don;t make any statement about it sir?
Well I cannot say that I do know much about it.
97: Did you receive any communication from Mr. Hall with regard to that question amongst others?
I think I have.
98: Well do you know whether you did or not?
Well I say I have, but ain’t positive about that.
99: Well if you ain’t positive about that either you need not testify about it.
Well I can’t remember about that.
100: C.A. Hall was the presiding officer of the branch at that time was he not, – the branch here at Independence, I mean?
101: Was C.A. Hall the presiding officer of the branch here at Independence at that time?
I think he was.
102: Well was he?
Well he professed to be.
103: At that time?
What time?
104: The time that these letters were written to you?
Yes sir.
105: Well that is what he is doing as I understand it. I hand you now exhibit “201” and ask you to read to the reporter, commencing at the first word in the twelfth line from the top and read the balance of the letter? Commence there at that place (indicating the place witness is desired to commence reading at)
Do you want me to read it?
107: Yes sir?
“The question we are talking about now is pride in dress. Dress plain, and we have about concluded to come to an equality in dress. That is all the news”, – – – No that is not right, it is, – – – “all the men and boys will have their clothes made of the same kind of cloth in the same style, and all the women and girls have their dresses made out of the same kind of cloth and in the same style and to be very plain. We have concluded from a careful examination of the word of God, and by much fasting and prayer that unity cannot be obtained unless we all cast aside our pride and become equal in dress to start with, and all other things as soon as the Lord will open up the way. Let us know what you think of this. May the Lord bless and prosper you is my prayer in Christ. C.A. Hall.”
108: I will ask you now Mr. Witness, if about this time, – I mean about the time of the date of this letter, or shortly afterwards, – what the fact is about a number of the members of that organization withdrawing or leaving the church?
What do I know about it?
109: Yes sir, what do you know about that fact, if it is a fact?
Do you want me to state what I know about it?
110: Yes sir?
What church, – members of what church?
111: I mean the members of the Hedrickite branch of the Mormon church, so called?
Yes sir, I understand now what you mean.
112: Well go on and answer the question then?
You have reference
to what I read there, have you not, – what I read from that letter. Is that not what you refer to?
113: What is that?
You want to know in reference to what I read there from that letter, do you not?
114: Yes sir?
And about members leaving the church on account of that matter?
115: Yes sir?
Well it was indicated to me by letter as I have read it here, and in that and other ways I learned that there was some question about this matter in the church, and so I wrote to other members of the church and asked them what it was, and they stated the case to me, and said it was about the matter of dressing, and they objected to it and would not conform to it and did not think it was right according to the last of God.
116: The question is whether or not a number of them withdrew from the church on that account?
Yes sir.
117: They withdrew from the church on that account?
Oh certainly.
118: Name the partied if you can that went out of the church because of the rule of dress?
Well there was several of the Haldemans. My recollection of the names is poor, but there was several of the Haldemans, – and let me see, – I will have to study a little over these names for there was more than them went out on that account. There was a man that married a Haldeman, and I forget what his name is now.
119: Well don’t state it unless you know?
I won’t unless I can think of it. I know it if I could only think of it, but it seems I can’t do that. Well there was several of them left on that very account.
120: Well what about Franklin and his wife?
What is that?
121: What about Franklin and his wife?
122: What did Mrs Granville Hedrick leave for, if you know?
Well she called Hall an imposter and they turned her out of the church on that account.
123: Do you know that?
No sir, that is only what I learned.
Well Mr. Hall won’t deny that.
124: Well let us see if he will?
Well he won’t.
125: Were you an officer in the church at that time?
Yes sir.
126: What office did you hold?
I held an eldership.
127: It was a part of your duties as an elder to know what was going on was it not?
I thought I ought to have that right. I had to see that the law was kept and of course I could not see that the law was being kept unless I knew something about it.
128: I offer now from exhibit ‘200″ commencing at the word “we” in the fifth line from the bottom of the first page, as follows “we are aware that mistakes have been made and we may even now be mistaken in some things, but we are trying to correct every mistake as fast as we find them out, but we are not satisfied that Granville made a mistake in advocating an organization on the basis of the revelation given to the Twelve on priesthood. That revelation was not given until 1835, but it was in the first edition of the D. & C. , – “
129: I believe the last words I was reading were “there was not date when it was given, and the church has made the mistake for years in thinking that it was given before 1834, or before Joseph fell. I examined the history some time ago and found out just when it was given, and told the brethren, but some did not like to give it up, even when they knew it was given after Joseph fell, but some of us have laid it aside as unreliable, and are not going to build on that or nay revelation that was given after joseph fell, and in consequence of some of the revelations being changed that were given before February 24th 1834, we have to be very careful how we receive them. We have been trying to get a correct understanding of the law, and the time is not very far distant when the work of this church will be either approved by God pouring out his Spirit in power upon us, and giving un an endowment of the Holy Ghost, and give us power and authority to set these things in order, or we will moved out of the way “evidently the word “be” has been left out for it should read to make sense “we will be moved out of the way” but it reads “we will moved out of the way” and it goes on “as unprofita-servants. To whom much is given much is required, and we must do something instead of talking so much, if we are going to come out from under condemnation. We are not going ahead much yet. We are trying to gain the ground lost in the early days of the church and when we get back to the law and order given in 1830 & ’31
then we may expect to start on towards perfection. We are glad that the same spirit is working with you that seems to be moving us to greater efforts. We are warned that the enemy will try to cause division and contention in our coming conference. Pray that truth and right may triumph over error and wrong doing, and we will remember you. Your brother. C.A. Hall.
130: I now offer in evidence from exhibit “200” commencing at the word “we” in the fifth line from the bottom of the page one, and leave it with the reporter, – all of the letter I leave with the reporter to copy into the record? Counsel for the defendants objects to the offer of proof for the reasons above set forth. The letter marked exhibit “200” above offered in evidence is in words and figured as follows, – Independence. 3-30-91. C.E. Reynolds and Wife. Dear Brother and Sister, Your letter received and read to the brethren. You will find the word amen used often in the middle of a revelation. That does not of necessity end a revelation, as it is often used at the end of a paragraph or subject. I have a book of commandments and find there are some changes, but as I said before in writing about the Evening and Morning Star the changes are all in our favor. We are aware that mistakes have been made, and we may be even now mistaken in some things, but we are trying to correct every mistake as fast as we find them out. We are satisfied with Granville made a mistake in advocating an organization on the basis of the revelation given to the 12 on priesthood. That revelation was not given until 1835, but it was in the first edition of the D. & C., and this was not dated when it was given, and the church has made the mistake for years in thinking that it was given before 1834, or before Joseph fell. I examined the history some time ago, and found out just when it was given, and told the brethren, but some did not like to give it up, even when they knew it was given after Joseph fell, but most of us have laid it aside as unreliable, and are not going to build on that or any revelation that was given after Joseph fell; and in consequence of some of the revelations being changed that was given before Feb. 24th 1834, we have to be very careful how we receive them. We have been trying to get a correct understanding of the law, and the time is not far distant when the work of this church will be either approved by God pouring out his Spirit in power upon us and giving us an endowment of the Holy Ghost, and give us power and authority to set these things in order, or we will moved out of the way as unprofitable servants. To whom much is given much is required and we must do aoemthing instead of talking so much if we are going to come out from under condemnation. We are not going ahead much yet; we are trying to regain the ground lost in the early days of the church, and when we get back to the law and order given in 1830 and ’31 then we may expect to start on towards perfection. We are glad that the same spirit is working with you that is moving us to greater efforts. We are warned that the evil one will try to cause contention and division in our coming conference. Pray that truth and right may triumph over error and wrong doing, and we will remember you. Your Br. C.A. Hall.
131: We now offer exhibit “202” commencing on page one at the top, down to and including the word “Utah” on page four of said exhibit and ask that the reporter copy same in the transcript?
131: I will leave the whole of exhidit “202” with the reporter so that it can be filed as an exhibit in this case along with the
other exhibits.
132: I offer now from exhibit “203” commencing at the word “the” in the seventh line from the top on the first page, down to and including the word “council”, in the fifth line from the top of page two?
133: The part offered is an follows, – I will ask the Notary to incorporate it in the record? The part of exhibit “203” offered in evidence is in words and figures as follows, – “The printing of the book of Mormon, continuing of the Morning and Evening Star is the work referred to. This must not go to any of the Josephites, as the Lord has kept these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them unto babes. The book of Mormon is to be printed in a cheap edition so as to be sold for fifteen or twenty cents a piece, so that every one can afford to buy one, and if we continue the paper that was printed here in 1832 and 1833, under the same name, we will have more grounds to claim we are the original church ordained on the 6th of April 1830. The word of the committee (???) will of necessity have to consider the book of Doctrine and Covenants, and I am satisfied we cannot accept all of the first edition. We must be consistent, an I think before we get through that all will see that it was very necessary for such a work to be done as is contemplated by the council.”
134: That last word in the part I have offerred I refered to as “council”, and I don’t know whether it is “council” or “committee”, but assume that it is meant for one or the other. I think the word is meant for “committee”, but Mr. Hall’s writing is like the writing of a good many more of us, – hard to decipher.
135: I will read the portion of this exhibit I have offered, and asked the Notary to copy into the record (counsel hereupon reads that part of exhibit “203” as above set forth, and makes the following statement).
136: In one of the exhibits that I have introduced Mr. Reynolds, being the letters of C.A. Hall to yourself and wife, there is a statement in which he says he sent you a revelation?
Yes sir.
137: Have you that revelation?
I don’t recollect whether he sent it or not.
138: You state that you do not know whether he sent it to you or not?
Yes sir, and I don’t think that he says there that he sent it. It is asserted there in the paper that he intended to send it to me if I recollect the reading of the letter right, – I think he said that he intended to send it to me.
139: Well he said that he sent it to you, but that is immaterial, – have you that revelation in your possession?
No sir.
140: You have not?
I don’t think I have.
141: Well that is all. Take the witness.
142: To what church do you belong?
The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
143: When did you become a member of the church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
When did I become a member of that church?
144: Yes sir?
I can’t give you the date.
145: About when did you join it?
I can tell you I used to belong to the old organization.
146: Well I asked you about the church that you now belong to, – when did you become a member of it?
Well I joined it about two years ago or a little over.
147: What church are you a member of?
The church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.
148: That is the church you belong to?
Yes sir. Sometimes it is called the re-organized church, – and I might say that I am a member of the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints as it is called.
149: Well that is the church you belong to?
Yes sir.
150: The church that is the plaintiff in this case?
Yes sir.
151: When did you say you became a member of that church?
Two years ago or a little over. That was the time I joined it.
152: What church did you belong to just before that? First I will ask you this question, were you baptized?
Yes sir, I was baptized.
153: When?
I was baptized in 1840.
154: Were you baptized when you joined the re-organized church?
Yes sir.
155: About two years ago?
Yes sir, some where near that as well as I can recollect.
156: Then you joined the re-organized church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?
Yes sir.
157: To what church did you belong just prior to that?
I belonged to what is called or known as the “Hedrickite Church” just before that.
158: At what time did you join it?
Well I joined it about the time of the first rise of it, but they cut me off after a while.
159: They cut you off from that church?
Yes sir, after I had joined it awhile they cut me off from that church because I would not consent to some things they doing, and I was cut off for some time, and two years ago or a little over they concluded to receive me back into it again.
160: They cut you off and then concluded to receive you back again?
Yes sir.
161: What branch was it they cut you off of?
Well it was, – Hall was the leader of it at that time.
162: When was that?
Well I can’t tell you the date exactly. I can’t give you the date as to the exact time but it was between two and three years ago any way. I guess it is on record and the date can be shown in that way.
163: What do you mean by coming back and being “cut off”?
Well I mean that they wouldn’t, – the way, – that I would not endorse some things that they were transpiring or doing, and when, – the way that Granville Hedrick wrote up these doctrines was not approved by Hall, and I would not endorse any change in it, and then they cut me off or took my name off the record.
164: When was that?
Well I can’t give you the exact date of it.
165: Was it in the life-time of Hedrick?
Granville Hedrick?
166: Yes sir?
It was before he came here, – just before he came here.
167: You don’t understand what I am after, and I will put it this way, – when was the first time that you joined the Hedrickite church?
Well if you consider the branch that is now in existence, -if you call that the “Hedrickite church” or branch, it was about two years or a little over ago.
168: Now to what church, if any, did you belong between the time you were cut off in the days of Hedrick, and the time you joined it a little upwards of two years ago?
Please state that question again, – I don’t know as I understood it.
169: To what church did you belong between the time when Hedrick had you cut off, and when you joined the church here a little over two years ago?
Well I stood upon the same position when I attached myself to the branch here as I did during that time. I don’t know that I belonged to any church in particular, but I stood in the same position all the time.
170: Well did you attach yourself to any branch in the meantime?
No sir.
171: You did not?
No sir.
172: Did you not belong to a branch of the re-organized church during that time?
In that time?
173: Yes sir?
No sir.
174: You did not?
No sir, I belonged to it afterwards.
175: You joined it afterwards?
Yes sir.
176: That is you mean to say that you joined the re-organized church afterwards?
Yes sir.
177: Well during the period when you were cut off from the Hedrickite church did you belong to the re-organized church?
I have told you I did not.
178: Well now state what time you first joined the re-organized church?
Well I told you before that I could not remember exactly the date, for I disremember.
179: Did you ever belong to it before you joined it the last time?
Yes sir.
180: You did?
Yes sir, I did.
181: Where?
In Illinois.
182: You joined first in Illinois?
Yes sir.
183: And then you joined again after that?
Yes sir.
184: So as a matter of fact you have joined the re-organized church twice?
Yes sir. That is so.
185: And how many times have you joined the Hedrickite church?
How many times have I joined what?
186: How many times have you joined the Hedrickite church?
Only once.
187: When was that?
Well I told you before that I did not know exactly the date of it.
188: You don’t know then when you joined the Hedrickite branch?
No sir.
189: Was the last time you speak of since Hedrick’s death?
Yes sir.
190: Well did you join it before his death?
Yes sir.
191: That is the Hedrickite branch?
Yes sir.
192: Well then have you not joined it twice?
Yes sir, not sir, not the Hedrickite branch but the re-organized church.
193: Is it not a fact that you have joined the Hedrickite church twice and re-organized church twice?
Yes sir, that is so. _________________________________________________ NUMBERING BEGAN HERE AGAIN AT 184 – DUPLICATE FROM 184 TO 193 _________________________________________________
184: Well that is what I asked you?
I did not understand the question and that is the reason I answered as I did.
185: Well what other churches have you joined in your time, if any?
Well I don’t recollect of any other.
186: Did you ever live in Independence?
No sir, not to make my residence here, but I have lived in Jackson County here.
187: You have lived in Jackson County then?
Yes sir.
188: Where about did you live in Jackson County?
Out here by Lee Summit, – three or four miles east of there.
189: Do you know or did you know the laws of the Hedrickite church as to dressing?
The laws as to dressing?
190: Yes sir, – as to dressing, – did you know the law in that regard?
Well you heard it in the letters read there.
191: Well was that the law of the church?
Well no sir, I don’t know that it was particularly the law of the church. The law said to dress neat and plain, and that was the law given in the beginning of the church.
192: Is that the law of the Hedrickite church, to dress neat and plain?
That is what it states in his letters.
193: Well is that the law taught by Granville Hedrick?
Why he never taught much about it at all. He did not teach about it I think.
194: He did not?
No sir, but the other records do, – the book of
Mormon speaks about plain and neat dress.
195: Well what does it say about that?
Well I don’t know as I can quote its exact language, but it says to make their own clothes, that is they are to be the workmanship of their own hands, and they are to be plain and neat, and they had all kinds of fine material to make it out of, but if they made it plain why it was all right.
196: Is there any law of the church with reference to dressing plain that you know of?
Yes sir, I think there is.
197: Well that is all?
Now I want to state,
198: Well I don’t want you to state anything about it,
199: Well you can go on and state anything you please.
Well I believe people ought to be consistent, – I believe I have just as good a right to speak as you had to ask me question, and say anything that is in answer to the questions.
200: Take all that down Mr. Reporter, – I want it all to go down.
201: Mr. Witness if you want to explain anything you have a perfect right to do so now. You are through with the witness are you not Mr. Southern?
202: Now Mr. Reynolds if there is anything you desire to explain with reference to any question that was asked you, you may now do so. That is any thing you wish to explain in connection with any question that was asked you by the defendant’s counsel?
203: Mr Reynolds go on and make any statement you desire to make in that connection (the foregoing question was asked by Mr. Kelley)
State that question again please.
204: I say if there is any explanation you desire to make in connection with any question asked you by the counsel for the defendant, – if there is any thing you desire to explain in connection with his examination proceed and explain it? Counsel for the defendants objects for the reasons above set forth.
Well I will say this much, – I don’t see the propriety,
205: Wait Mr. Reynolds, – If you don’t desire to explain ay question that was propounded to you by Mr Southern why we don’t want you to say anything, for you have not any right to discuss a question with a counsel?
Well I don’t know that I have any thing particular to say sir.
206: Well that is all then?