REPORT OF THE CASE OF JOHN EVANS, AGAINST ELLIS YARNALL, AND OTHERS. NOVEMBER 20th, 1810; 10 o'Clock, Court opened, Counsel for the defendant suggest. death of David Bacon, Abraham Leddon, and John Elliot three of the defendants in the cause. The Jury being called, the following persons appeared and were impannelled. 1 JOHN RUGAN, 4 JOHN UHLER, 7 JOSEPH SPENCER, 10 FRANCIS ENGLE, 5 ROBERT RITCHIE, 11 JOHN SCOBY, 6 SAMUEL FULTON, 12 THOMAS MASON. Mr. Condy, on behalf of the plaintiff, rose and opened his case as follows: May it please the Court; Gentlemen of the Jury. This is an action of trespass brought by the plaintiff against the defendants, for forcibly entering his house, and committing an assault and battery on his person. It is right, however, to mention, that these injuries are not the substantial causes of this suit-it is the principle on which they originate, that renders this case of the utmost importance. It may perhaps appear strange to those who are unacquainted with technical proceedings, that the wrongs complained of should be the principal grounds of the controversy: this, however, is familiar to Lawyers. Thus a suit brought by the father for debauching his daughter, is founded on the fact of her living in his service; slight evidence of service will sustain the action; the mere sweeping a room has been held sufficient; and in this way compensation is obtained for the distress and wounded feelings of the parent. In this case the civil and religious rights of the plaintiff are involved; in his behalf we complain of religious oppression by a highly respectable body who, under the cloak of their discipline, have committed injuries for which we shall contend they are answerable here. No man in Pennsylvania is bound to support any religious esta, blishment, or to adopt any religious opinions against his consent, or to adhere to those he has adopted, if his judgment shall lead him to change them. The errors of good and respectable people are the most dangerous to society. The zeal of proselyting has brought many a man to the block and to the stake. Of this religious zeal the plaintiff complains, and now calls upon you to set a mark of disapprobation upon it, by a verdict and dama ges in his favor. John Evans and his wife had lived together in much harmony and free communication of opinion, and he having been much importuned and worried by the friends relative to a certain complaint made by John Field to the overseers of the meeting against him; they upon consultation together, determined to renounce their right of membership in the Society of Friends. And it will appear that they accordingly sent their formal resignation to the *meeting; that after a considerable time the society accepted his but not her resignation; that they endeavoured to separate her in religious opinions from her husband, and to a certain extent effect a breach between them. I will now call your attention to the particulars of this controversy, by which it will appear, that as early as the year 1799, John Field and Son had madé certain assignments of part of their landed property to John Evans, (who was a creditor to a large amount) Philip Nicklin, Robert Smith, and Thomas Clifford, for the benefit of their creditors. John Field however retained all the papers relating to the assignment in his own possession, and although by the plaintiff, as the authorized agent of the assignees, repeatedly required to deliver them up, that a disposal of the property might be made for the benefit of his creditors, he steadily refused, although John Evans, at the commencement of his misfortunes, had frequently befriended him and his son, by interceding with, and procuring indulgence for them, from their creditors. We state only the outlines; if the adverse parties wish to go further, we pledge ourselves to go into it to the very extent. Some of the assignees appointed John Field agent for them in the management of the estate assigned; but disputes and differences arising between the trustees and John Field, it finally ended in a revocation by them of his powers. In the month of April 1806, the other trustees called on John Evans, and consulted with him on the subject, and finally wrote a letter to John Field demanding all the papers relating to the land assigned to them, and directing them to be delivered to John Evans. This letter was delivered to Mr. Field, but its contents were never complied with. In the year 1802, John Evans purchased of John Field and Son, a house and lot in Frankfort, (Kentucky,) for three thousand dollars, and received a deed for it; but on writing to his agent he found that at the time of sale and two years previous, it had been in litigation in the Court of Chancery, a circumstance which had never been communicated to the plaintiff. The clerk of the plaintiff frequently called on Mr. Field, with letters requesting documents and information necessary to defend the claim for the Frankfort estate, but without success. All sa tisfaction it seems was withheld.-In this way much time elapsed, and finally, John Field com. plained to the overseers of the society of Friends against John Evans. Jonathan Willis, as an Overseer, called on John Evans on the business, and Mr. Evans supposing the offence to be the writing of a letter to John Baker, Esq. in which he had requested documents from him as assignee of John Field, under the bankrupt law, to enable him to defend the claim for the Frankfort estate, informed him of the treatment he had received from John Field, and handed him the letter. This letter Jonathan Willis had for several weeks, and returned it without any objections. It was afterwards understood that the complaint was not on account of the letter, but for not appointing John Field his agent. In July, 1806, a considerable time after this, Isaac Parish and Richard Humphreys, called on the plaintiff at his store; conversed on John Field's business, but said they came as friends to both, and not as Overseers. On the 22d July, 1806, Caleb Carmalt, called on John Evans, and informed that a complaint, lodged by John Field against him, would be taken to the Preparative Meeting in two days. Upon which John Evans requested of Caleb Carmalt, as an Overseer, the name of the accuser, the accusation in writing, and the book of discipline, to know in what he had transgressed. He also requested an opportunity of a conversation with the Overseers in company with Samuel P. Griffiths, David Bacon, Thomas Harrison, and Thomas Parker, previous |