opportunity of impeaching the proceedings of their meeting for the first day, but since that they have not rested their case on those proceedings, but the defendants have attempted to bolster up their cause by laying before the Jury facts, independent of their religious proceedings, they entered into the wide field of fact, and the remote regions of evidence, to shew that all the proceedings of their body were correct and right, that they have merits in their cause beyond the legal presumption: In the testimony of Samuel Bettle, you find a full and laboured vindication of the proceedings and discipline of their meetings, the reasons were assigned as governing their proceedings, and we wish to shew that their proceedings are not so strictly correct as has been stated, and we wish to shew that in our case they are not deserving of the eulogium so lavishly bestowed upon them. Is it competent for them to shew what magnifies their cause and weakens that of the plaintiff without our being permitted to rebut it? The letter we refer to charges them with not doing him complete justice in respect to his resignation.

Brackenridge, J. You proposed to ask the witness a question, what is it?

Levy. Ques. Did you receive a letter from John Evans beside one already mentioned, of the import I stated.

Ans. As far as I recollect, he handed us a letter or paper at the time, but I think it was an account current.

Ques. Did he not tell you the substance of it? Ans. I suppose he did, but I don't recollect. Levy. This is a copy of that letter, what did you do with the original?

Ans. I suppose we handed it to the Preparative Meeting. Rawle. If we pursued the course alluded to by the opposite counsel, it was in consequence of the opinion of the court, and their agreement that we should give in evidence the proceedings of the meetings, their minutes, &c. whilst this was doing they offered in evidence a letter of John Evans's, which was refused because it was creating evidence for themselves, and leading us into a view of the whole ground of controversy between John Evans and John Field, a much wider field than is included in this case, and ground too wide and extensive for us to travel over.

Tilghman. True we gave in evidence the proceedings in the Preparative Meeting, and in the Monthly Meeting, and it was necessary for us to do so, as the trespass and assault and battery are charged upon three ladies and ten gentlemen, it was necessary to connect the gentlemen with the ladies, for certainly the gentlemen themselves would not thank us

to let the complaint rest against the ladies alone. It was ne cessary also to shew the resignation of Mr. Evans and his wife, to shew the legal effect; but the counsel for the defendants have not confined themselves to the written testimony with respect to the present witness, they have asked him of the conversations with the plaintiff, and surely all that passed ought to come out, the written as well as the oral communications.

Mr. Levy agreed with Mr. Tilghman, that all ought to come out, for the plaintiff's conversation with the committee did not contain all his defence: from the condition of his health and other circumstances, it could not be expected it should; the letter was written to refresh his memory and ought to be heard. I say with Judge Peters, on a memorable trial, let in all the light you can-bring all the evidence into the court-room, let the lawyers thresh it, and if it contains a grain of any weight it will come out, but if it be only chaff, when the jury get it, they will find it light."

Mr. Rawle. I shall make no reply to the eloquence of the gentleman who has thought it necessary to connect the gentlemen with the ladies; but I am sorry he should distress them from politeness, and make them co-defendants, in order to punish them for another's fault.

Brackenridge, J. It has been correctly stated, that on the part of the plaintiff, evidence was admissible, so far as respected the trespass alledged in the declaration, and what was necessary to carry the alledged trespass to the other defendants by legal construction ;-hence evidence of the association and of the facts which the law would construe participation. The defence to this, goes into what he consi'dered, only, as repelling the idea of malice, in excuse or justification as they might be disposed to use it.-It therefore becomes not me to reject evidence tending to rebut the testimony already given. If it should lead to a consideration of the grounds of the controversy before the committee, it will be the consequence of the evidence on the part of the defendants; but as has been said, it does not necessarily follow, that it will be given, I mean such evidence: for it is on the ground of a paper delivered to the witness, which has already been given on the part of the defendants as received by them, that we admit it. On this ground it is admitted.

Mr. Levy then proceded to read a letter from John Evans to Abraham Leddon and John Folwell, dated 24th 9th mo. 1806, and certificate of John E. Redman, and Holland annexed.

G

JOHN EVANS, to ABRAHAM LEDDON and JOHN FOLWELL.

RESPECTED FRIENDS,

Abraham Leddon,

John Folwell.

Philadelphia, 9 mo, 24th 1806.

Agreeably to your request yesterday, I now give you infor mation in writing, of the circumstances attending of John Field, to the Overseer of the Monthly Meeting of the religious society of the people called Quakers, in Philadelphia, and myself.

The report they made to the Preparative Meeting is false, as I did agree to see John Field on condition of his delivery to me, the title papers relating to the deeds of trust, which in joint letter to him from all the assignees, he was desired to do, but which he has not complied with, though he had the letter eight or ten weeks previous to the Overseers calling on me, and which I informed the Overseers of. I did then and do now con sider their interference improper, as I know of no cause of complaint, and though requested they would not give a specific one, or any opportunity of seeing them in company with those respectable friends mentioned in the annexed certificate. And I consider their conduct a defamation of my character, and an infringment of my religious and civil rights, as one of the trus tees to the estates of John Field, and John Field and Son; and it gives him encouragement to oppose the execution of the trust, to his already much injured creditors, and the treatment is cruel and unchristian.

Am your friend

COPY OF CERTIFICATE.

JOHN EVANS.

Caleb Carmalt called on John Evans by direction, as he said, of the Overseers of the meeting, and informed John Evans that his case with John Field, was to come before the next Preparative Meeting.

John Evans then demanded of Caleb Carmalt as an Overseer, the charges against him in writing, the person who is the accuser, and the discipline of the society, to know wherein he has transgressed.

He also requested an opportunity of a conference with the Overseers, in the presence of Doctor Griffiths, Thomas Harrison, Thomas Parker, David Bacon, and a few other judicious men, before his case came before the meeting, but Caleb Carmalt gave him no satisfaction or any assurance that his request would be granted, but insisted on its going forward.

n

We certify this to be a true statement of facts, as we were present the whole time, being called in by John Evans as wit

nesses.

Philadelpaia, July 22d, 1806.

Signed,

JOHN E. REDMAN,

NATHANIEL HOLLAND.

A copy of the above letter and certificate was handed by me to Abraham Leddon, on the morning of the Preparative Meeting.

JOHN E. REDMAN.

Robert Smith, jun. affirmed. I was one of the committee apponted by the Monthly Meeting respecting the letter of 8 month 29th handed to the clerk; it was not entered on the minute book, it being a novel circumstance, and the resignation being accompanied with a request that a certain paper should be read. I was one of the committee of three; we were desirous not to hasten the matter, apprehending it might have proceeded from a hasty disposition on the part of John Evans.

The discipline required him to see the party complaining. Cross-examined. The rules of discipline are all in print. I think we received a letter from J. Evans, or somebody in connexion with him; we did not think it relative to the subjects of our appointment.-I don't know what has become of it.

I was present when John Evans's letter was handed to the clerk. I was one of the committee appointed on that occasion-I did not call upon J. E.-some part of the committee did, but I did not.

Ques. Why was the resignation of John and Barbara Evans so long kept off the record? Ans. For several reasons. In the first place the novelty of the circumstance induced care and hesitation-it was an unusual occurrence. Secondly, The resignation was accompanied with a letter containing a request, that the letter might be brought forward with the resignation. And, thirdly, We apprehended that as it appeared to be a hasty proceeding on the part of John Evans, he might perhaps be induced to change his mind; we hoped by delay to prevail on him to alter his mind. The discipline required that J. Evans should see J. Field. I believe all the rules of our discipline are in print the last edition I think includes them all.

Question. Did the committee receive any letter or pa pers from John Evans? I think we did.-I believe a letter was put into my hands-the paper handed me I carried to a member of the committee of nine, and on cursory examination it appeared to contain what was foreign to the object of our appointment. I don't know what has become of it.

Adjourned,

NOVEMBER 22d, 4 P. M.

Mr. Hallowell. We shall not be able in consequence of the decision of the Court in regard to admitting the testimony of the Overseers of the men's meeting, who are codefendants in this cause, to fill up some chasm in the chain of evidence. We shall, therefore, rely on the evidence already given, to prove that a complaint was made by a member of the meeting against John Evans; that he refused to submit himself to the Overseers in conformity to the order of discipline of the Society of which he was a member, and in that regular way which would have led to a full investigation of the subject of complaint, on which full and ample justice would have been done to him according to its merits. But as John Evans refused to proceed in the regular way, it was impossible for the Society to proceed to that determination in any other way than that pursued.

Having now closed the evidence in this cause on the part of the defendants, I commit it to you, under the direction of the Court. I commit the further management of it, on their behalf, to my learned and able colleagues ;-appealing to the Supreme Judge of the Universe, and Sovereign arbiter of the affairs of men, for the rectitude of our intentions, and the purity of our motives;-imploring his protection and assistance in support of our religious cause; that he will be pleas ed to strengthen, in the further prosecution of our defence, the instruments, upon whom (under him,) we rely for success; that he will illuminate your understandings to enable you to come to a correct decision on a subject, all important to the preservation of our discipline, and the free enjoyment of our religious rights. We know, and acknowledge with humble reverence, our dependence on him!-that of ourselves without him, we can do nothing! that, unless the #Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain !!