Grand Lodge of Missouri.
1783.J
53
As this error is sufficient to reverse the case, we do not propose to consider the other errors assigned, but recommend that the decision of the Lodge be reversed, and the case sent back to Beacon Lodge for new trial. I
NUMBER III.
.J AMES E.
WALLACE,
VB.
ASH GROVE LODGE, No. 348.
}
Appeal from decision of Lodge acquitting Brother H. L. Hawkins.
The charge is gross un-Masonic conduct. First, In making licentious advances to the wife and daughter of a Master Mason. Second. In traducing the character of a Master Mason's wife, and impugning her virtue in presence of Masons and the profane.
The third specification we do not consider sustained by the proof, and therefore omit stating it. On the charge and specifications the Lodge found defendant and from the action of the Lodge Brother Wallace appeals.
II
not guilty,"
The specifications are not sufficiently definite as to time, place aud circumstances, but to this defendant did not except, The first specification was clearly proven, not only by the lady herself, but by the admissions of defendant. His own witness, Brothel' Perryman, states that defendant acknowledged to him that he had done wrong. Upon the second specification, the proof, uncontradicted, shows that defendant, in presence of others, said to the lady things he had no right to, yet he furnishes no proof tending to throw the slightest suspicion upon her character. Yet in-the face of this proof, the Lodge refused to convict him on eitherspecification. Brother H. was .Junior Warden of the Lodge, and we doubt not, his position had something to do with screening him from a merited punishment, when it should have rendered him doubly amenable. If a Mason, much less an officer of a Lodge, is to be exonerated, nay, even tolerated in the Lodge, with such offences as these proven upon him, we had as well throw our profession to the dogs, doff the lamb-skin, and let the world understand that female virtue and character do not enter into our standard of morality. We think he ought to be punished, and reversing the decision of the Lodge, refer the case back for a new trial. NUMBER IV.
D. A.
SPICER, VB.
WHITESIDE LODGE,
No. 162.
1
from decision of Lodge expe1l1ng J Appeal him.
Oharge: Gross un-Masonic conduct.
There are five specifications; the first anll fourth of which are clearly proven, and are sufficient to warrant the verdict. They are: Fi1路st.-Divulging to different persons the private business of this Lodge, by stating to different persons in the vicinity of Flag Spring, that Mr. - - petitioned to be made a Mason in WhHesvllle Lodge, and through his (Spicer's) infiuence was black-balled.
Fburth.-Violating the principle~ of common decency and the laws of the country, by disturbing the peace in a pnblic congregation, assembled for the worship of God on the Sabbath day.