ON

tradietion of that kind ; but, though he was wrong in that contradiction, T think the gentleman who aggravated him was far more wrong when he, openly, at a La. ic meeting of the church, said that that man had called his minister a liar. That is a term which I think no man is justified in putting into the mouth of another, unless that other has actually used the very expression itself, because, though it may be that à man may contradict another, under the conviction that the statement made is erroneous or incorrect, still, to say the statement is erroneous or incorrect is far different from telling the person who is contradicted that he is “a liar.” If the Plaintiff, really, honestly, and sincerely believed the statement to be incorrect, and it was a matter material to the discussion in the church at that time, it seems to me he would be Wanting in independence if he had not pointed out its incorrectness, but he should have taken good care that his information was accurate, and the manner in which he put forward the contradiction should have been carefully guarded. After that, there seems to have been other discussions, and, then, the trustees appear to have desired to get rid of the Plaintiff as an elder of the chureh. Now, so far as the evidence in this case goes, it appears that, as to elders of the church, the trustees have nothing to do, either with reference to their conduct or office, or to their displacement from office ; that they are subject alone to the rh re of the Church Courts, and to be tried and removed by their decrees. And it seems also that, for any misconduct of a member of the congregation, he may be brought before the proper courts, and have the matter duly investigated and duly tried, and, if tried, dealt with as those courts, in their discretion, may judge right and proper, but that the trustees, as such, have no power où right to deal with the matter. It appears that Mr Johnston was tried before a Church Court, and was at first condemned ; but, upon appeal to à higher church tribunal, he was entirely acquitted, and remained in his office of elder, not in any way subject to the control of the mister, or dismissal by the trustees. But it appears they, and x large majority of the congregation, were desirous of getting ri of him as an elder. If they wished to get rid of him legally and properly, they had à perfect right to take such action as would properly accomplish that object, but I cannot assent to the proposition, that to accomplish what they could not do legally, they had a right to pursue another course, und refuse to allow him to occupy his pew, and to continue & pewholder, and thereby prevent him from continuing to be a member of the congregation. They could not do indirectly, in that way, what they failed to accomplish directly through the