Williams Vs. Arends

WILLIAMS, ARENDS, AHRENDS, EAST FRIESLAND PRESBYTERIAN, CEMETERY

Posted By: Tammy (email)
Date: 11/7/2010 at 11:07:26

QUEER CASE IS IN COURT

Legal Contest Over Possession of Lot in Cemetery

Each Claimant has Relative Buried in Plot

Case Comes From Grundy County to Judge Platt

One of the strangest cases ever tried in the state and the first case of its kind known of in Blackhawk county history, was taken up before Judge Platt in district court this morning.

It is a contest between two well-known farmers of Grundy county over possession of a lot in the Presbyterian church cemetery in German township.

The plaintiff in the case is B. Williams and the defendant is G. Ahrends. The latter is aided in his defense to Williams' claims on the cemetery lot by the Presbyterian church. Williams claims that in 1867 he bought the lot in question of the Ostfriesland Presbyterian church, paying therefor the sum of $5. The lot is the regulation size of cemetery lots, 16x16 feet. The plaintiff asserts further that upon purchasing the lot he took possession of the same and that he has buried a deceased relative in a grave therein.

He did not know that his ownership of the lot was questioned until on the 2nd day of last April, when the wife of the defendant, Ahrends, was buried in another grave in the lot. He claims the defendant has had possession of the lot since the date of the burial of his wife, and that he threatens not only to retain possession of the same, but to erect a monument thereon to his wife's memory. It is also claimed that the defendant now threatens to interfere with the grave of the deceased relative of the plaintiff.

He asks that Ahrends be enjoined from trespassing on the lot in question and that the injunction be made permanent.

The evidence was all introduced this morning and the attorneys are arguing the case this afternoon. J. H. Scales of Ackley represents Mr. Ahrends and Messrs. Premus & Roberts of Ackley are attorneys for the plaintiff.

One of the most interested persons in the court room is Rev. H. Schmitt, pastor of the church to which the cemetery belongs.

Mr. Schmitt said to a Courier reporter this afternoon that it was regrettable that the matter should have gotten into court and that every effort possible for a quiet and just settlement of the case had been made, but without success. The action was filed in Grundy county last October, but by consent of the parties interested it was brought here for trial.

The church, Rev. Schmitt said, is situated in German township, in Grundy county, about seven miles southeast of Ackley, and is one of the best country charges in that section of the state.

Mr. Schmitt did not hesitate to declare his belief that the court would find for the defendant in the case. He said it was true that Williams once owned the burial lot in question, but he does not own it now. When the land on which the church has been erected and the land composing the cemetery was given to the church, it was with the provision that should the church cease to exist the land should revert back to the original owner or his heirs. Therefore he says the church has not had power to deed the lots away, as it could not give a true deed. When the church was organized a motion was adopted giving each of the charter members a lot in the cemetery. Mr. Williams was one of these members and received a lot at that time. Afterwards funds grew scarce in the organization and at a meeting of the members it was decided to put the lots up for disposal to the members, under certain restrictions at $5 each. The charter members were compelled under this action to pay into the treasury $5 each for the lots previously set aside for them. Mr. Williams at that time paid the $5. Then a resolution was adopted which provided that when a member left the church or was removed from membership his lot should become church property again. The claim is setup by Rev. Schmitt and the attorneys for Ahrends that Williams has some time since been expelled from the church on the charge of drunkenness and that his interest in the lot had ceased some time ago.

--Waterloo Semi-Weekly Courier (Waterloo, Iowa), 23 January 1900

WINS CEMETERY SUIT

Judge Platt Decides a Grave Case From Grundy County

Judge Platt today filed his decision in the strange cemetery case recently brought before him from Grundy county. The judge finds the plaintiff in the case entitled to all rights in the cemetery. The case is entitled B. Williams vs. G. Arends. The finding of the court is as follows:

"In this action the plaintiff seeks to enjoin the defendant from interfering with his use of a certain burial lot in the East Friesland Presbyterian church cemetery in Grundy county, Iowa. In 1867, a lot in the cemetery was set off to plaintiff. The legal title remained in the church, but under the evidence it is clear that plaintiff acquired exclusive sepulcher rights in such lot. Prior to the commencement of this suit a grand child of plaintiff was interred in the lot and under the consent of the church authorities, the defendant has interred his deceased wife therein.

In the opinion of the court the rights of the parties depend very largely, if not wholly, upon the question of whether the plaintiff is still a member of the church; and the case has been tried upon this theory. It appears from the evidence that in 1897 charges were preferred against the plaintiff, and he was duly notified by the session to appear before it for trial. Plaintiff failed to appear and a second notice was directed to be served on plaintiff requiring him to appear for trial on May 22, 1897. Up to this point the proceedings of the session were regular, and in accordance with the Presbyterian church discipline, as set out in the constitution of the church. The church law, however, required that this second notice be served on plaintiff either personally or by leaving it at the usual residence of the plaintiff. The notice was left at the residence of plaintiff's daughter but the plaintiff testifies that he did not receive it.

The plaintiff did not appear on May 22 and the session proceeded without trial to excommunicate him. This proceeding was without authority. The law of the church pointed out two methods of procedure: (1) The session might appoint counsel for the accused and then proceed to trial in his absence; or (2) It might have suspended him for one year for contumacy. But neither course could be pursued if the notice to the accused was irregularly served or not served at all.

The session did proceed to excommunicate the plaintiff without trial, and this it could not lawfully do. In the opinion of the court the second notice to the plaintiff was not lawfully served on him and all proceedings based upon such notice and service as was had, were irregular and void. The court further finds that, even if the notice was regular, the session did not have the power to expel the plaintiff without a trial upon the merits of the charges made against him. The court further finds that the plaintiff is still a member of the church and as such is entitled to exclusive sepulcher rights in the lot in question.

The judgment and decree of the court is that the injunction be made permanent, in so far as the rights of the defendant are concerned. Judgment against the defendant for costs."

--Waterloo Daily Courier (Waterloo, Iowa), 3 February 1900