Martyrdom in Missouri, Volume 1 (of 2)

by W. M. Leftwich

“Boonville, March 10, 1866.”

The Circuit Court granted a writ of prohibition, and the defendant, J. N. Pierce, appealed to the Supreme Court, and made a motion by his attorney that all proceedings be stayed till the decision of the Supreme Court could be had, which would leave him in possession of the Church until the slow ploddings of law could be made. The court would not grant his motion, but ordered a writ of restitution to issue instanter, to which defendant excepted.

The legal history of the case can better be seen in the “Missouri reports,” vol. 38, p. 296, a part of which may well be transferred to these pages.

“This case was commenced in the Cooper Circuit Court by filing a petition praying for a writ of prohibition to issue against the County Court and John N. Pierce, stating that the plaintiffs were trustees of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, situate in the city of Boonville, on the south half of lot 238 on the plat of said city, and that they, as such trustees, were in the actual and rightful possession of said Church property, and that they and the persons under whom they claim have had the actual and adverse possession of said church for more than twenty years, claiming the same as the property of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South; and that the defendant, John N. Pierce, applied by petition to the County Court of Cooper county at the February term, 1866, and in said petition asked the said court to put him, the said Pierce, in possession of said church; and further stating in said petition that said County Court, or a majority of the members of said court, assumed to act on said petition, and did in fact entertain said petition, and made an order and caused the same to be entered upon its records, declaring in said order who are the owners and entitled to the possession of said church. The petition further stated that said court, in assuming to act on said petition, exceeded its powers; that said court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter in said petition, and praying a writ of prohibition to the said County Court and John N. Pierce to prohibit them from proceeding to enforce said order, &c.

“Upon this petition a writ of prohibition issued, returnable to the Circuit Court on the 19th day of February, 1866, and upon the return thereof the defendants moved to quash the writ of prohibition, which motion was overruled, and judgment was entered by the court making the writ of prohibition absolute, and ordering a return of said Church property to the plaintiffs. The court adjourned till the fourth Monday of May, 1866. Upon the fourth Monday of May, at a session of the Circuit Court, the defendants, by their attorney, filed and argued a motion to vacate and set aside the judgment. The motion was overruled, to which defendant excepted.

“The defendant, John N. Pierce, at the session of said court made and filed an affidavit and recognizance for an appeal to the Supreme Court, which was approved by said Circuit Court and an appeal allowed. The defendant, Pierce, then made a motion that all proceedings be stayed till the decision of the Supreme Court be had, which was refused by the court, and a writ of restitution was thereupon ordered to issue instanter, to which the defendant excepted.”

A portion of the opinion of the court throws additional light on the subject, and will be sufficient to place all the material facts in the case before the reader. For the questions of law involving the powers and jurisdiction of the courts respectively the reader is referred to the case as reported in “Missouri Reports,” vol. 38, pp. 296–302.—Howard et al. vs. Pierce.

“Holmes, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court. This was a writ of prohibition against the defendant, Pierce, and the Justices of the County Court of Cooper county, upon a suggestion, supported by affidavit, but without an exemplification of the record of the proceedings being filed therewith. The suggestion, or petition, contains but a very vague and imperfect statement of the facts, but we are enabled to gather from it that the defendant, Pierce, had filed a petition in the County Court praying to have the plaintiffs ejected from the possession of a lot of ground and a church building situated thereon, in the city of Boonville.

“The plaintiffs do not appear to have been made parties to the proceeding, whatever it may have been, and had no notice thereof; but it appears that the County Court proceeded to entertain jurisdiction of the matter, and made certain orders, the effect of which would be to put the petitioner in possession of the premises in question, ejecting the plaintiffs. This was certainly a very summary process of ejectment. We can only say that it is clear for one thing—that the County Court had not jurisdiction to entertain such proceeding.

“It was said in the argument that the title to the property was vested in the county, and that the defendant’s application was only to have the liberty of taking possession of the church; but nothing of all this appears on this record. So far as we can see by the record before us, the prohibition was properly granted.