After three weeks, the cause of Bonhoff vs . Smith is brought to a successful close. Van Dyke and Emmons write now to Lefevere to obtain all the light for the further conduct of his defense which similar controversies in other states may have evolved. To accomplish this they give the following outline: In 1842 Mr. and Mrs. Antoine Beaubien conveyed to Lefevere and to his duly appointed successors, the lots in controversy. The deed makes minute and special provision for the erection of a German Catholic church, St. Mary's and for the vesting of the title under the condition of several special trusts expressed in the document. Van Dyke and Smith quote various law cases. There is a general statute, an exact copy of the New York act, providing for the incorporation of trustees and the vesting of property ownership. In 1842 about one-twentieth of those who under the act had a right to vote, but not one-fortieth of the congregation, proceeded to organize. The trustees filed a bill in chancery to restrain the interference of the bishop. Action at law was begun in the name of Smith who had rented a pew from the trustees against Bonhoff for disturbance the defendant claims under the Bishop's title. Van Dyke and Emmons then quote legal positions on the subject of trustees and ownership, which, while they may not be indispensable to an understanding of the case, still the questions hereafter asked can be more intelligently answered if those who are to reply understand more fully. There is no doubt of the several conclusions and opinions already proven. They are ample for Lefevere's defense. But it is proper to take evidence at other points. It will satisfy the misled men that they are submitting to no local or heretical law. The questions involving the canon law relationships of the case are asked so that particular pages and principles in canon law may be referred to, giving great moral weight in the combined effect as evidence. :: III-2-h L.S. 11pp. 4to.