Article June 9, 1923 Issue

Master Files Report in Dittemore Litigation

The Christian Science Monitor

Another stage has been reached in the litigation which ensued when, on March 17, 1919, The Christian Science Board of Directors voted to dismiss Lamont Rowlands and John V. Dittemore from their respective offices as Trustee of The Christian Science Publishing Society and Director of The First Church of Christ, Scientist, in Boston, Massachusetts. On March 25, 1919, Mr. Rowlands and the two remaining Trustees of the Publishing Society began a suit in the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts to contest his dismissal. On April 29, 1919, Mr. Dittemore also began a suit in the same court to contest his dismissal. In certain respects, therefore, these actions were alike; that is to say, they subjected Mrs. Eddy's plan for a church and connected agencies to a legal test; they sought decrees from a civil court which would interpret and limit, or even render void, parts of her plan for carrying on the Christian Science movement.

The first of these actions has come to an end. It was terminated in December, 1921, by a just decree. In spite of impressive successes intermediately gained by the plaintiffs, the judgment ultimately delivered by the court was in substantial accord with Mrs. Eddy's plan. It was such a decree as had been hoped for by practically all members of her church.

In the other action — the suit brought by John V. Dittemore — there has now been filed in court a report from the master, Frederic Dodge, who was appointed in both cases to hear the evidence and report his finding of facts. He was to have filed complete reports in both cases at the same time; but, by a change of procedure, he first filed in the first case a report covering all issues in that case as well as all but one issue in the Dittemore case, postponing further proceedings in the latter case until after the court should enter a final decree in the former case. When this decree was entered, it was confined to the issues in the first case; hence, it left the proceedings in the second case to be resumed where they had been suspended. Thereupon, the defendant Directors filed a motion for the appointment of a new master in the Dittemore case, on the ground that the master theretofore acting had become disqualified by prejudgment and prejudice to give a further hearing and make a fair report. This motion was denied by a single justice, but is now pending on appeal to the full court.

Enjoy 1 free Sentinel article or audio program each month, including content from 1898 to today.

Send a comment to the editors
NEXT IN THIS ISSUE
Poem
Awakening
June 9, 1923
Contents

We'd love to hear from you!

Easily submit your testimonies, articles, and poems online.

Submit