The Brothers-in-Law, Part II

In the May 5 installment of this blog, I started telling the story of James Coulter and Thomas Miller, brothers-in-law tied up in a squabble over their late father-in-law's estate.  Coulter sued Miller and got into trouble with the Bovina U.P. Church session for not coming to them to resolve the issue.  Coulter was asked to withdraw the suit, but he and his wife Nancy refused to do so.  In March 1867, they were suspended from membership in the church. 

On the third of June, the Session met and discussed the case of Mr. and Mrs. Coulter.  The Moderator reported that his meeting with Mr. Coulter to discuss the suspension was not successful.  Coulter would not withdraw his suit and refused to attend church.   “Mr. Coulter only manifested a spirit of bitterness against Session and charged them with doing him great injustice in a former difficulty with Mr. Edward O’Connor, and using his son John very badly.”  Coulter asked the Session to stop bothering him.  The Session adopted a resolution continuing the suspension of Mr. and Mrs. Coulter.

The case was further complicated by the fact that not only was Miller an elder, but so was Miller's and Coulter's mutual brother-in-law, William Thomson.  Miller had not been active as an elder because of the case. There had been a resolution in May asking Thomas Miller to resume his active duties as an Elder.  On June 15, the Session met where the resolution was discussed.  The invitation was opposed by some who felt it “would be offensive to Wm Thomson and others.”   Others said they had no personal disagreement with Mr. Miller but thought the invitation to resume his duties was premature.  Yet others felt that “Mr. Miller was an Elder in good standing with no charge, or scandal against his character, which this Session could entertain.”  It was further argued that Miller had obtained a leave of absence from Session meetings while Coulter’s case was being heard, but as far as the session was concerned now, the case was ended.  “Mr. Miller had rights and privileges which Session could not justly ignore.” 

In September 1867, Elder Thomson was granted his request of several months duration to resign as Elder.  The Session agreed “on the grounds of a felt personal inability to discharge his duties.”  In January 1868, Thomas Miller was invited once again to resume his duties as Elder. 

While the issue of Elders Miller and Thomson was being resolved, little had been heard from the Coulters.  But at a meeting of the Presbytery held on April 28 and 29, 1868 at the Bovina U.P. Church, James and Nancy took this opportunity to circulate a letter of complaint against the Bovina session.  The session was not pleased and requested James to appear before their next meeting on May 12.  James did appear and said that after circulating the letter they had withdrawn it.  He requested to have his church privileges restored.  The Moderator read the rules explaining that “the practice of Christian brethren going to law one with another is not only contrary to the spirit, but to the letter of the Holy Bible.”   Coulter explained that he agreed but two days later, a letter was received from James and Nancy Coulter:

We the undersigned ask of the Session of the U.P. Church of Bovina to remove the act of suspension dated March 5, 1867 depriving us of church privileges. For the following reasons:

1st We have not committed any crime against the church to our knowledge;

2nd We have reason to believe there was not a full meeting of Session at the time of suspension;

3rd And we cannot see that we have committed a crime in leaving a church where we could not enjoy ourselves and be benefited, and go to another;

4th We were not cited to the Session at the time of suspension and was attending church two weeks before the suspension.  Signed Jas and N.D. Coulter.

With regard to the paper presented to Presbytery I have not got that in possession as I expected and it is not necessary in the action of Session in this matter as the Session will see after due consideration.

You the Session of Bovina please give us certificates and restore to us the blessings of church privileges if you cannot do this act of kindness to us I give you notice that we must lay the matter before the Presbytery which we do not wish to do.  Bovina, May 13, 1868, Jas and N.D. Coulter.

The session met again on Saturday May 16 to discuss the case of James Coulter.  The moderator explained that Mr. Coulter had promised but failed to produce the paper passed around at the Presbytery and yet had now “presented to this Session another paper signed by himself and wife asking Session to restore them to privilege for reasons which appear to us untrue [and] unwanted.  It was pointed out that Coulter admitted that what he was doing was contrary to the rules of the church, that he had disobeyed several citations to appear before the session, and that when Coulter and his wife were suspended, all but two members of the Session were present and that the vote was unanimous.  The Session resolved, however, that Mr. and Mrs. Coulter be granted a new trial and be allowed 20 days to notify the Clerk of the Session as to their response. The session also stated that it “is perfectly willing to have the whole matter brought before Presbytery in a proper and orderly way.”  

Unfortunately, here the story abruptly stops because the next volume of session minutes that would continue the narrative has not been found.  The ultimate resolution of the case cannot be determined.  Did James and Nancy get what they felt they deserved from her father’s estate?  Were they restored to church privileges? 

We do know that Thomas Miller continued as an elder until his death, having been one of the longest serving elders ever in the church.  Thomas’s wife did not long survive the case, dying in 1870. Miller married twice more before his death in 1911.  Nancy Thomson Coulter also predeceased her husband, dying in 1891.  James died seven years later.  William, the brother who was caught up in the squabble, died in 1884. 

And I have had no luck locating any civil court records of this case - so whether or not they really went to court has not been established.  But I keep my eyes open for any new sources that might help us find the final resolution of this family squabble that spilled over into the Bovina UP Church.

The Brothers-in-Law, Part I

Andrew Thomson, a native of Scotland, died in Bovina on 12 May 1866, aged 87 years.  He had been a widower for more than 7 years, living with his daughter Eliza Miller and her husband, Thomas.   His death led to a family squabble that turned into one couple’s battle with the Bovina United Presbyterian Church. 

Andrew had seven children, including daughters Elizabeth or Eliza and Nancy and son William.  Elizabeth and Nancy got into a disagreement over their father’s estate after his death and their husbands joined in the dispute.  James Coulter, the husband of Nancy Thomson, instigated a suit against Thomas Miller, the husband of Elizabeth.  James claimed “my wife got the silver but did not get the gold that Grandfather told was up at Thomas’s.  My wife asked Thomas’s wife about it and Eliza told her she had got all the gold she should get now [so] what could I do.”

The Bovina U.P. Church got involved in the case because it was contrary to the rules of the church for one member to take another to court.  It first reached the ears of the church Session on October 9, 1866.  It was reported at a meeting of the Session “that a suit at law has been instigated against Mr. Thomas Miller a member of this congregation, and whereas it is reported that Mr. James Coulter who is also a member of this church has been active in having said suit instituted.”  It was pointed out that Mr. Coulter should have come to the Session for resolution of the issue.  The case was further complicated by the fact that Thomas Miller was a church elder and also on Session was his brother-in-law, William Thomson. 

James appeared before the Session on October 19.  He was asked “Are you willing to comply with the rules of the church and withdraw the suit you have been instrumental in bringing against Thomas Miller?”  He replied “I admit I did not take the scriptural mode of settlement, but I cannot withdraw the matter now.  I will withdraw the suit if Mr. Miller will pay us what we ask.”

Over the course of the next two years the Session made repeated attempts to get Mr. Coulter to withdraw his suit.  After his appearance before the Session in October, he declined several requests to make further appearances until February 1867. 

Intertwined with this was the fact that Coulter’s brother-in-law, William Thomson had not been attending Session meetings and tending to other duties as an Elder, likely because of the lawsuit.  On January 27, 1867, Thomson appeared before the Session and said he was incompetent to carry out his duties and wished to resign.  His brother-in-law, Thomas Miller, requested that the session not accept the resignation.  He “said he believed Mr. T’s reasons were personal to him (Miller).”  He said he would resign in Thomson’s place and that “perhaps never would again act as an elder in this congregation.”  Thomson said he had no feeling against Miller, and had “offered his resignation irrespective of all feeling or prejudices.”  Thomson said that since he did not uphold either party in the suit that he might bring his two brothers-in-law together to settle thing.   After a long discussion, Thomson agreed to withdraw his resignation. 

This did not resolve the suit between Miller and Coulter however.  Coulter appeared before the Session on February 4 and again on the 8th to argue his case.  Coulter thought he had been misused and that he always wanted to settle with Miller, but Miller had refused.  Coulter said "I spoke to some members of Session to speak to Miller, and try to get him to settle, and it seems they did not do it.”  He had asked Mr. Lee, the pastor, to speak to Miller.  He says that Lee said Session had no authority to make Miller settle with him.  Coulter “did not think he was doing wrong in trying to get his pay for keeping Grandfather” and that he was willing to let Miller have $3000 and he would take the balance.  The Session asked Mr. Coulter to use his influence to withdraw the suit but he made no reply.

When the session reconvened on February 8, Coulter was again asked to withdraw the suit.  Coulter responded at length:

I have had a great deal of trouble out this matter.  I feel as though there was a feeling against me.  I know I am a very poor unworthy man.  You can put me out of the Church if you want, I cannot feel like coming to church knowing there is a feeling against. When a member of Session says it was preposterous for me to ask 500 dollars for keeping Grandfather, I can’t feel right.  This matter has caused me the loss of many a nights sleep. I have prayed over it.  I wish to do right.  You can put me out of the church, but many an hour I have spent in prayer by myself.  In the woods alone I have an altar where I can pray.  I go to a big rock and over the rock are long red vines hanging, just like Jesus’ blood shed for me.  I think so, at least it appears so to me, and there I pray. 

The Session Moderator tried to convince Coulter “that there was no desire to put him out of the church, but rather as a contrary one, to have his difficulties settled.”  Coulter did not wish to be asked to appear before Session anymore. 

At the March 5, 1867 meeting, the Moderator reported on a meeting he had with Mr. and Mrs. Coulter.  It became obvious that Coulter’s wife, Nancy, was no passive player in this suit.  She explained to the Moderator that “I have the entire control of that suit and [that James] cannot settle it if he would, that if the Session wants to do anything they can proceed against her.”  The couple was “offended that [the] Session had noticed this matter.” 

After reporting this unsuccessful meeting, a motion was passed by the session: 

Whereas Mr. and Mrs. James Coulter have been instrumental in instituting a suit at law as they themselves admitted and whereas Mr. C has admitted before this Session that he acted contrary to the word of God in refusing to arbitrate said case and whereas Mrs. Coulter admits that she has the control of said difficulty so far as to prevent her husband from arbitrating said case and whereas Mr. James Coulter has informed the Moderator of this Session that he has applied to have an arbitrator grated by the court and this application is still pending, Therefore Resolved That Mr. and Mrs. James Coulter be suspended until the first Tuesday of June, when said court meets.

Subsequent actions taken by James and Nancy Coulter did not help increase their chances of having the suspension removed.  More of this story will appear in this blog on May 17.