# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1947_S628
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

628 APPEAL MATTERS \
reappeals to Synod and retrials by new committees, If an
in procedure were discovered or new evidence presented, the,
was to be remanded automatically to the Board of Appeals

We do not believe that the Board of Review is in a po
to discover whether evidence is really new evidence wi
studying the entire case. Nor is it fair to have either party
hold certain evidence and then, after the decision has bi
rendered against them, demand a new trial on the claim that thi
have new evidence to present. But if either party finds evidey
of whose existence they were unaware and if this evidence mata
rially affects the merits of the case, justice demands the reopening
of the case. Therefore we suggest adding the following para
to the General Rules Governing Boards:

“If at any time either party discovers evidence of wh
existence they were unaware when the case was being considerg
and if such evidence has a material bearing on the merits of :4h
case, the party concerned shall notify the Board of suth fact,
the Board shall have the authority to order a new trial if six
contention is proved. If the District has not acted, the facts
be brought to the attention of the District Board. After actj
by the District the facts shall be brought to the attention of Syngq
Board.” g

This provision would eliminate the question of new evideny
entirely from the consideration of the Board of Review.
would leave within their scope “error in procedure or actioy
Since any party appealing to the District or to Synod from t

Board of Reviews should have the authority to remand the
to the Board of Appeals without referring the matter to the Dist;
or Synod, as the case may be, and simply report the fact to
District or Synod. Under no circumstances should members
the Board be disqualified in such a case.

The only action on which Synod should act is the repo:
the committee to uphold the action of the Board. For many yeé
Synod has relied on the judgment of the committees in appé
cases and has not debated the case on the floor of the conventig
We feel that since Synod is now referring all cases to the Bog
of Appeals, it is imperative that this Board enjoy the confidence
of Synod in the final adjudication of appeal cases. We honestias
feel that an enlarged Board of Appeals for Synod, consisti
eleven or fifteen men, as Synod may determine, would more eagil
secure the confidence. The District Boards would not have to,