# LCMS Convention Proceedings_St. Louis Missouri_1941_S427
# Machine transcription, uncorrected — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

Appeals 427

eport of Committee 20F on the Bay City Appeal

our Committee, elected at this convention to consider the
y. City Appeal, begs leave to make the following report and
commendation:

The Committee very carefully studied the facts in the appeal
essrs. Herman and Alvin Arnold of Zion Lutheran Church of
City, Mich.

‘After hearing the appellants, the pastor of the congregation,
ember of the committee appointed at the Michigan District
ZOO vention in 1940, and also the President of the Michigan District,
‘your Committee finds

“That the accusations of the Messrs. Arnold “that there was
ither a careful examination of the minutes of the congregation
“nor an unbiased or impartial attempt on the part of the above-
med committee to justly clear up and settle the difficulty be-
ween the appellants and the congregation and its pastor” are

Your Committee therefore recommends that the appeal be

ected.

Signed: Epnwarp Haver W.H.Grotuman  R. W. ScHuLtTz
H.W. AUFDEMBERGE A. L. DAENZER

Action of Synod: This recommendation was adopted.

“G. Report of Committee 20G on the Priehs Appeal

In the case of Fred J. Priehs of Park Ridge, Ill., your Com-
“mittee submits the following:
.. In 1935 Synod declined to entertain the appeal of Fred J.
Priehs (Proceedings, 1935, p.292). Since no new evidence was
submitted to the committee, we again respectfully advise Synod
“not to entertain this appeal.

Signed: A.W.Reese Frep Rieper A.J. RrrraMeu

E.Scuuttz Paut M. Saemrow

Action of Synod: This report was adopted.

H. Report of Committee 20H on the Rosebrock Appeal

Wuereas, There is at hand for review of this case only a letier
from the appellant, which does not describe the original occasion
of the controversy nor adequately define the present grievance of
the appellant; and

Wuereas, According to the appellant’s own statement the dis-
position of the case by the South Dakota District in 1930 was fair
and complete and the appellant’s present grievance rests on a seem~