Show THE TEMPLESUIT OXCE MORE OCCUPYING ATTENTION IV ST LOUIS Appealed from the United States Circuit Cir-cuit Court at Kansas City Where I Decision a Rendered l > y Judge Phillips St Louis Jan 23The long pending suit brought by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints against the Church of Christ at Independence Mo was called in the United States circuit court of appeals today It is an action instituted to recover re-cover possession of certain church pro pert claimed by the adherents of the Reorganized church In 1869 one John P Hedrick and his I wife deeded the property to the Church of Christ of Latterday Saints for the use and benefit of the said Church of Christ forever The defendants deny that this Reorganized church is these the-se church as that originaJy founded and the investigation of this proposition proposi-tion leads to a review of the history of the church going at least as far back I 3 ISTauvoo and the expulsion from Missouri I Mis-souri The defendants who have occupied i occu-pied the church at Independence for I many years are known as Hedrick ites itesThey They insist that when Joseph Smith at Nauvoolll t trUce the doctrine of polygamy baptism for the dead etc he introduced Q seism in he church and this departure from the original tenets of the church was of such a nature na-ture afe to constitute a heresy The system introduced by Joseph Smith is alleged < to be foreign to that adopted by the adherent of the church as originally orig-inally founded by Joseph Smith The I coadherents the defendants insist have I always repudiated polygamy as a practice prac-tice tae abhorrently condemned and they have even held themselves antagonistic antag-onistic to the Utah faction They deny the claim of the plaintiffs to their property perty on doctrinal grounds while they also assert that they can show a clear title from Hedrdck Who was a Mormon as long ago as 1830 years before Joseph Smiths special revelation concerning polygamy In the court below the United States circuit court at Kansas City there was I 2 judgment for the claimants whereupon where-upon the defendants appealed |