The Case of AMORC (Plaintiff) Vs E. E. Thomas, Et Al. (Defendants) (1931)

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Department No. 40.
Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge,
THE ANCIENT AND MYSTICAL ORDER OF R03AE CRUCIS, a corporation. Plaintiff, vs. E. E. THOMAS, et al.. Defendants. No. 283,405
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: For Defendants: Weltnrn Mayo ok, Esq., Alfred Aram, Esq. C. C. Kerapley, Esq. and
Charles A. Bowman, Official Reporter.
I 1 2
3 4 5
DIRECT CR03S REDIRECT WITNESSES fOR PLAIBTIFF Harvey Spencer Lewis E. E. Thomas H. B. Roberta Anthony M. Hernandez Fred Seasler Mrs Katie L. Vagner Clara L. Treat Mrs Kathleen E. Bentley Mrs George B, Schelling WITNESSES FOR DEFEHDAHTS Harry Spencer Lewis (Recalled) 158 E. E. Thomas (Recalled) 166 164 186 164 13 78 127 129 135 137 140 147 153 154 138 141 141 144 32 124 128 130 128
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21
1 *118.2.11 Plaintiff's Exhibit Plaintiff*a Exhibit 1 ----- ------ 19 13 2 ----14 3 ----109 15 4 ----16 115 5 ----- ------ 92 17 6 ----18 7 ----19 8 ----- ------ 97 - 136 20 9 ----144 21 -----98 22 149 1 0 ----23 U ----24 1 2 ----- ------ 100 Defendants' Exhibit A ------------- 62 B 67 G for Ident. 135 2 160 B for Ident.- 161 F ------------ 165 G ------------ 175
22
23 24 25 26
1 2
3 4 5
IN THE 3UPEHIOE COURT OP THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA, IN AND POE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.
Department No. 40.
Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge.
6
7
THE ANCIENT AND MYSTICAL ORDER OP HOSAE CEUCIS, a corporation. Plaintiff, vs. E. E. THOMAS, et al., Defendanta. No. 2BS.405
8
9
10
11
12
13
REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT
14 15 16 17 18 19
o~~
APPEARANCES: For Plaintiff: For Defendant: We It urn Mayock, Esq. Alfred Aram, Esq. C. C. Eempley, Esq. and
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
Charles A. Bowman, Official Reporter,
; 1 1 2 3
4
Honda;, January 5, 19Z1; 10 o'clock a. .
HE HAYCOCK:
This complaint la rather voluminous In Its
oharaotar, your Honor, and I suppose for the first time now your Honor Is mads aware of the case, so perhaps It would ha well If 1 would briefly outline In a short opening state ment the position of the plaintiff in this matter. The plaintiff, your Honor, please, is the Ancient and Hystical Order of Bosaa Gruels, a corporation organised under the laws of the State of California. It consists of a grand
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
lodge or supreme lodge and has various subordinate lodges, both in this state and throughout the United States. 1 want
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
your Honor to be sure and not confuse this order with another order of Hoaicruolan Brotherhood, which existed in this lo cality and San Tranoisco lamedlately after the passage #f the Eighteenth Amendment, there ia no connection whatever That other order, as your
between this order and that one.
Honor will probably recall, has abandoned ita charter, if it ever had one. It aeema to have been, according to the ad
judication of the court, instituted for the purpose of ob taining sacramental wine for beverage purposes, there le
22
no connection whatsoever between that organisation and this. With that in view, we will proceed to an analysis of the faets. the Supreme Lodge of Hosae Gruels, of the Bosloruolan Order, ae it is commonly oalled, was established in Los
23 24 25 26
!*
t'
1 2
tl
Angelas and a number of members joined that organisation* On or about the Ziet day of M a y , 1929, and for a long tine previous thereto, the defendant B. S. Ihoaae van duly eleeted and approved aa Heater of this H e m e a Lodge of Loa Angelas, a eabordinate lodge of the Supreme Lodge. On or about the Slat of May 1929 all oonnaotion between S. 5. Thomas and the other defendant a and the RoBloruoian Order was severed. The Eoslornelan Order ia a fraternal organisation and operates on a purely fraternal basis. It has certain
6
7
8
S
1 0
11
prlnolplea and truths whioh it endeavora to lnonloate among its membership, and it baa certain lee tor ea on eertaln aubJeota, îleh are the prednot of lta own editorial ataff and its own organisation, and whioh are the property of the supreme organisation. These are given to the various snb-
12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19
20
ordlnata lodges for the purpose of instructing the membera. The asabera are entitled to the instruction contained in these leeturea and courses, but have no property right Shataoaver in the leeturea themselves. the property of the Supreme Council. Aa Master of Hermes Lodge in Loa Angelas, the de fendant Thomas and various other defandante ae members and offioiala ware entruBted with all the reoorda and documents of the lodge, and with these leoturea and eoursea, the prop erty of the Supreme Lodgs. After severing all connection They belong to and are
21 22
23 24
2 :
with the Supreme Order, these defendant maintained a head-
o 1 2
3 4
dU
quarters In the old headquarters or lodge rooms of the order and maintained the same telephone masher and organised a new organisation, using membership oards, letterheads, cer tificates, receipts, of a kind and character and with cer tain printing and set-up sbioh sere startllngly similar to those of the Boslcruolan Order, They also used as part of
6
7
their stationery the word "Roeicrucian," shloh has become identified with the Imoro Order of America, and referred to name the familiar by whioh the i n d e n t and ltyatloal Order of Roeae Gruel a ie designated among its own members, formed by the initials of the name. This new organisation, 0. O. A. H . , as they oall them* l selves, before delivering up the reoords, documents, para phernalia, vestments, robes and lectures of the imoro organi sation, caused copies to be made of all the leotures in their possession, of all the oourses in their possession, and a copy of the membership list, which was confidential in its char acter and the property of the Aaore order, and then circular ised the membership of the imoro organisation, and by leotureo, by interviews, by sivsrtlsements of it, by olroular letters, et forth to the publlo at large,and particularly to the mem bers of dmore, that they, While not oonmeetad with the Supreme Order, were giving the true teachings just ths same. It sent
8
9
10
11
12
13 14
1 5
16 17 18 19
20
21
22 23 24 25 26
out a olroular letter, for lnotsnee, stating that they had compared their leotures with the leotures of imoro organisa tion and that they were the same, word for word. That infor-
4 1 2 S
4
mat Ion went out, not only in this community, 1)01 various other communities In this state and in other states, with the result that there was a great loss of membership to our organisation, dlseatlefaetlon among the members. The new
organisation sold these lectures for a small prloe, fifteen cents, I understand; the; were never for sale before; and members who were paying their duea for the benefit of the order were now confronted with the proposition that anybody on the street eould now obtain the same lectures verbatim upon the payment of fifteen oenta, with the result that thla organisation, the Jmoro organisation, was greatly damaged anfl harassed, has suffered greatly in reputation, and in dlasatlsfaotlom among its own members among the various lodges, and there seems to ba no proper or possible relief save that of injunctive relief. hen the ease was originally tried a temporary in junction was granted in thla court and it has been in force for some time, over a year now, during the pendenoy of this trial, and we are now asking that upon proof of these faeta I have stated that the injunetion be made permanent; that an aooounting be had of certain moneys whioh were paid in by members of our organisation and received by the other organi sation, upon their books, our members not knowing that the change or aeveranee had taken plaea, and for damages suf fered, and for general relief, low, the proof, your Honor, will he divided into three
8
9
ao 1 1
12
13 14 16
16
17 18 19
20 21
22
23 24 25 26
a 1 2
3
4
sin classifications; first, the ass of a membership list obtained by the defendants while in a confidential relation ship with the plaintiff, in a manner unfair to the plaintiff and for the benefit of a competing organisation. In this
6 6
7
regard we will lnwoke the role as laid down in California and elsewhere in those oases generally referred to as unfair competition eases. Ihe role has been laid down in respeet
8
9
10
to laundry lists and ioe lists and war ions other lists, and your Honor is familiar with that long line of deoisions. It
is not sonteMed that we haws any patent or exolnslve right to the uss of the word "Hosicrucian,* as a matter of law. Ve are contending, hoeerer, in this respeet, that because of the confidential relationship existing between these de fendants and this plaintiff whereby in that relation of con fidence they obtained this information, they are themselves sotopped ffcom the use of the information so obtained, to the detriment of the person Who truBted them. The Beoond classification of proof will be the use of distinguishing words and symbols used by plaintiff over a long period of time and whioh are characteristic of and by the publlo associated with plaintiff's organisation, in a nmnner tending to and whioh did deoelve members of plain tiff order into the belief that the defendants' order was associated with or connected with or a part of plaintiff's order. In that respeet there is no necessity for the oita-
11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 25 26
G
1 2
3 4
tion of authorities.
The famous Masonic and Odd Tallows
oases throughout the conn try hare laid down the rule In that respect. Ihe third olasslfloatIon of proof will be the ase of rituals, ceremonies, dlstlnotlTe robes, vestments, para phernalia, lessons, leotures and teachings of plaintiff whleh were entrusted to defendants while they sere members of plaintiff organisation, for use in a competing organisa tion, and for sale to the publlo and to members of a com peting organisation* low, to recapitulate, we are not contending we have exclusive right to the use of soap paraphernalia or the word *Boalcrucian," or "Besea Cruels," as against the general publlo. Tour Honor is probably familiar with the faot your-
5 6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 15 16 17
aelf in Maaonle orders, and I under stand it has been used in other ordera in the past. But ea are oontending that the
defendants In this oaas are not atrangera to the use of that word, but having been asaooiated with the erganlaatlon where in those words and those leotures have been Identified, they are by their oonfidentlal relationship with that organisa tion estopped from the uae thereof. The particular vice of
i a
19
20 21 22
the defendants * setion in this oase is based upon the faot that they ware not merely business associates and as such confidentially related to the plaintiff, but were members of a secret fraternal organisation and aa such members had the property of the plaintiff oonfided to their charge, undelr
23 24 25 26
1 2
3 4
conditions of particular solemnity and tinder promises by which they swore to hold them inviolate. Under these cir
cumstances it would appear the dootrlne of equitable estop pel would apply.
f i 6
7
IB XSMFLBT:
Tour Honor. 1 think we oan save a great If
deal of time of the oourt by a brief statement from us.
8
9 10 11
12
one or two points involved in this litigation oould have been eliminated, to ay mind there would have bean no neaesaity foe any trial in oourt at this time. The defendants are not her*
contending thqy have aqy right to the use of any membership list of the plaintiff's order, to use that list in any way whatsoever. Ve reaogniie the fast that that list of member
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21 22
ship, if it oaae to the defendant Thomas at least by reason of his relation to the plaintiff order in this ease, oame to him as an employee or in a confidential relation, make any particular difference how we define it. it doesn't
Consequent
ly we do not contend for any right to use that membership list. Ve do not admit the various statements mads as to the activi ties of the defendant, but so far as I oan sea those activlt SB have no plaoe in this trial, beeaase we will be willing to enter into a stipulation right now that wa might be enjoined from that, so there is no necessity of trying that issue of faot at all, ezeept perhaps as to the question of damages. Vs don't admit we made the use of it they ooatend. 3_o far as the seoond proposition advanced by ooansel
23 24 26 26
8 1 2 3
4
ia oonoerned, that is, the use of distinguishing symbols, labels, and ao forth, this la onr position, and our position i exactly, that aa to many of those symbols they vers used and in common use long before the plaintiff order was ever heard of. That doesn't mean tha plaintiff order oan't adopt fhey hare bean is He don't contend
5 6
7
thoae symbola aa insignia of lta order, common nee in different shapes and forma.
8
9
10
me hare any right to the nae of any of thoae symbols in suoh a may aa to mialead the public. In other vorda, just to take
one of the aymbols that ia involved in thia aotlon, a winged globe, for example, we don't contend we have any right to usi the exaot diagram used by the plaintiff to indioate its sym bol, nor do we contend wa hare any right to nae a diagram of that symbol ao nearly similar to plaintiff's as to mialead the public; bat we Ao contend we oan't be enjoined from naing a symbol that might be oalled a winged globe in some form ox another, beeanse we oontend the winged globe has been need for centuries before the plaintiff order was erer even heard of. And what I say with reapeot to that I mean with respeet i
11
12
13
14
15 16 17 18 19
20
to all the other symbols involved in this ease. Se will again offer to stipulate in open oeurt that we may be enjoined from the nae of ary symbol that ia used by tha plaintiff order in such a way aa to mialead tha publia, so ldentioal in form or shape as to mialead the pnblio and lead the pnblio to believe it la the plaintiff organisation. 3o far as the ritual, robes and other paraphernalia that nay
21
22
23 24 25 26
9
1 2
3 4
E
ha connected with the plaintiff order, It la our contention we hawe newer need then aa they were uaed aa part of the plaintiff order, and that we have no dealre to uae them in any way, ahape or form, and consequently we are perfeotly willing to he enjoined ao far aa that part la eonoerned. So far as the worda "Rosae Cruel a" or "Rosioracian1 * la concerned, exaotly the same thing appliea te that aa appliea to the aynbola. Ihat the plaintiff la attempting to
6
7
8
S
do la to enjoin ua from ualng that word in any ahape or forni that la the point of nlannderstanding apparently. Jnd the
10
11
aame thing la true of the symbols, they are attempting te prevent ua from ualng then In any way, ahape or fora whatso ever* That we oon tend we oannot be enjoined from doing, be
12
13 14
cause the same thing la true with regard to the words "Roaae CruolB" or "Roaicruoian" In ita various forma aa la true of theae aynbola, It la a word in common use, In the ocnmon language. It la used In hundreds of books. There are hun In other
I E
16 17 18 19
20
dreds o4 orders that uae the word "Roaiorueian.
words. It la a word that baa bean In common uae for oenturiea. It may be found in the Rmayalapedia Britannloa, and In the editions that were leaned before the plaintiff order was ewer organised. Oonaeqnently we oontend that neither upon
2 1 2 2
23 24 2E 26
the theory of estoppel or any other theory oan we be enjoined from ualng that word. Ve do admit thla, -- any common word, in other words, we oan
red,* "black," or anything else
take half a dozen oommon, ordinary worda that nobody oould
1 2
3 4
10 have a monopoly on and we oan so arrange them aa to desig nate ear business, or whatever ee are doing, and I do admit that no other person oan oome and so purposely aae that same arrangement or an arrangement so similar as to deceive the publio. So far as that is oonoerned, we are perfectly will
6 6
7
ing to be enjoined to the extent that we ean't use a name so similar to plaintiff's name as to oonfnse or mislead the publio. Whether the words oontained in it are "Hosioruoian* i or whatever they may be a Vith that statement, it seema to me that we may eliminate a great deal of the evidence in this ease. Just
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
briefly, so we may have it before the oourt if counsel oarea to make any remarks in eonneotion with it, we are perfeotly willing that the defendants be enjoined from making any use whatsoever of any list of members that may be in their possesaion, from soliciting the members of plaintiff's orders,
IE
16 17 18 19
at least those that were members at the time of thla sever ance anyway; I don't know that it should go any farther than that. However,.we won't quibble over that question. Or make
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
any use of any list whatsoever. He are perfeotly willing to be enjoined from using any I believe the plaintiff claims to have one ejmbol that
is copyrighted, but it doesn't make any dlfferanoe whether it is copyrighted or not so far as my offer is oonoerned, we
are perfeotly willing to agree that we may be enjoined from ueing any of the aymbole or insignia or labels that are re-
11 1 ferred to in 'plaintiffs complaint in any form ao aa to mis 2 lead the pnblio.

3 4 5
Ve are perfectly willing to be reatrained Ve don't have aiy
from nalng the ritnala or robaa at all. deaira to nae them.
We are perfectly willing to be enjoined
from nalng the word "Bosicrucian or any combination of worda
6 in anoh a wap aa to mialead the pnblio; that iat in any form

7 a
whioh would be ao nearly identioal with the name of tha plaintiff aa to mialead tha pnblio.
9 1 0 MR ABUft: If the oonrt will indulge me, I wish to make My aaaoolate has covered tha statement
1 1 aome abort remarks*
1 2 of the plaintiff, bat in view of the statement of counsel for

13 14 15 16 17
the defendant I would like to add a few remarks* Counsel speaks of the word "Rosicrucian" being found in dictionaries and enoyolopediaa* Bo are all words that are
aaed in any way of course referred to in books and encyclo pedias. That doean1t make them pnblio property* Take, for
IS
19
inatanoe, the Masonic Order; their ohsraotarlatlo words axe referred to in all books and enoyolopediaa, but that doesn't Hy aaaooiata made the ra-
2 0 give anybody a right to nae them.
2 1 sark that we do not claim we had exclusive right to the nae 2 2 af the word Roaiornoian."
23 24 25 26
That means thia, that that ia not
an issue in this case, whatever our right may be aa against

3 there; we olaim that whatever our proprietary right may be.
Chat la not in laana in thia ease, because this ease la being tried on the ground of violation of a confidential relation-
12 1 2
3
4
ship, and therefore these defendants are absolutely estopped by well established principles of law. We will farther show
daring the trial that the right of the plaintiff to the aae of that word exclusively has been pnblioly acknowledged by the defendant Thomas himself. estoppel again. Bow, as to counsel for the defendants' offer to be willing to be enjoined from doing oertaln acts, my reaction to that 1b this. That is fine; that clarifies the issues There arises the question of
6
7 a s
1 0 n 1 2
13 14
and saves the time of the oourt; but the defendants1offer to do- equity oomes after over a year of the oaBe being pending in oourt to be tried and during the meantime the defendants continuing to do what we have complained of all the time. The defendants could have oome into oourt at the time the
I B injunction was first heard and offered to oease to do these

16 17 18 19
things, Instead of now coming into oourt and saying this after all this damage has been done. HR KEMPLEY: Hay I say, -- I wasn't present at the time
but I understand at the time this original temporary in
2 0 junction was made really as a matter of agreement between 2 1 the parties; and so far as violation subsequent to that time, 2 2 we are not here on any contempt proceedings.
23 24
Counsel for
plaintiff have had an opportunity during that year, if we have been violating it, to oite us into oourt for contempt.
2 G Counsel knows we had this same question up before When we

26
were attempting to take a deposition.
He have always been
V I willing to that, hut the; don't want to atop at that point.
2 They don't want ua to uae the word "Hoaicruoian" or any of

3 4 5
those things in any way, shape or form.
Ve are not attempt
ing to deceive the public and are willing to be restrained from doing that, THE COURT: Proceed,
6
7
8 i 9 HARVEY 3PEHCBH LEVIS, called aa a witness on 1 0 behalf of the plaintiff, being f i m t duly sworn, testified 1 1 aa follows: 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
THE CLERK: THE WITHESS:
What is your name? Harvey Spencer Lewis, DIRECT EZAMHSATIQH
BY HR HAYCOCK: 4 time? A I am the chief executive of the Anaient and Hystical Mr Lewi b v what ia your business or occupation at this
Order of Roaae Cruols. Q A Q Is that a corporation? Tea, Incorporated under the laws of what state? Under
2 0 2 1
22
23 24 25 26
the laws of what state was it organized? A 4 A The State of California, Does it consist of one or more lodges? A great many, scattered throughout the United States,
14
1 2
3
Q A Q A Q A Q
Is there a Supreme Lodge? Tea. And subordinate lodges? Tea. fhere is the Supreme Lodge At San Joset California* Do you know Whether or not the Anolent and Mystical looated?
4
5
6
7
8 Order of Rosae C r u d e has an abbreviated name by whioh it is

9
designated among its members? A 3 A Yes. What is it? Amoro, aomposed of the initials of the name* Mas it be stipulated hereafter in the trial
1 0 I I 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MB KAYCOGZ:
the use of the word "Amoro* oan be used to designate the plaintiff? MR KEMPLET: Q Surely, no objection* Do you know approximately the number
BY MR KtYCOCK:
of members in America, in the United States? A Yell, without having the latest records of the various
2 0 lodges throughout the country, I can only give a very conser 2 1 vative approximate membership of about 30,000* 2 2
23 24 25 26
Do you know whether or not throughout the State of
California and elsewhere the publio at large has a oosbboxi name by Whioh the members of Amorc are designated? MR ZBMPLEY: Objeoted to P.. incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial and oalling for the conclusion and opinion of the
1 witness* 2
3 4 5
THE COURT: A $ A 4 Tea*
Objection overruled*
BY HR HAYCOCK:
That ia that name?
Bosloruoian Order* And the member a of It are ooononly known and referred
6
7
to aa what? A Q A Boaloruoiana* Ton have heard thla Amora Order

bo
g
g
designated?
7 0 n 1 2
13 14 15
Oh* yea, in all magazine articlea that are written
about it* nevapaper comments and public leoturea. 9 Ton atate a oonaervatlve estimate of your membership
in the United States la 20*000? A Q Tea. From what d e s s e s in American society are your members
1 0 drawn?
17 18 19
Hoatly from professional life, auoh as school teacherB,
university professors, phyeiolana of various schools, lawyers, Judges, newspaper men* magazine writers; and then in soientifl
2 0 fields, and especially those in industrial and experimental 2 1 fields of chemistry, physios* electricity* and in the arts* 2 2 Beoent statistics show about 62 per oent of our members throughout the ocuntry are students In colleges or graduates
24 25 26
of oolleges and universities* having degrees* Q As chief executive head of the Amoro Order, you are
familiar with the aim and object of that order, are you not?
1C
1 2
3 4 5
A Q A
Tea, State what its aims and objects are. She objects and efforts or the objectives of the
organization come really under two olasslfloations; first, the spiritual or ethloal and moral Improvement of the in
6 dividual in his personal and intimate affairs of life; and,

7
secondly, the advancement of his interests and efforts in
a either his vocation or avocation, so that he as a scientist

9
or teacher or experimenter in science can improve himself
1 0 in them through oontaet with our researoh bureaus and our 1 1 research work, suoh as the work of exoavations in Kgypt, 1 2 which we have supported, and other scientifio expeditions
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
that have been made, and in this way aid these members to help themselves in a practical way also. Q And how in your order do yon endeavor to pursue the
objects; what is your method or means of inoulaatlng your objectives? A fhere are graded courses of instruction of various
kinds covering many subjects, and a person after being ad
2 0 mitted into the organization, they are classified according 2 1 to their interests and their vocations and their desire to 2 2
23 24 25
improve along oertain lines, and they are given the neces sary or desired instructions and guidance in graded, weekly manuscript instruction, plus correspondence and personal advioe, either by mail or in our local branches in the prin cipal cities, or combinations of both.
26
Ar I 1 Q Are your teaahinga and instructions and lectures and
2 lessons published, ao as to be available to the general pub

3 4 5
lic? A Q A Ho, lo whom are they entrusted? Only to the members of the organisation. In order to
7 receive these instructions the person must be an initiated, 8 qualified member of the organization. 9 Q In stating the alms and objeots of the order, you Is
1 0 called out In detail Its educational aim and object.
1 1 that aim carried out primarily as a school or oollege or as 1 2 a fraternal organization?

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Ho, the Ro8ioruolan Order is essentially a fraternal Its courses of instruction are available to lot all the members are students; some of them Those
organization. the members,
are practical workers doing other things than study.
*ho want to take courses of etudj oan have them without any additional oost. That is one of the privileges of member It la a fraternal
ship, to have those courses of study.
2 0 organisation with oollege work as one of the activities. 2 1 Q And you eay, I believe, that the instructions and
2 2 lessons are not available to the general puhllo.

23 24 25 26
A 9
Bo, they are not. Does your organisation sell these lectures or lessons
to its members? A Hot at all. They are given free to those who want them;
18 1 the lessons ana everything necessary to study them are 2 furnished them as part of their membership dues, if they
3 4 5
want them.
They are loaned to them.
They are not given
to them to possess, hut they all agree to return them in case of resignation from the order or going into foreign
6 lands where they oan't take care of them; to send back all
7
books and instruction papers and return them to the organi
8 zation.
9
Then, in whom does title to the various manuscripts
1 0 containing the lessons reside? 1 1 HH KBfPLSY: Objected t o 'as incompetent, irrelevant and
1 2 immaterial and calling for the oonolusion of the witness.^

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
THE CGUBT: A Q
Objeotlon overruled.
To the organization. BT MS HATGOCX: How. oan any member reoeive any
lesson or lecture whioh he desires at any time? A If he is a member and is qualified and has taken the He oan*t go ahead of his
lessons in their progressive form.
studies; he oan't Jump about in them. Q A 3 A They are given to him, then, progressively? Progressively. Is Amoro a religious or sectarian order or cult? Sot at all. There are persons of every denomination
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
and religious belief, Buddhists, Mohammedans, Jewish, Cstholio and Protestant, all classes, and religious dootrlnes have no bearing upon the fundamental teachings or our principles
1.9
1 2
3 4 5
and work at all. Q On or about the Slat of May, 1929, was the defendant
E. S. Thomas a duly eleoted and approved Vaster of Hermes Lodge In Los Angeles, state of California? $ , ?' j _
And that Hermes Lodge was a subordinate lodge of the
6 Imoro Order, was It not?

7
A Q A
Yes, By what authority did that lodge exist? By a charter granted by the Supreme Counoll and
8
9
1 0 Supreme Lodge, 1 1 Q I show you a document which la headed "Ancient and
1 2 Hyatloal Order of Hosae Cruols of Korth America," signed by

13 14 15 16 17 18 16
a H, Spencer Lewis, lmperator for Horth America," and upon ehio i the signature of E. E. Thomas Is purported to be affixed, and ask you Uhat that is. A This is the original charter granted to Hermes Lodge
Ho, 41, and Hr Thomas, on the 25th of fieoember, 1926. MB HAYCOCK: THE COQBTi I ask that that be admitted in evldenee. It may be reoelved and marked an exhibit,
2 0 2 1
(Said charter was received and marked Plaintiff's Sxhlbit 1 Q BY HH HAYCOCK: Defendant E. E. Thomas was master of
2 2 the lodge, you stated, from the date of the charter up to

23 24 25 26
Hay Slat, 1929? A 9 That is right, And aa snoh master of such subordinate lodge, was he
entrusted with any property belonging to Amorc?
20 1 2
3
4 5
A Q A
Tea. State what it was. He was eat rue ted with offioial copies of all the
secret rituals, oopies of all offioial leotuzes, all con fidential instructions and gnldanoe and methods of conduct ing the lodge so as to oonform to the standard regulations, and contacts with our various researoh and welfare depart ments and methods of deriving the benefit of ties. 9 A For what purpose was he entrusted with this property? In order that he might operate his lodge in accordance our activi
6
7
8
9
1 0
11 12 13 14
with our constitution and regulations and oonform with all other lodges. 3 In entrusting this property to him, did you, or not,
15
rely upon him as master of this subordinate lodge to use it in the secret and confidential manner for whioh it was in tended? A Q Absolutely. Did you at that time believe the defendant E. E.
16
17 18
19
2 0 Thomas would so use it? 2 1 MH 8BMPLET: ? Objected to'as immaterial; in view of our
2 2 offer to stipulate. It seems to me it may be taken as true.

23 24
This is to save the time of the oourt. MR KAXOOCZ: In answer to that, may I not state that it
25
26
is not the plaintiffs or plaintiff's oounsel's wish to pro long this trial, or to take up the time of the busy court in
I>
IN * t
1 going over matters whioh are not germane, tut thla is the 2 situation:
3 4 5
he has only stipulated as to certain of our com As to all of them, it is neces
plaints, not to all of them.
sary to alio* for the proper development of this oase and the foundation of the oonfidential relationship, the relationship
f i of trust and faith that was placed in the defendants; in ordei

7
for us to prevail in those matters therein he has not stipu
8 lated, it is necessary for us to be as aomplete in the proof

9
as though no offer was made.

*
However, if counsel is willing
1 0 to stipulate the temporary injunction now in foroe may con 1 1 tinue in foroe, we would have something that would assist us 1 2 in arriving at a determination of this litigation.
13 14 15 16 17
But to
make a partial offer and then as a means of presenting or suggesting bad fhith or something of that sort in the pre sentation of the proof, is not, your Honor, please, in my opinion, a proper offer for the purpose. Therefore we must,
unless we are granted the relief whlah we believe we are en
1 6 titled to, proceed with the orderly development of our oase

19
THE COtZBI:
Objection overruled,
You may answer the
2 0 question, 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
A 3
I had absolute faith in his promises being fulfilled, BY MH HAYCOCK: You state "in his promise s." Bad he
ever given you any assurances as to the manner or faithful ness with whioh he would aet in his capacity as a member of Aaorc? A He was already a member of the organization and had
1 already made certain obligations and promises before hs 2 was elected master, and had also signed an officers1 oath
3 4 5
after being elected master. Q I show you a document entitled "American Pronuneiaoent<
Humber 118, purporting to be an officers * oath and agreement
6 by which certain officers have signed, included among which

7
is S. B. Thomas
This is stipulated, I believe, by oounsel,
8 to be E, B. Thomas'a signature appearing at the bottom of thii

9
document. IfH KEMPLEY: Q A So stipulated, I will ask you What that document is,
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
BX 1CB XAYOOQX:
An official officers oath and agreement sent to every
elected group of officers of every duly chartered lodge to sign in the presence of eaoh other, US HAYCOCK: This document is offered In evidence as
IS
16 17 18 19
plaintiff's next exhibit. THE OOOBT: zhlblt 2. (Said Officers1 Osth and Agreement marked Plaintiff's Let it be received and marked Plaintiff's
2 0 Brhibit 2,) 2 1 9 B Y UR HAYCOCK: 1 show you a document entitled and it is
2 2 'Heophyte's Great Oath, signed by B. B. fhomas

23 24 25 26
stipulated by counsel for the defendant B. B. Thomas that that is his signature. A 1 will ask you what that dooument is,
That is oopy of the official oath or obligation or
agreement that eaoh new member makes and signs on the occasion
1> *' ( ^ 1J 1 2 8
4
of his admission into tha organization. lfH HAYCOCK: I ask that that bo admitted in evidence and
marked with the appropriate designation. THB COURT: Reoeived in evldenoe and marked Plaintiffs
5 Exhibit 3.) 6
7
(Heophyte's Oath reoeived and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 3 Q BY UR HAYCOCK: I show yon an application blank upon
whioh appears the stipulated signature of B. E. Thomas, dated
9 August 17, 1926, and aak you what that is. 1 0 1 1 1 2

13
This 1 b the original application blank filed, filled
out and signed by Ur Thomas at the time he made application for membership in the order. MR MAYCOCK: Ve ask that this be reoeived in evldenoe and
14 16 16
17
marked as plaintiff's exhibit next in order. THE COURT: Reoeived as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.
(Application Blank reoeived and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 4.) Q BY UR MAYCOCK: Prom the time of the taking of the
13 19
neophyte's oath which is referred to aB Plaintiff's Exhibit
2 0 3 in evidence, until all hie connection with the Amoro Order 2 1 was severed on May 31st, 1929, was he during that interim at 2 2 2 3
24 25
all times a member of the Amoro Order? A Q He was. I believe you stated that all oazmeotion between the
defendant B. E. Thomas and the Amoro Order was severed on M a y 1 31st, 1929.
26
1 2
3 4 5
1 Q
Yea. And the oonnaotion between the Amoro Order and the
remaining defendants was severed at the same time? A Q Yea. Sid yoar subordinate lodge known aa Herne a Lodge in
6 Loa Angeles keep written reoorda of ita proceedings?

7
A Q A d
He presume Sid it keep Yes.
it did, and instructed them to do so. a roster or list of its members?
8
9
1 0
Was thia roster or membership list the property of
1 1 the subordinate lodge or of the Supreme Lodge? 9 MR KBHFLBY; Objected to'aa incompetent, irrelevant and 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 19 19
immaterial and oalling for a conclusion of the witness. ia for the oourt to determine? THE COURT: A d You may answer the question, if y o u know.
That
The liat of members belongs to the Supreme Lodge, BY MR HAYCOCK:

i
Row, is your membership list a list
which ia open to observation of the general publio, pr ia it private and confidential in character? A
9
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
Private and confidential in character. To Whom was that liat entruated in Loa Angeles? To the master of the lodge. And that is the defendant B, H. Thotnaa? H. 3. Thomas. So you know to what uae that membership H a t waa
A
9
A
9
placed by the defendants after their oanneotien with the
orAti 1 Amoro n a 2
3 4 5
severed?
A Q A
Yea. State what was done. It vas uaed to olroularize the members with lettera
and announcements that the work of the organization would
6 oontinue just the same; to aollolt their support, their dues;

7
and it was alao used to send out printed matter similar to
8 that which we had issued, announcing new leotures of our own

9
use, our own kind, and under different oiroumstances and dif
1 0 ferent dates, and in general the list was used week after 1 1 week for a long time to upset our members with a complica 1 2 tion of statements regarding the activities of the organiza
13 14 15
tion and so on. Q Bow, what was the effeot of that use by the defendants
upon Amoro? A In the first plaoe, we lost a great man; members, be
1 6
17 18 19
cause the change of attitude in the announcements bp saying they would oontinue to uae the same, even though we had with drawn the charter, and to say that initiations would be held under different oircumstanoes, members began to leave the
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
lodge, and our members in Hermes Lodge dropped from 800 down to 100. And other lodges in the state and in other states
as far east as Ohio heard of this situation and we began to lose members from those lodges, through the belief that the entire organization in California had gone into disruption
25
And newspaper publioity began to result, magazine articles,

26
20 1 and things that were humiliating and evan very injurious, 2 and in various ways to the effect that there was a split in
3 4 5
the organisation, or two organisations, or something of that hind* Q As the supreme head of the organization in America,
6 1 believe you stated you entrusted to B. B. Thomas as Master

7
of Hermes Lodge, certain leoturee. A Q Yes, Did you entrust him with the lectures designated
8
9
1 0 "Preliminary Grade Lectures, Grade H o b * 1 to 10, inclusive"? 1 1 1 2

13 14
A Q
Yes. Bach one of those grades consists of more than one
lecture, does it not? A Some have twelve to fifteen, and some have forty, and
1 G some have one hundred lectures the grade.

16 17 18 19
Sid you entrust him with certain
supplementary
courses of leeturea, familiarly designated as "Arcane Cos mology," "Arcane Philosophy," "Bosiorueian Analetlcal Dis cussions," and "Bible Class Lectures"? A $ A Yes. And for ehat use were they entrusted to him? In order to aid him and the officers to carry on and
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
conduct the lodge in conformity with the charter and con stitution, < 2 How, on or about the 31st of Hay, 1929, what was the
approximate membership in the Amoro Order in Los Angelee and
0^1
A -
1 2
3 4 5
environs? A Veil, in the environs of Los Angeles probably 1000
members. 9 And what is the membership in the organisation now
in the same territory? A Veil, it is now less than half of that. It dropped
6
7
down to about 150. Q What was the amount of membership dues per month
8
9
from eaoh member? A Q $2 a month, These lectures and supplementary courses which you
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
have testified to, were they the property of Aznoro? A Q A Q Yes. By whom were they prepared? By the official editorial board and research bureau, And all these leotures and oouraes whioh you have
testified to oame into the possession of the defendant B. E. Thomas while he was master of the subordinate Amoro lodge in Los Angeles? A Some came to him as a member before he was elected
2 0
2 1 master, and others oame to him, especially the more confiden 2 2 tial ones regarding the oonduot of the lodge and the higher
23 24 25 26
grade teachings, they came to him after he became master of the lodge. Q Have you ever heard of an organization known as the
Universal Order of i n d e n t Mysteries?
8 1 2
3 4 5
Tea, it flashed through my mind for a few days; it
had a short period on my consciousness. 3 A it. 3 Do yon know whether or not its leaders designated it and Do yon know hy whom it was formed? Yes, I w b b Informed hy Ur fhomas that he had formed
7 orally, in published lectures and in newspaper adverting 8

9
on it8 letterheads, as a Bosicrucian order? A Yes, I saw the advertisements and olroular matter
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
issued by them stating it was a Bosicrncian organisation, HR KEMP LEY: We ohjeotTto the answer as not the best
evidence; as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.^? THE COUBT: own knowledge. Q BY MB HAYCOCK: The question is: 2>o you know? Objection sustained unless you know of your
I E
16 17 18 19
THE COUBT: A Q Yes.
Answer "Yes" or "Ho,"
BY MB MAYCOCK:
Bo you know of your own knowledge
whether or not that is true? A q A Through literature coming from And did that so designate it? Yes. Objected toaB Incompetent, Irrelevant and that address to me.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
UB KBHFLZY:
24
immaterial, and from the witness's own statement it is un questionably hearsay and not the beat evidence.
25
MB HAYCOCK:
26
There is a presumption of law Which assists
C' 1 1 2
3 4 5
U8 in thia case, and that is, when a pamphlet or dooument or letterhead cornea from an address of a oertain organiza tion it is purported to be sent out bp that organization, and if it is not, it ia a matter that positive evidence and reputation oan contradlot, but it ia a presumption neverthe less. Yere it not ao, it would be impossible for any in
G
7
dividual ever to tell where a letter ease from.? THE COURT: q Objection sustained, Bid you ever receive any letters
8
9
BY KB MAYBGCK:
1 0
purporting to came from the Universal Order of Ancient
1 1 Mysteries? 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A Q
Yes, Bo you know what the address of the Universal Order
of Ancient Mysteries was immediately after its formation? A Q A Yes, What was it? The same address on Bill Street that our lodge had
had there, Q Bo you know what its telephone number was immediate
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
ly after its organization? A there, Q Bo you know whether or not the use of the designation The same telephone number we had used for our lodge
"Roaioruoian as applying to the new organization by E, B. Thomas and the other defendants misled oertaln members of Amoro and the public as to a connection between the new
1 2
3 4
organisation and youx order? MB KEMPLEY: Objected toj&s assuming facts net In evidenoe
and calling for the opinion and conclusion of the witness, as to what effect it had on somebody else'a mind.^T THE COURT: 4 Objection sustained* Ur Lewis, you stated that the conduct
5 6
7
BY UR llAYCOGK:
of the defendants In the use of your membership list, leoturei
8 and so forth, was damaging to your organisation, did you not?

9
A Q A
Ys b .
1 0 1 1
Will you state wherein that damage occurred? In the first place, in the loss of members, reducing
1 2 the Income from them for many monthB, not only in Los Angeles
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
but in other cities, because the story spread about regarding the confusion, and members hearing of it in other cities, even officers, wrote to us resigning and telling us how mem bers were resigning because of it. HR KEMPLBY: We ask that the last part of the answer be
atrioken as hearsay and a conclusion, THE OOUHT: 4 It will be stricken out. Continue to relate wherein Amoro was
2 0
BY HR HAYCOCK:
2 1 damaged by the activity of these defendants. 22

23 24 25 26
The reputation of the organization was affected
through the reports oomlng to us. HR KEMPLBY: We move that be atrioken as incompetent, ir I
relevant and immaterial and a conclusion of the witness.
didn't assume that was the kind of answer that was called for
o.L 1 2
3
4
by the question.
If it m s , I move the answer be stricken
out and we be given an opportunity to object to the question. TEE COOBT: Q It may be stricken out. Shat, if anything, did yon do to com
BY MB HAYCOCK:
bat the Inroads of these defendants on yonr membership? A city, We had to come down here and hold meetings in this le had to issue letters and confidential instructions
B
7
8
9
to every member what to do and what not to do, in order that he might not lose his standing in the organisation. And we
1 0 had to answer many letters day after day from inquirers and 1 1 persons who wrote to us saying they had come in contact with 1 2
13
14
confused conditions.
And we had to send representatives down
here to try to hold the organisation in Southern California together* Q Does your organisation do any advertising for ad
15 16 17 18 19
ditional members? A Yes, we use the newspapers and magasines, scientific
publications and the radio for public matter and information that is of a helpful nature, to show what the organisation
2 0 has to offer, to solicit applications for new members. 2 1 Q About what was the monthly expenditure of your organi
2 2 sation in that regard?

23
24
Batween four to six thousand dollars a month. fake the witness.
MB UAYCOCK:
25 26
JArf
>o
1 2 BY MB KaCEEBT:
3
0 HOS 3 -BXAUIH AT IOH
Q A Q
When did you organize your corporation, Mr Lewis? When did I organize the corporation? Ton testified the plaintiff was a corporation or
4 5
6 ganized in California.
7
Some years ago. Well, about when?
I dont remember the exact date.
8
9
Q
A
Around 1918 or 1919. lb *as organized in 1918 or 1919. Hare yon maintained
1 0
1 1 your headquarters here continuously ever alnce? 1 2

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Is had our headquarters for a period of two years
in Florida.
Q
Fampa, Florida? Yes. Ion had it for a while in 3an Francisoe? in 3an Franolsoo.
A Q A Q
Yes, for seven or eightyears
Yhat is where your corporation was organised, in San
Franolsoo, wasnt it? A Q A Q A Q A I believe so, yes. Do you know? Yes. How many members do you have now? He have approximately SofOOO. In the United States? Coming under our jurisdiction, yes
20 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
uo 1 2
3 4 5
Q A
In the United States? Bo, some members are living In different oitlea
out of the United States, moving around, traveling, Q A About how many do you have in the United States? I oannot tell that without going through the records
6 and separating them by oitlee.

7
I am not asking you how many you have In any par
8 ticular olty, but how many you have in the United States.
9
1 Q A
I can't tell that. You oan't tell? Ve have on our records 30,000 members approximately.
1 0 1 1
1 2 Whether all of them are actually in the United States at the

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
present time or a portion of them in Canada and Mexloo, I oannot tell. 3 Bow, Doctor Lewis, I think you understand what I I don't mean they
mean by members in the United States.
may not be traveling or temporarily absent; I mean members main that Joined your organisation through your, headquarters or some of your subordinate lodges within the United States of
2 0 America; how many members have you? 21 1 Confining it to those Who joined in the United States
2 2 alone, and not including Canada and Mexico, would probably

23 24 25 26
reduce it to 20,000, < 9 A Q You have about 10,000, then, in Canada and Kaxlco? Outside of those. Do you have any any plaoe else?
n i 1 2
3
A $
Porto Bloo and Central American states. How man; members do yon hare In Porto Bloo or Central
American states? A 1 cannot tell. Objected tolas incompetent, Irrelevant and
HE MAYCOCK:
6 Immaterial and ontslde the issues^

7
THE CQUBT: Q
Objection overruled.
It Is asked and answered
8
9
BY MB KBHPLBY:
Ton know the word "Bosicrucian" Is
used to designate other orders besides your own, don't yon? HR HAYCOCK: Objected toTas Incompetent, Irrelevant and Ve are not
1 0 1 1
immaterial and beyond the Issues In this case.
1 2 claiming, as stated in our opening statement, that we have

13 14
any proprietary right,as far as the Issues of this ease are oonoerned, to the use of the word "Boslorncian. Ve merely
1 5 oontend these defendants are estopped from the use of It to

16 17 18 19
the detriment of the Amore Order.T THE COUHT: A Objection overruled. Answer the question.
There are some study groups and organisations using
the term. Q BY UH KEIKPLEY: Bon't you know there are some well-
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
defined organizations that have been in existence several year8 using the word "Hosicrucian* right here in the State of California? HR HAYCOCK: Same objection.^ There is nothing In the
pleadings, nothing In the complaint--and the anBwer is mere ly a general denlaIf which brings Into Issue the question
26
*r
,
1 2
3 4 5
whether or not other organizations In other ooxmtrlea or In thla country have a right to the uae of the word *R o b 1crucian." All we are contending for In thla case, and all
your Honor has before you aa germane to theae proceedings, la whether or not the relatlonahlp of theae particular in
6 dividuals, some five or alx, waa auch that they ahould he

7
prohibited from the uae of It, due to the confidential re
8 latlonahlp they suatalned toward the plaintiff in thla action Therefore any Inquiry aa to the right of other indlvidualB 1 0 to the uae of the name, or whether It waa uaed by other In 1 1 dividuals, or whether It waa common property, la not germane 1 2 to thla iaaue, and la incompetent, irrelevant and Immaterial
13 14
THE COUBT: UR HAYCOCK:
Objection overruled Kay I have the general objection, then, so
I S that 1 will not have to go through with that, to each one of

16 17 18 19
theae questions, referring to the use of the word "Boalcruolai^ by other individuals than the parties to thiB action? THE COUBT: 1 HB KEMPLEY: Very well. Answer the question. If you know,
Please read the question, Ur Reporter.
2 0
(The question waa read by the reporter aa follows: "Don't
2 1 you know there are some well-defined organisations that have 2 2 been in existence several years uBlng the word 'Roaicrueian1
23 24 25 26
right here in the State of California?*) ^ A Q A Yea, there la one. What one do you refer to? Roaicrueian Fellowship.
1 2
3 4
5
Q A 3
At Oceanside? At Oaeanside. It has teen need by other organisations in the state,
has it not, the word "Rosioruoian"? A Q Hot to my knowledge, That is the only one you know of that has used it in
C
7
this state? A
9
8
9
Tea. You know it has been used in the United States by
1 0 many other organisations? 1 1 M B MAYCOCK: 9 I objeot to that on the same grounds/ 1 wish
1 2 to appear at two o'olook for the purpose of renewing my argu

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ment, with citations of authority on the matter your Honor has Just ruled upon, and I think, therefore, sinoe it is go ing to he a question of law that we will argue at two o'olooki we would saê time by a oessation of testimony at this time, bacause all of it is going to be subjeot to your Honor's rul ing after hearing the oitation of authority we wish to pre sent to you, I think the trial will be speeded and a more
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
olear exposition of the issues had by taking an adjournment during the remaining nineteen minutes of the morning session^, THE CoUBT:
(p MR EQIFLEY:
Objeotlon overruled.
Motion to adjourn denied
Please read the question, Mr Reporter.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "You

24
know it has been used in the United States by many other or25 26
: * 1 2
3 4 5
I'
A Q
So, I dont know that, Ian know it has bean naed by some other organisations
in the United States at least, do yon not? A Q By a few, It is being nsed at the present time by other organi
6 zations in the United States, ia it not?

7
A Q
By one or two, yes, They are all generally referred to as Hosloruoian
8
9
10
orders, are they not? A 3 A Bo, What are they referred to as? Sell, the Hosloruoian Brotherhood calls itself a
1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Rosioruoian Fellowship, Q A Q A Q That is referred to as a Rosioruoian order, is it not? Bo* What does the word "Bosicruoian mean? It means "Of the Bosy Cross. That is the way you spell the name "Bosicruoian1 * means
"Of the Bosy Cross"? A Sell, the word Bosiarncian is a Latin word and oan
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
only mean what it means in Latin, Q How do you spell the word "Bosicruoian or "Rosae
Cruois," as used in the name of your order? A Q In the corporate name it is used aa "Bosae Cruois. Isn't that the only way you use it? Ho, When we are speaking of the order we use it as
25
A
26
C8 1 2
3 4
"Rosioruoian," which Is an Anglicised form of "Bosae Cmcis," meaning "Of the Rosy Cross'1 in the same way, Q A Bat yoa ased the word "Rosae" in your name? R-o-s-a-e, that is pronounced "Rosi." Anglicized,
5 6
7
it 1 b spelled R-o-a-i. 9 A Q You have studied Latin, have you? Some, What is the gender of the Latin word for "oraas"? Objected to as inooopetent, irrelevant and
8
9
10
HR MA7C0GE: immaterial, THE COURT: 9
1 1 1 2
13 14
Objection sustained, How many members did you have in Los
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Angeles prior to this difficulty? A In and around Los Angeles, in the environs, I said
IB
approximately 1000, Q A Q And approximately how many have you now? Perhaps a little Is b s than 500, Vhat do you mean by "Los Angeles" in your answer to Bo you mean the city of Los Angeles and the
4
1 6
17 18 19
that question? oounty ? A Q A
2 0 2 1
22
The county and outlying distrlots. Those districts immediately adjacent te the oounty? To the county. And you don*t have to exceed 500 members now? lo. Have you made any examination of your records in that
23
Q
24
A
25
Q
26
u ./ 1 2
3 4
5
connection? A Q A A month or ao ago* How, how much do these members pay? There ia some
On the average $8 a month for dues.
time a a little alight difference; if in the lodge they are paying a little excessive rent or trying to make some im provement, they may all pay a a little more,for instance$2*85 to
6
7
S
9
10
11
month, for a while, to make up whateverfunds they wish
ral se. 3 A Shat is voluntary? It may he, or it may he hy vote,a raising of dues to
12
$2*85 or something of that sort. 3 A 3 To whom do they pay that money? To the secretary or treasurer of the lodge* By the way, is your corporation a private corporation
13 14
IS
16 17 18 19
20
or a non-profit corporation? A 3 A 3 A non-profit corporation* Where is your principal place of business? 3an Jose, California* That 1b the prinoip&l plaoe of business designated in
21
22
your artioles of incorporation, is it? A 3 Yes. Just to go hack to this name a little, do you know
23 24 25 26
where the name "RoBlaruaian1 ' originated? HR HAYCOCK: objected tojas incompetent, Irrelevant and
immaterial and beyond the Issues of the ease.^
40
1 THE CQUBT: Yon may answer the question, 11 you know. 2 Objection overruled.
3 4 5
I know only what the Bosioruolan records and history
say of It. Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You have read histories using the word
6 'Bosioruolan'* in one form or another, that were written and

7
published prior to the organisation of your order, have you
8 not?
9
10 11
12
HR HAYCOCK: Immaterial.'!' THE COURT: A Q
Objected tc.aa Inoompetent, irrelevant and
Yea, I have. B Y MB KTBIPLBY: You know the word has been used for
13 14 15
many centuries, aa a matter of faot? A ? Ever alnoe the order was founded. Of course you don't know when theorder was founded? Qbjeoted to^fas inoompetent and Improper cross
1 6
17 18 19
20 21 22
M B HAYCOCK: examination. THE COUHT: Q
Objeotion sustained. Doctor, what, in a general way, are That is, I mean by
BY MB K9SPLEY:
the teachings of your Bosioruolan Order?
that to designate Whether religious, philosophical, scientific or what. HR MAYCOCK: immaterial. litigation. Objeoted to?.. inoompetent, irrelevant and
23 24 25 26
Bhat the teaohings are is not in issue in this The question is Whether the teaohings have been
1 used by theae partionlar individuals in an improper manner 2 3

4
and whether they ought to be enjoined from their further use. THE COUBT: MB MAYCOCK: You went into it on direot examination. I went into the purpoaea of it. I didn't go
5 into its teaohinga. what ita teachings a r e . ^ 6

7
THE COUBT: O' UR UAYCOGZ:
Objection overruled. I will adviae my olient at this time that if
8 in hia opinion the answer to that question would involve a

9
10
reoital of any aeoret or confidential work of your aeoret organization, you don't have to answer the question. I wish
11
12
the court, ao I would not be aaklng my olient to disregard the ruling of the oourt, would ao instruct the witnesa. THE COURT: question. UR ESTPLEY: THE COURT: Yes. Read the question. You mean in a general way, I auppoae, by your
13 14 15
1 6
17 18 19
20 21 22
(The question waa read by the reporter aa follows: "Doctor, what, in a general way, are the teaohinga of your HoBlcruolan Order? That la, I mean by that to designate whether religious
philoaophioal, aoientlfio, or what.") UR MAYCOCK: A Q There 1b no objection to that question. ^
Philosophical and aoientlfio. BY MR ZKMPL3Y: You olaim theae leasona express
23 24 25 26
aoientlfio and philosophical truths, do you, Dootor? A ^ Yes. You stated they were prepared by your editorial board.
* O 1 2
3 4 5
Who prepares them? MB MAYCOCKt immaterial.^ THE COUBTi A Objection overruled, Objeoted to as incompetent, irrelevant and
C P
By men and women who are experts in their various
6 fields of study and research, who have worked together for

7
years in compiling, revising, modifying and working on these
8 lectures,
9
10
BY MB KEMPLEY:
Who are these men and women?
MB MAYCOGK:
Objected t<y&s incompetent, irrelevant and
11 12
immaterial, as to who collaborated in the preparation of the lectures. I oan't see anything germane to this inquiry in 1 would like to have counsel indicate where
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
that question,
anything can be gained by the recital of the names of those who have at various times assisted or collaborated in the work of the preparation of the lectures and courses. I think
it is going far afield, and object to it on that ground. MR KEMPLEYi They claim they own them, that they are pre We oertalnly are not bound by
pared by an editorial board.
their answer that they are prepared by some editorial board. What possible objection could the witness have to answering this question, if everything is fair and above-board? MB ARAM: The ohief vice is, it consumes the time of the
21 22
23 24 25
court and litigants, if it is immaterial. THE COTJBT: What you want to know is the members of this
particular board?
26
1 2
3 4 5
MS KEHPLEY; THE COURT: A .
Yes. ^ Objection overruled.
In the first place the foundation of the lectures and
instructions are from original manuscripts of the Rosicruolan Order of Europe. Q BY MS KEMPLEY: The foundation, you say?
6
7
MR MAYCOCK:
I would like it understood that all questions
8 pertaining to the editorial staff and the source of the

g
10
lectures he subject to the general objection that they are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and beyond the issues of this caBe. THE COURT!
A
n
12
Very well,
1 8
14 15 16 17
These were revised and worked upon by specialists,
such as those dealing with muslo and harmonics,by H. Maurice Jacquet, the composer, and a man by the name of Bari Purill, who was an expert in harmonics of music. In our chemistry
work, such an editorial collaborator was Doctor Froelich, of
I S Hew York.
19
20
BY MR KHtELEY:
Just a moment, so we don't have any
misunderstanding and go through a lot of names and have any misunderstanding in the end. Do you mean these persons you
21 22
name actually assisted in the preparation of these lessons you refer to? A In the continued revising and modification of them
28 24
25
to keep them up to date. These people you are giving the names of aotually did
26
1
2
personally assist in the preparation of them? A By reviewing them and sending us new versions to help
3 4 5
6
us in their preparation. Q A York; do ahead, Then there is, in eleotrioity, James Rook, of Sew in biology, Bootor Wilfred Peters assisted; in the
principle of physios we have been assisted by Mr Charles Bean, of San Francisco, and by Mr Leon Batchelor and others, I can'ft recall all of the names now. Q Tell, so far you have dealt almost entirelywith mat
8
9
I D
11
12
ters purely of a scientific nature, unless it might be musio of an artistic nature. cipally philosophic. A Bo, not principally. Objeoted to as assuming a faot not in evi I understood these leotures were prin
13 14
IS
MR HAYCOCK: dence . IBB COURT:
1 6
17 18 19
1 think we will take a recess at this time
until two o'dock. (Whereupon a recess was taken until two o' d o c k p. m. of the same day.) 0 *
2 0
21
22
23 24 25 26
1
2
3 4 5 6 7
8
Monday, January 5, 1931; 2 o'clock p. m.
HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS resumed the stand. CROSS-EXAMINATION cantinasd BY MR KRMPLBY: Q A Q The lessons are of a philosophic nature partly? Yes. Who are or who is the author of the philosophical
s
10
part of the lectures? MR UAYCOCK: I object to^that on the ground it is incom
11 12
petent. irrelevant and lmmsterial; second, it is improper cross-examination, the matter not having been gone into on direct examination. The only Issues that are before the
13
14
oourt are the issues of whether or not these particular de fendants stood in a confidential relationship with this plain tiff and whether their activity arising out of information received therein was equitable or whether it was inequitable; and the persons who wrote the philosophical treatises or scientific treatises have nothing to do with the Issues in volved. They are incompetent. Irrelevant and immaterial.
15 16 17 18 19
20 21
22
They have nothing to do with the matters gone into on direct examination, and are therefore inadmissible on that issue. I am not going to submit further authorities, hut will rely upon my original objection for the purpose of the record. I will state to your Honor, however, for whatever persuasive
23 24 25
foroe it may have, this particular question in this partioulax

26
-;g 1 2
3 4 5
case has already teen gone into in the matter of the depo sitions. The particular quest ions were objected to upon the
taking of the depositions, and a citation for contempt was sued out, and the court has already decided in the contempt proceedings that the witness need not answer those particular questions. I realize since that is only another department
6
7
of the Superior Court of the State of California, that it is
8 net binding upon your Honor in the sense that a decision of

9
10
the Supreme Court or Appellate Court would be, as determina tive of your action or ruling here. I am only stating it to
11
your Honor for what such persuasive effect as it may have upoi the oourt, seeing that the matter has already been fully argu and a ruling on behalf of the plaintiff herein obtained upon the precise question involved. THB COUBT: I agree with you as to the materiality, but
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21
22
it is a matter you brought out on direot examination, aa to these people who wrote these different articles. That is the I reason 1 am allowing it to he answered on cross-examination, and the only reason. UH 14ATC0CK: Tour Honor, please, I asked this: whether
or not they were the intellectual product of this plaintiff organization and if they composed them. He said they were Hut that
23 24 25 26
and it was the result of their editorial staff.
doesn't, in my opinion, throw the door open to allowing a free leeway as to who composed their editorial staff, or the names of the individuals and the collaborators. There is no
1 end to litigation if that ia the rule
The precise point
2 elicited by my question was going to the question of whether

3 4
or not it was the property of this plaintiff and whether er not it was the work of this plaintiff or individuals under That was the only purpose, to
5 its supervision or control*
6 ahow the property right, and not for the purpose of lndioat7
ing who they were nor where they were spread over the face Therefore, with all due respeot to your Honor,
8 of the globe.
9
I think the matter was not gone into in direot examination in
1 0 the sense that it would permit an inquiry lasting over a long

11
12
period of time as to the names and addresses and contribution: of everyone who may at one time or another have assisted In the oompilation of the series of lectures. THE COUBT: MB KKMPLEY: Objection overruled, Please read the question, Mr Reporter. "Who That is the point',
13 14
1 5
16 17 18 19
20 21
22
(The question was read by the reporter as follows:
are or Who Is the author of the philosophical part of the leeturea? ) A That I do not know. The philosophical part of the
Bosicruoian teachings have oome down from antiquity in secret manuscripts, even signed with Just symbolical initials or mart Q You mean the exaot wording in your lectures which you
23 24 25 26
olalm these defendants have used are translations or exaot translations of these ancient writings? incompetent, Irrelevant and immaterial, improper oross-examination, not gone into on
* 1 dlreot examination. 1 2
3
THE COURT: A
Objection overruled*
As close as translations Into the English language
4 oan make them.

5
BY MS KEHPLEY:
What language were the original docu-
6 menta written in?

7
ME HAYCOCK:
Objected to'as inoompetent, Irrelevant and
8 inmaterial,and not proper cross-examination, and not gone

9
into on dlreot examination. HR KQIPLBY: I am not going to pursue It very far, hut I
10
11
think some of this may have a hearing, may he very enlighten
1 2 ing to the oourt.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
MR HAYCOCK:
That ia the point; they are endeavoring In
this aotlon to air matters not within the Issues in thla oaae for the purpose, as he has stated, of assisting other indi viduals to oommit like depredations with a greater degree of safety. There Is a very frank statement why we don't want
the matter gone Into, and also a statement of why It Is being pursued by the defendants In this aotlon. HR Z29CPLEY: I think counsel's seal Is not heoause the
plaintiff believes some others may oommit depredations, but 2 2 2 2

24
rather beoause they do not wish to have before the court the explanation this witness has previously made, which he oould not very well ohange at this time. HR HAYCOCK: If It la something that is not in evidence
25
and oan't he plaoed in evldenoe, I ohjeot to it being argued

26
1 before the court. 2

3 4 5
MB K5MPLEY:
One of the questions In a court of equity
is the plaintiff oomlng into court with olean hands. MB HAYCOCK: On that point, the exaot matter was decided
in the oase of John Manufacturing Company of Missouri v.
6 U. 3, McClellan and others, decided in August last year,

7
which was a oase arising out of this court, and I believe I believe Judge Crawford
8 this department of this court.

9
deoided the question in aooordanoe with the theory of the defendants' action here, or defense; that was, that a per son oomlng into equity had to come in with olean hands.
1 0
11
1 2 In that case Judge Crawford permitted a whole line of tes

13 14 15 16 17 13 19
timony not at all germane to the issue, tending to show in other respects the defendants had not been moral in their eonduot and had not been Just in their dealings, having nothing to do with the issues, but bearing, as counsel stated, upon the question of general good faith. The court,
in overruling Judge Crawford in that case, laid down the well-established rule that the doctrine of clean hands only applies to the dealings of the parties themselves to the par ticular aotion, and has nothing to do with the general con duct of the parties litigant as to other actions. In other
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
words, it must be germane to the Inquiry before the court, or the dootrine of clean hands doss not apply. MB KEMPL3Y: I don't dispute that. Then What have we here? We have an admitted
25
MR HAYCOCK:
26
59
1 going afield for the purpose of showing other people may 2 be interested in whether or not this plaintiff has the
3 4 5
right to the use of the word Bosiarucian," on the ground, as he no* states, the dootrine of ooming into equity with olean hands might appeal to your Honor. Therefore he is
6 committing the vice complained of and overruled in that

7
case; that is, he is asking a lot of collateral matters
8 to be considered by the oourt for the purpose of establish

9
ing want of such equitable oonduot on the part of the plain
1 0 tiff that they can olaim equitable relief; and that has been 1 1 dlreotly overruled by the court, and in a number of other 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
oases cited in this case* UR K e m p LEY: Ve have no dispute at all that purely col
lateral matters cannot be gone into; that is, what a man's morals may have been, exoept his acts in direot connection with the question in litigation. Those matters are per
tinent,and it is a vital question whether the man coatee in with olean hands or not. I offered at the very inception of this case to stipulate that we were willing for the conrt to enjoin us from using these lectures or anything of this kind. I ob
20
2 1 2 2
23 24
jected to questions along that line because 1 felt that by reason of our stipulation we had obviated that issue. sel did not see fit to aooept that stipulation. Coun
They at
tempted to prove those things were the property of this or

25
ganization.
26
Literary products can only be the property of
u i 1 2
3 4 5
of an organization by copyright or by possession.
Now, when
they come to prove their literary right by reason of posses sion of the artlole, the only answer of the witness is that it was composed by our editorial staff, Are we bound to
stop there and say we must aooept his statement that"it was
6 oomposed by our editorial staff* without asking him who the

7
editorial staff is?
I think your Honor has ruled that we
8 have not,
9
liH MAYCQGK:
Counsel has, I believe, by inadvertence, He states as to oollateral issues he
1 0 misstated the law. 1 1 agrees with me, 1 2 Court.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
but that is not the ruling of the Supreme
The question is whether or not, as between the
parties to this particular litigation, this particular plaintiff has aoted so inequitably toward these defendants that he oan't ask equitable relief from than. law as laid down in these decisions. That is the
The oase Itself Is a In this
dlreot refutation of the defendants1 contention.
oase thqy were complaining of the use of certain labels, saying it was unfair oompetition to use them no question
2 0 of copyright or patent involved; that it was unfair compe 2 1 tition, The defendants in that case, aotlng under the
2 2 theory of a defense of not ooming into equity with clean

23 24 25 26
hands, appeared and brought in evidenoe to show these par ticular labels had described the goods improperly, and that the defendants themselves, because of the improper label, had been subjeot to fines in the Federal Court, and subject
o 1 2
3
4
to criminal proceedings, and therefore had not done justice or equity concerning those labels to snoh an extent as would permit them to olaim a property right in them in this liti gation. And the oourt said, "fe are not interested in the The question is as be
labels; that is not the question.
6
7
tween these two individuals, the plaintiff and defendant, concerning the matter under Inquiry as to Whether the plain tiff in his oonduot and dealing was inequitable with the defendant in this litigation concerning the subject-matter of this litigation so as to prevent him from suing for equitable relief." Here we have one burden to assume; we must assume the burden of proving this is our literary product, Ve have
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
done that by the statement that it was the result of our own editorial staff and its research work and collaboration. was necessary,to establish our case, to ask that question; but that does not, in my opinion, give an open sesame to a general line of examination for the purpose, not of proving it wasn't our intellectual product, but of seeing whether It
2 0 or not we are coming into a oourt of equity with olean hands 2 1 on a purely oollateral matter. 2 2
23 24
25
I renew, if your Honor please, the objection* 1HE COUBT: MB KEMP LEY: Objection overruled, Read the question, Mr Reporter,
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "What language were the original documents written in?")
26
1 2
3 4 5
Soma were in Trenoh; moat of them werein Engl1eh, in Serman; some
in abbreviated or ooded form. Some were parts in Latin; some in hieroglyphics. Q Q
So yon mean Egyptian hieroglyphics? Ko, typical Sosloruoian hieroglyphics. And were these articles dated? Objected toâa inoompetent. Irrelevant and
6
7
1 R MAYCOCK:
8
S
Immaterial and not proper cross-examination/^ THE COURT: A Objection overruled. 1 am not quite sure how many,
1 0
A few were dated, yes.
I I nor what dates were on them. 1 2

13 14
BY HR KEMP LEY:
Yon don't know what dates or what
ones were dated? A Ho. I object to the question on the ground it
I E
16 17 18
MR MAYCOCK:
is inoompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination, and not within the issnes in the oase, THE COURT: MR MAYCOCK: It has been asked and answered. I ask that the answer be stricken for the
IS
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
pnrpose of making an objection, the objection and ruling to precede the answer. THE COURT: The answer to the last question may be
stricken for the purpose of the objection. MR MAYCOCK:

24 2E
How, your Honor, please, I am presuming your Ia that correct?*?5
Honor is going to overrule my objection. THB COURT:

26
The oourt will sustain the objeotion on the
o-t 1 2 a
4
ground it has teen asked and answered in the former ques tion, Q BY MB KKMPLEY: Who translated those articles yon
stated were in hieroglyphics? MB HAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
6 immaterial and not proper cross-examination, and not within

7
the issues in the oase, THE COUBT: A Objection overruled.
8
9
Various translators that I engaged in a confidential
1 0 1 1
capacity during the years of 1909 to 1916. Q BY MB KEMP LEY: You dont mean by your answer. Doctor
1 2 Lewis, that there is anything confidential about their names,

13 14 15
16
do you? A Well, in some oases theTe might have been. I have
forgotten their names, most of them.
They were professional
translators, but they worked for me at different times and worked out the rough translations so we oould work it up in a better form of English. Q Gan you recall the name of any one of them? Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
17 18 19
2 0 2 1
HE HAYCOdZ:
immaterial and not within the issues, and improper cross
2 2 examination.
23 24 25
THE COTJBTs A Q
Yes, there was a Hr A. B. Lacrois. BY HH KEHP1EY: What is his business or profession?
HR MAYCOCK:
26
Objected toffas incompetent, irrelevant and
1 2
3 4 5
immaterial and not within the issues in the case, and im proper cross-examination, and not gone into on direct examlr tion. ^ TEE COURT: A Objection overruled. Answer the question.
I don't know.
He went to the World War and that is
6
7
the last I knew about him. 5 BY MR KEltPLKY: He translated these for yon before
8
9
he went to the World War? A 9 Yes. Did you know anything about him at all before he made
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the translations for you? UR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
izrmaterlal and not proper orosa-examination, not gone into on direat, and not within the Issues in the case.^ THE COURT: A Objection overruled.
Why, I placed an advertisement in one of the Hew York
papers and asked for a professional translator for confiden tial work, and among the persons who made application for the position I received one from him. He gave me satisfactory
2 0 references of a personal nature, and I engaged his services. 2 1 2 2

23 24 25 26
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Well, did you learn at that time where
he had gained his knowledge or ability to translate hiero glyphics? UR MAYCOCK: Objeoted t i
ls incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial and not proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination. I suppose now we axe getting the educa
36
1 2
3 4
tional qualifications of these individuals, and that is cer tainly not germane to this inquiry. Ganeology comes next.
There is no limit to the distance a person can go afield in this line of inquiry. I again most seriously ,and with hu
mility and not arrogance, Insist upon my objeotion. MB KEMPLKY: I assure your Honor if a prompt answer is
a
7
given and not too many objections are made, we can get
8 through with thia case within a reasonable time, r' THE COURT: 1 0 1 1 Q ME KBMPLEY: Objection overruled. Bead the question, Mr Reporter. "Well,
(The question was read by the reporter as fallows:
1 1 did you learn at that time where he had gained his knowledge
13
14
or ability to translate hieroglyphics?")H 1 A Trench. He didn't translate hieroglyphics. He translated
15
I engaged a Frenchman to translate Trench. The whole subject of our examination has
1 6
17 18
MR KEMPLEY:
been with reference to a person to translate these hiero glyphics. I didnt ask anything about a translator of It is Just a misunderstanding
19
Trench or German at all.
2 0 entirely.
I am asking you purely about the man who trans
2 1 lated the hieroglyphics; confining it to that, who was he? 2 2

23 24 25 26
ME MAYCOCK:
Objected toâs Incompetent, irrelevant and
Immaterial and not within the issues, and improper cross examination, not gone into on direct, not germane to the issues involved.^? THE CODBT: Objection overruled.
1 2
3 4 5
A 3
I translated the hieroglyphics. BY MR KEMPLEY: Ho one assisted yon? You translated
them entirely yonrBelf? MR MAYCOCK: Objected tolas Incompetent, irrelevant and
Immaterial and not proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, not within the issues in the oase, not germane to the issues Involved,!" THE OOURT: A code. 3 BY MR KEMPLEY: You mean by that, no one did assist Objection overruled. iJ
6
7
8
9
I needed no assistance on that, for I the key and the
1 0 1 1
1 2 you, I take it.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A Q
Tell, my wife, Had
yes, at times. along that line,
you had any particular training
Bootor? MR HAYCOCK: Objected tofaa incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial, not cross-examination, not within the issues of this case. Howhere in the direct examination were the
doctor's qualifications as a translator urged before this There is certainly no issue on that. And therefore
2 0 oourt.
2 1 I again renew my objection. P 2 2

23 24 25 26
THE COURT: A
Answer the question.
Tell, I was properly instructed in the method of
interpreting the Rosloruoian hieroglyphics, the secret hiero* glyphics. Q BY MR KEMPLEY: There and when?
1 2
3 4
immaterial,' THE COUBT: Q Objection sustained, This may have bean asked and
BY MB KEMPLEY:
5 6
7
answered.
I understood a part, at least, of thetae lessons
and leotures are the exact translations of some of these foreign writings you have referred to. Is that correct?
8
9
inoompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, and not within the issues of this e a s e ^ THE COUBT: A You may answer. Objection overruled,
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15
I do not "Iflaow how precise the translation may be,
but it is generally accepted among the members who have compared gr analyzed the matter as being a fairly good translation. Q BY KB KEKPLEY: i can understand how you might have I didn't mean I wasn't real
IS
17 18 19
misunderstood my question.
ly delving into the question of how aeonrate a translation it was, but I wanted to know whether or not these lessons
2 0 that you claim the defendants have no right to use are trans 2 1 lations of those foreign documents or are simply written by 2 2 someone else based upon the facts or substanoe contained in
23 24 25 26
those foreign documents. MR MAYCOCK:
That is what I am getting at.
Objected t ^ a a inoompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial, improper cross-examination, not gone into on direot examination, not within the issues of the case, al-
^ CD 1 ready asked and answered. , 2

3
59
THE COURT: A
The laotures.as they are today and have been for
the past eight or ten years,are under oonstant revision and
S they probably universally and generally in eaoh grade seotion 6 are composed of a paragraph of practically precise trans
7
lation, followed by a paragraph of notation, oonnotation. addition of our own editorial staff; then fol two of precise translation of an
8 analysis or
9 lowed by a paragraph or
1 0 cient matters and teachings, followed again by a modern 1 1 notation or reference. And in that way, with the additions,
1 2 they are kept up to date.

13 14
BY MR KBMPLBY:
How. all of them, however, are the
product of yours or your organisation there, either as translations or as original writings; is that oorreot? A Q Tea, Hone would say that. of them are oopied in any large partfrom any
IS
16 17 18 19
other published work? MR MAYCOCK: THE COURT: A Objected to as aBked and answered Objeotion overruled.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
Borne of our supplementary lectures for supplementary
reading are oomposed of quotations and extraots from pub lished works, but are not included in the seoret and graded teaohings of the organization. There may be paragraphs that
have appeared in Bosioruolan books or manusoripts in other

26
oountries or in this country at various times.

26
GO
1 2
3 4 5
Well, one of the lectures that yon complain in this
oase has heen improperly need by the defendants is a lecture on Arcane Philosophy, or a series of lectures on Arcane Philosophy; is that correct? A That is not one of the graded lectures at all. It
6
7
is a supplementary reading lesson, taken from various sources^ in order that our members might not have to search through
8 various oyolopedias and books to get this supplementary

9
reading, me have extracted it and put it into readable form
1 0 as supplementary reading. 1 1 Q Soot or, I shorn you part of paragraph 13 of your com
1 2 plaint, signed by you, X believe, in Which you complain that

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
the defendants are wrongfully using certain lectures, and aong the list you have Aroane Cosmology, consisting of twenty-one leotures, I believe. A
Q
Is that oorreot?
This one here (indicating)? Yes. Yea, but it is not in the list of the graded lessons.
It is supplementary there, is separated from the other.

3
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
And as to that you make no claim of ownership? I objeot t i (hat on the ground that it is
MR HAYCOCK;
not a proper question for the elucidation of facts, but is a question vhioh should be directed to counsel and not to a witness on the stand; that is, whether or not they are abando: ing a portion of their complaint. for a witness. It is not a proper questio:
We maintain if one individual -- take, for
26
Cl 1 2
3 4 5
instance, a scrap book of Elbert Hubbard
if an indi
vidual went out and put out a scrap book containing ver batim certain excerpts from various works of various authors, but it was his own compilation of them and his own idea as to its importance and literary worth, he has
6 a property right in that, whether they are completely the

7
original work of the author or not.
Ware that not so, it
8 would be impossible
9
we have suoh works as the Harvard
Classics and various anthologies of poetry, bath anolent and modern; we have a compilation that our present Governor collaborated in, and "English Works and Authors." There
1 C 1 1
1 2 fore, we do not withdraw from our position that they were

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
a property right here; and the question directed to the witness should be directed to counsel, whether or not they are going to recede from any of their position in the oas e . ^ MB KHMPLEY: 3 I withdraw the question.
I show yon this Instrument, which is headed "Amoro,"
under that "Trade Mark, and "Offioial Lecture," and ask you if that Instrument is one of the lectures on Arcane
2 0 Philosophy. 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
It seems to be, although it la bound together dif
ferently than we usually bind our leotures, 9 A 9 How do you mean; this staple that la in it? Tss, we usually have two. That la true. That waa stapled in our offioe.
Aside from that, you would say that waa one of your lectures
26
G 2
1 2
3 4 5
on Arcana Philosophy? A Tea. 1 offer this in evidence and ask it he
MB KEMPLEY: marked
sb
Befendants ' Exhibit A. It will he reoelved and marked as Defendants'
T f T R OOURT;
6 Exhibit A.
7
(Lecture on Arcane Philosophy Bo* 3 received in evidence and marked Defendants1 Exhibit A.) Q BY MB KEMPLEY: I show yon a book. Loot or Lewis, Science of Breath," and ask yon
8
s
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
entitled "The Hindu-Yogl
if yon are familiar with that work* A Oh, I am sure we have a copy of it in our editorial
library. Q So you know whether or not it is a fact that a large
part of that Lecture Ho. 3 on Arcane Philosophy was lifted verbatim from this partioular book? A Q lot a large part of it, but a portion. Are any quotation marks used or any credit given to
the author of this"Hindu-Yogi Soienoe of Breath"? MR MAYCOOK: immaterial. Objeoted totaB incompetent, Irrelevant and
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
Where an article is not to go out to the
general public it is not necessary to put in quotations or give credit to the author quoted from. If it
wbb
going out
to the publio to deoeive persons, the individual plagiarised would have a right to coa^laln.
25 26
But hereagaln we have to
fight the battles of thiB Yogi philosopher, whoever he was,
GO
1 2
3 4
who ia supposes to be plagiarised.
Tha violation, if any,
of that individual's rights by this plaintiff has nothing to do with this matter before the oourt here. The question
is objected to as inoompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.^ THE COUBT: A Objeotion overruled.
5 6
7
Ho, there are no quotations U B e d , but in the intro
duction to the work it was stated various works would be oonsulted and referred to. Q BY UR KEMPLEY: In the introduction to that par
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ticular letter? A 5a, but in the letters that go to the students,
telling them they are going to receive some supplementary leeturea in the form of Aroane Philosophy and so an. 9 There is nothing in these letters or leotures to
designate what partioular part of the literature la the composition of some other writer and what is your com position, is there? UR MAYCOCK: Objected toTas inoompetent. Irrelevant and
immaterial, not proper oross-examlnation, not gone into on If we
2 0 direot examination, beyond the issues in this ease.
2 1 were litigating a matter between a person who reoeived that 2 2 lecture, let us say, and paid for it as the literary product
23 24 25 26
of an Individual, and it was given to him under fraud or mistake or misrepresentation, then that question would be material to the issue; but that is not the oase we have be fore us. Ve have the question of whether or not these par-
64
1 tlcular defendanta have a right to take this plaintiff's 2 property as its own property and compilation and use it
3 4 5
themselves.
And their argument or theory is,because you
haven't a right to that and use it without giving quota tion marks on it( we have a right to use it and are doing so. That is certainly a very unusual and novel equitable Our olalm is. so far as this is concerned, or a
6
7
defense.
8 large part of it, the only man we would have to ask about
9
using it is the man who wrote this book, and not Doctor Dux proposition is this: If they want to delete
1 0 Thomas.
1 1 from these leotures those particular portions whloh are, 1 2 if they are, quotations from that work, they oan do so;
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
but they have no right to our compilation, our composition, our annotations and criticisms and expositions of that work in other matters. MB IBAM: We renew the objection.
Ib s u s
It seems to me the clear
involved in
this ease, and the burden on the plaintiff to prove it. is this: Assuming for the moment.for the purpose of this argu
ment, that all of that lecture, every word of it, whether
2 0 of any nature whatsoever, was an exact, verbatim copy of 2 1 some book; does that, under the circumstances of this case, 2 2 make it material or relieve the defendant
23 24 25 26
from any liability'
The thought I had was this:
Tha plaintiff's complaint is
this, that while the defendants were in a fiduciary relation ship and obtained these things from the plaintiff, than hold ing out to the public under deception that they were still
1 2
3
4
representing the plaintiff, they vere handing ont the work of the plaintiff, to palm this off to people who are not members of the organization, under deception, representing it to be the work of this plaintiff and representing them selves as going on with the work Just the same as they did That is the issue in this case. It seems to me
6 before.
7
we are losing sight of that very vital question whioh Is It may very well be,if the defendants
8 present in this o&se.

9
were other than the present defendants, they oould very
1 0 well question the plaintiff's right to use that; but that 1 1 is not in issue here. The question 1b in the deoeptlon,
1 2 not only while in a fiduciary and confidential relationship

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
and obtaining these things, but in the deception to use it under auoh oolor of title or under suoh deceptive conditions and surroundings that people at large are misled into be lieving they are obtaining the work of the plaintiff. T THB COUBT: ? MB KBICFltBT: Objeotion overruled. Bead the question,
(The question was read by the reporter aa follows: "There
2 0 ia nothing in these letters or leeturea to designate what 2 1 2 2

23 24 25 26
particular part of the literature is the composition of some other writer and what is your oomposition, is there?") A Tea, in part of the lecture there is referenoe to
Mr Plammarian, and in some of the leatures the titles and authors of some of the books are given; others were not. But these letters were aooonqjanied with letters which often
GG
1 2
3 4
contained that information, and expecially the letters hloh went with the first leotnre of each of the courses explained why the supplementary course is given,and its value, and how it Baved the member from hunting through many books to get this additional reference matter. These
6
7
letters were part of the leoture when sent out by us or given to the Jflaster to give to hi a members, Q In this particular lecture, Doctor, you have if
8
9
examined it, -- is there anything in that leoture
1 0
there is, please point it out to us -- that indicates credit
1 1 being given to axône? 1 2

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MB MA7C0CK:
The leoture itself,being now in evidence, Ve object to it on that ground,
is the best evidence. THS COUBT: Q
Objection sustained. Neither you nor anyone directly con
BY MB KBMPLEY:
nected with your organization is the author or publisher of that book, Doctor lewis? MB MAYCOGK: Objected toPas incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial, not the beat evidence, not germane to this in The book is not in evidence and not identified. The
2 0 quiry,
2 1 question is beyond the issues in the case.^P 2 2

23 24 25
THE COUBT: A
Objection overruled,
Vo, nobody in our organization was connected with the
publishing of that book. MB KEMPLEY: By "that book,* in the preceding question,
I refer to the book "The Hindu-Yogi Science of Breath," whioh

26
1 2
3 4 5
was referred to in a previous question.
I will ask that
that hook he received in evidence, solely for the purpose of showing that a large part of that lecture was taken from this hook,
ft,
US MAYCOCK:
Objected toâs incompetent, irrelevant and
6
7
immaterial, not within the issues of the case, explanatory of matter which is not germane, not gone into on direot
8 examination, a hook not properly identified as yet, not

9
germane to the issues. MB KBMPLEY: I think the only thing necessary for the
1 0
1 1 purpose of the offer is the last answer of the witness, 1 2 that it is not composed or published by anyone oonnected 1 2 with his organization.
14 15 16 17 18 19
THE COUBT:
The objeotion to the offer is overruled, and
it is received in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit B. (Book entitled 'The Hindu-Yogi Salenoe of Breath" received in evidenoe and marked Defendants' Exhibit B . ) 3 BY MB KZMPLEY: You testified, I believe, on direot
examination, that at the present time you had a membership,
2 0 I believe you said, of 150, and something less than 500,on 2 1 2 2

23 24 25
cross-examination, in Los Angeles and adjaoent territory. I Just wanted to ask you if my memory coincides with yours as far as your testimony is concerned.
MR KBMPLEY:
26
I will withdraw the question.
C8 1 3 I will ask you if you didn't appear before a notary
2 public and give a deposition in this case on about the 15th

3 4 5
day of August, 1930, in your attorney's office, Mr Aram's office in san Jose, California. A
Q t
Yes. I want to show you. Doctor, page 45, in which yon I will ask yon if you were
6
7
were asked these questions
S
9
asked these questions and made these answers at that time and place: "Q How many members did you have in Southern
1 0 California on the 31st day of Kay, 1929?" 1 1 MR MAYCOCK: I object to that as Improper impeachment.
1 2 There is nothing in the record concerning the membership

13 14 15 16 17
in Southern California. MB KEMPLEY: THE COURT: MR K3MPLEY: Q Then I will have to go back further, You are withdrawing that? 1 withdraw that portion of the question,
I will ask you if yon were not asked this qnestion:
IS
19
Q Approximately how many members do yon now have in Southern California?" and if yon didn't make this answer:
2 0 1 should say around 3000." 2 1 2 2

23 24
MR MAYCOCK;
I object to that as improper impeachment, because
It oonld only be used for impeachment purposes,
there is no qnestion at all about the membership in Southern California. THE COURT: Objection sustained. The testimony was with
25
regard to the membership in Los Angeles County and vicinity.

26
Cr J 1 2 Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Doctor Lewis, do you have a lodge
in any place in Southern California other than in L ob
3 A ngel68 County?
4 5
MR UAYCOCZ:
Objected toâe incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial and not proper cro8s-examination* THE COURT: A Q Objection overruled* We have groups or chapters.
6
7
Ho* we do not have lodges. BY MR KEMPLEY:
8
9
Where do you have any groups or chap
1 0
ters in Southern California, other than in Los Angeles Countyr CD MR HAYCOCK: 1 objeot to >that on the ground it is incom
1 1 petent, irrelevant and immaterial, beyond the issues in the 1 2 ease, a matter not gone into on direct examination.
13 14 15
The
vice of it is this: It is very apparent the purpose of it is to try to lay now on his cross-examination a foundation for impeaohment on his deposition on matter not gone into
1 6 on direct examination, whioh is beyond the power of a oro8817 18 19
examiner.
He oan elioit any answers he wishes as to matters
gone into on direct examination, and if then he wishes to lmpeaeh them by documentary evidence or otherwise, he oan
2 0 do so; but he oannot himself,by extending the realm of the 2 1 cross-examination beyond the circle gone into on direct 2 2 examination, lay a foundation for an impeaching question.
23 24 25 26
MR KEMPLEY:
His testimony was that he had
1 think he
said 150 or 500 members at the present time in Los Angeles and adjacent territory* Los Angeles County* He said it wasn't even confined to
lour Honor knows what his testimony was
7 0
1 2
3
4
before.
I oontend, however, I have a perfeot right to
oroae-examine him and show whether or not there are 2500 members in Southern California antside of Los Angeles Comity and the adjacent territory. MB HAYCOCK: The vice of it is this: He has gotten his
C 7 8
9
information that he wants to refute from testimony not in evidence, for the purpose of refuting it. He is ualng a
deposition for the purpose of creating a conflict and then asking the witness to answer so it will impeach the depo sition. Moreover, he can only be impeached upon a material Impeaohment does not lie as to col
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
iBsue in this case. lateral issues.
The scope of the oroas-examination may be
larger than the issues.beoause the door is opened wide for the purpose of a oro b b -examiner, but the oourt does not open the issues wide. The issues are laid down by the pleadings
I E
and are very well oonflned to oertaln acts concerning cer tain individuals in a oertaln locality. Therefore, any im
peachment as to a matter not germane to the issue is improper One can only lmpeaoh on a material issue. MB EBKPLEY: material? MB MAYCOCK: THB COUBT: ^ KB KEMPLEY: lo.
t
Bo you admit the number of members is im
Objection overruled. Please read the question, Hr Beporter,
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Where do you have any groups or ohapters in Southern California,
< * 0 I1 1 2 3
4 5
other than in Loa Angelas County? ) MS MA.YC0CK: I know of no place in the direct examina
tion where anything was asked concerning the location in Southern California of groups of members of this lodge, whether as lodges or chapters. It certainly is a new and H'
6 novel result of cross-examination

7
THB COURT:
X think the question should he how many
8 members he has outside of Los Angeles County, rather than

9
ohapters. MR KEMPLEY: The reason that question is framed that way,
1 0 1 1
I asked a question before. If there were any lodges outside The witness answered they had no
1 2 of Los Angeles County.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
lodges, but some chapters or groups outside of Los Angeles County, and I used the witness's own words. jeotion to changing it to "members. THE COURT: Q Let's change the question to "members.'1 How many members do you have in I have no ob
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Southern California outside of Los Angeles County? MR ARAM: Objected to because the phrase "Southern Cali
2 0 fornia" Is not defined. 2 1 Q BY HR KEMPLKY; La you know where what we oall "the
2 2 Tehaohapi" is?
23 24 25 26
A Q
Bo. Veil, let us assume that Southern California includes
Santa Barbara and Ventura and Kern and Riverside and Orange, Lo8 Angeles, Imperial and San Diego Counties. I meant to say
o
Aw
1 also San Bernardino In plaoe of Kern.
Assuming that is
Southern California, ho* many members do you have in that

3
territory that are outside of Los Angeles County? MB HAYCOCK: Objected to'ras incompetent, irrelevant and
4
5
immaterial, not proper orossêzamination, not germane to
6 the issue, and I wish to ask the oourt to instruot the wit
7
ness he may answer he does not know unless he is certain of
3 the faot. 9 THE COURT: Objection overruled. You may answer the
1 0 question, if you know. 1 1 1 2

13 14 15 16 17
A Q
I am not sure of the figures. BY HR KEMPLEY: Do you have any idea?
M3 HAYCOCK:
I object tofthat on the ground the witness

sb
has answered the question as succinctly not after oonjeeture or guesse THE COURT: A
he oan.
Te are
You may answer the question "Yes* or "Ho."
Bo, I seldom bother with the figures of the member
IS
19
ship , and I am not familiar with the details of looallties so as to be able to say with any degree of sureness, 4 BY MS KEMPLEY: Before you oame down hare to testify
2 0
2 1 did you oheck over the record as to the number of members 2 2 you had at all?
23 24 25 26
Ho, 1 am using my recollection only as to that, from
our quarterly or ooaasional references to the record. Q Veil, is your reoolleotion as to the number of members
in Los Angeles and immediate and adjacent territory better
I U
1 2
3 4
than your reoollection aa to members outside of that terri tory? KB MAYCOCK: THE COUBT: Q Objected Objection to as argumentative* sustained*
5 6
7
BY MH EXUPLBT:
Is your statement that there are at
present 500 members in Los Angeles and the immediate adjacent territory an accurate statement?
c >
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
UR UAYCOCK: really already
I object to that as a questionthat has been gone into* He has testifiedthere a
certain membership here*
lo* he is asked if his statement
that there was a certain membership is accurate, which is the same thing* : THE COURT: A Objection overruled* I cannot say
I may be out two or three hundred. I can only

bb$
I E
16 17 18 19
definitely* Q
approximately.
BY UR KEMPLEY:
Can you give us now an approximate
statement of the number in Southern California outside of Los Angeles County? MB MAYCOCK: That is a matter that has been already
2 0 asked and answered. 2 1 2 2

23 24 25 26
THE COURT: A
Answer, if you can.
lo, because that covers a larger territory, and I
made some little Inquiry a few weeks ago about how many members we might have in this immediate district, but I didn't make any investigation as to Southern California as a whole*
.m
.-t 1 3 Was jour testimony aa to membership in Los Angeles
2 and vicinity based on some inquiry you made?

3 4 5
A Q A
Just casual inquiry. From whom did you make that inquiry? From some of our departments at headquarters. Then I move that all his testimony
bb
G
7
MB KEMPLEY:
to
membership be stricken as hearsay, MB MAYCOCK: If the witness is taking information from
g some of his subordinates in an institution of whioh he is 1 0 the head, he is competent to give.it. n Otherwise it would
be impossible to oonduet a litigation where a corporation
1 2 is involved.
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
THE COUBT: Q
The motion is denied. Doctor, what is the method of becom
BY MB K3MPLEY:
ing a member of your organization? MR MAYCOCK: Objected tojas incompetent, irrelevant and
kD
immaterial and not within the issues in this case. It is a matter that is peculiarly confidential to a lodge Itself, and not a proper subjeet of inquiry in this action. MB KEMPLEY: I am not asking for any confidential infor
2 0
2 1 mation as to what transpires. 2 2

23 24 25 26
MR ABAM:
The only material
Isb u s
is whether or not these
defendants were members, whioh is not denied. MB KEMP LEY: The witness has characterized his organiza I think I objected
tion as a secret fraternal organization.
to it at the time, but at least it encroaches upon a con-
1 2
3 4
elusion* and consequently opens the door for us to inquire into the nature of the formation of the organization and Its membership, so as to determine for ourselves whether it does aome within that realm or not. of the question. THE COUBT: Bead the question. That is the purpose
6 6
7
(The question was read by the reporter as follows:
3 "Doctor, what 1s the method of becoming a member of your

9
organisation?11) MB MATCOCK: The argument of counsel Is that because he
1 0
1 1 failed to object to the question Which he says was a con 1 2 clusion, that he has larger rights now in going into mat
13 14
ters which otherwise would not be permitted.
In the first
place, counsel is in error in thinking that negligence, if In the second place, he
1 5 it is such, enlarges his rights.

16 17
is wrong in that a conclusion of law cannot be given by a witness, but all statements which involve a Judgment are It is impossible for any person to
1 oonaluBions of fact.
19
give any statement whatsoever which la not a conclusion of faot. Tour Honor has a flag behind you. I say it is the
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
American flag.
That ia my conclusion from the optioal ob But that is not a con
servation of that particular object. clusion of law. (further discuBslon by counsel.
24
THB COUBT:
25
Objection sustained. Is it necessary for a person to appear
q
26
BT MR KEMPLETi
70 1 in person before any lodge of your order in order to become 2 a member of your organization?
3
4
KB UAYCOCK:
Objeoted to fas incompetentt irrelevant and
immaterial, oalls for an answer aonoernlng the seoret work ings of a fraternal organization and not proper cross
6 examination, and is not within the issues in the oase.'

7
THE COUHT:
Objection sustained as not proper cross
8 examination.
9
BY MB KEMPLBY:
You say you advertise for members,
1 0 Bootor Lewis? 1 1 A Vat advertise for them. Ve advertise in a manner
1 2 to present the benefits and some of the instructions of

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
goodwill and welfare and health of the organization, so that persons may know of the exlstenoe of it and, if they feel inclined, may ask for admission to it. Q It is your purpose in advertising to secure new
members? A Q Hot exclusively, no. How muoh money did you say you expended in Los
2 0 Angeles in advertising? 2 1 2 2
23 24
MB UAYCOCK: examination. Q
There was no suoh question asked on direct
BY THE COUBT:
Shat did you testify regarding the
four to six thousand dollars a month that was expended? A

25 26
That that was what we spent in an average month in
keeping the work of our organization before the publia.
1 2
3 4 5
BY MB KEMP LEY:
Yon mean by that answer, all ov er
the United States, and Canada and Mexioo? A Q Yea, wherever it may reach* Veil, what part of that was expended in Loa Angeles? Objected to as Improper oross*-examination. Question withdrawn. That Is all,
MB MAYCOCK: MB KEMPLBY:
6
7
(Thereupon a short recess was taken,)
3 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
78
1 2
3
E. E. THOMAS, being called as a witness by the plaintiff, under Section 2055, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: Q A (By the Clerk:) E. E. Thomas. DIRECT EXAMINATION: BY MR. ARON: Q A Q A Q A Q A Where do you reside, Dr. Thomas? 1033 West 30th Street. How long have you resided there? Nearly eight years. Were you a member of the plaintiff order? I was. When did you become a member? I believe it was about 5 years ago; I am not very What is your name?
6 6
7
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
IB
16 17
positive. Q A What Is your occupation now? I am at the head of what we call "Our Brotherhood",
1 8
19
an organization. Q A ples. Q How long since you have been the head of that organi And what is the nature of that organization? The teaching of philophospical and scientific princi
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
zation? A Ever since our dissolution from the organization known However, it was under another name at the time we
as Amorc.
79
1 2 3
4 5
separated. Q A What was your answer? That ever since our separation from the organization
known as Amorc I have been at the head of this other organi zation--Q A name, Q A Q A Q A Q A Q You have been at the head of "Our Brotherhood ? No, not under that name; we separated under another under the name of "Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries The first name was Universal Order of ancient Mysteries Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries. Subsequent to your connection with Amorc? Yes. Now it is the same organization with a different name? Yes. It is the same organization? The same organization. And you were at the head of that first organization
6
7
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
of this also? A Yes sir.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
< c i What was your occupation before you became a member of Amorc? A Q A Q A I was in the mining business. Where? In the Northern part of Shasta County Where? Kenneth.
1 2 3
4 5
80 Q A Q A Q What was your particular occupation? Constructing and mining engineer. Are you a graduate engineer? I am not. So you became a member of the plaintiff order about
6
7
five years ago? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q I believe that is the time; I am not very sure.
8
9
Did you also subsequently become Master of that lodge? Yes. Of the Los Angeles Lodge? Yes. How long were you Master of the Lodge? I believe it was 2-g years or more, something like that About 2g years as Master? Yes, I think so. You say immediately on severuing your connection with
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 IE 16 17 18 19
the plaintiff order you became the head of the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries? A Q YesHow soon after the severance of your connection with
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 26 26
the plaintiff order did you become the head of this new order? A Q A Q Almost immediately. Immediately? Yes. How many members did you have from the start of this
1 2
3
new order? A
81
Well, we had nearly all the members that Amorc had;
there were very few that left us. Q

A
Most of them stayed with you?

Y e s
5 6
7
Where was the location or headquarters of this Uni
versal Order of Ancient Mysteries? A Q 233 South Broadway. Was that the same location as the plaintiff order was
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
located before your connection was severed with it?

A Y e s .
Q , And the telephone number was the same? A y A Q

A
Yes. You say you started immediately? Almost immediately. Did this new order have lodge meetings?
Y e s .
When was the first lodge meeting held after the sev
erance of your organization from the plaintiff order? A Q , A Q ,

A
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
I dont remember; I think within two or three days. And where was it held? In the same place. In the same lodge room?
Y e s .
Q quire
Did your order, in orderto hold lodge meetings, re any paraphanalia, furniture, or anything of the sort
1 2 2
4
fpr its work? A Q

A Amorc
Yes. Where did you get that?

At the "beginning we used what we had been using of
5 6
7
Q A Q A Q A
Q
You used what you had before? Yes Now, you say you became the head of the new order? Yes. How many members did you have to start with? I dont know exactly.
Approximately.
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A Q
Something like 450 or 500. 450 to 500 to start with, immediately after the sever
ance of your organization from the plaintiff order? A Q Yes. Now, did you do all of the work and detail work, or
did you have assistants? A Q A I had assistants. Did you have departments of your work? Well, generally speaking, ,yes. We were ao bewildered
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
by the sudden throwing upon us of an unwieldy and great organization that we didn't have really very much assistance Q A Q But you had assistants? Yes. Now, you say you had a sort of organization, whatever
80 1 2
3 4
this organization was In departments, tell us what It was. MR. KEMPLEY: and immaterial. MR. ARON: THE COURT: A ment . Q A Q A Q A Who was the treasurer? Mrs. Katherine Bentley. And the Secretary? Mrs* Eugenia D. Jenks. And v/ho else? Well, that comprised the personnel, except voluntary We are getting at the personnel. Objection overruled. Objected to as Incompetent, irrelevant
6 6
7
We had a treasury department and a secretary's depart
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
IS 14 15 16 17 18 19
assistants of people who came in and worked, some two or three days a week and some for a day, and so on. Q Now, in your work in the new order, how was it dis
tinguished from the work of the order from which you had just severed your connections? A Q A Q A At the beginning there was not very much difference. Not very much difference? Not very much at the beginning. Do you mean to say you continued on as you had before? In the beginning we gave instructions to some of our
2 0
21
2 2
28 24 25 26
assistants to revise the former Amorc lessons; to take out the essence of those lessbns and not copy them verbatim, as some of them appear to have been since. It seems like
84.
1 2
2
4
some of them had paragraphs that were copied verbatim s ' You say that within two or three days of the severance of your connection with the plaintiff order you held a lodge meeting? A Yes, I w o n t he positive as to the number of days, severance.
6 e
7
but it was very quickly afterthe Q A Q Not more than a week? Not more than a week. Did you have to make use
8
9
of lessons
in order to carry
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
on your lodge work with the new order? A Q A Yes sir. What lessons did you use? We used the revised Amorc lessons. In other words,
we used the essence from those lessons. Q Now, how did you revise these; did you have the les
sons of Amorc in your possession? A Q you? A No, we didnt have time," We had so much to do, so Yes. And you studied them, went over them carefully, did
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
much work in reorganizing, that I left that to assistants; I asked them to take the essence from the lessons and not use the lessons verbatim. Q A Q I see. But to take the essence from those lessons. Were you charging dues to your members?
8;> 1 2
3
A Q A Q
Yea. And this new order continued to collect dues? Yes. Well now you say when you held lodge with the new
4 5 6
7
order, you used the same place, held lodge in the same lodge room? A Q A Q A Yes. With the same equipment? YesDid you have any rituals? Yes, I believe for the first two weeks we used a part, been using.
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
not the whole, but a part of the rituals we had Q all? A Q No, none whatever.
But you had no connection with the plaintiff order at
And all of your members of the new order were members
of the old order? A Q A Q No, not all of them. The majority of them? The majority of them, yes. Now, you say you gave orders to revise or cull from
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 26 26
the lessons of the plaintiff order; in what form were your lessons put out, printed or mimeographed? A Q A Mimeographed. Were were they printed,, or mimeographed? We had to buy one. We had one before you folks took
1 2 a
4 5
the one away.
8G If you remember, we had a settlement and you
took away the mimeograph, and later we got another one. Q I just asked you the question, was there a mimeograph
mahine at the time you severed your connection with the Amorc order? A Q Yes. And did you continue to put out the new lessons on
6
7
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
that mimeograph? A Q A Q A Q A Q A Q Yes. Was there paper stock for mimeographing there? Yes, there vms some; we bought some more. But you used what was left, did you? Yes. Now you say Mrs. Bentley wqs your Treasurer? Yes. And Mrs. Eugenia Jenks was your Secretary? Yes. Were there any other persons who held any official
capacity? A Q A Q A No. Did you have a Defense Committee? Yes, we had a Defense Committee. Who were they? Well, I don't remember all of them, but Mr. Bentley,
2 0 2 1 2 2
28 24 25 26
Mrs- Samuel Scott, and I really don't remember them all. I wont be positive, but I think Mr. and Mrs. Adams; I am not
1 2
3 4
sure. Q A How about H. T. Cook? Yea.
Q , Margaret Scott? A Q A Q A Yes. Eugene Field? Yea. And Bronson H. Smith? Yes
e 6
7
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
Q , Those comprised the Defense Committee? A Q A Yes. What was this Defense Committee for? For the purpose of offsetting or ameliorating some of
the statements that had been getting around about myself and the organization that we now represented. Q That was for the purpose of defense or protecting
I S
16 17 18 19
yourself? A Q Yes Now, you would naturally I presume select men for such
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
work that were competent people. ME. KEMPLEY: a conclusion. MR. ARON: Q Withdrawn. Objected to as incompetent, calling for
Nov/, at the headquarters of the order, at the time
before you severed your connection with Amorc, was there any sign or anything at the entrance to the building, to
88 1 2
3
announce the presence of this order in that building? A Q Will you please ask that again? Before you severed your connection with the plaintiff
4 5 6
7
order, that was at the Musical Arts Building, was it not? A Q Yes Was there anything downstairs at the entrance to that
building to indicate that the Amorc Order was in that build ing? A Q A Q Ye a . What was the nature of that sign? It was a sign behind a glass case for that purpose. What did it show? What did it say? What sign or in
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 16 16 17 18 19
signia was there on it? A It had a winged globe on which-- with both triangles
inverted and interlaced, and over it it said AMORC. Q A What else? If I remember correctly, it had underneath "The Rosi
Crucian Brotherhood. Q A Now, when did you take that sign off? Well, we took that sign off later and substituted one
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
of our own, after an injunction had been served on us. Q , But until the injunction was served that same sign you kept there? A No, not the AMORC sign, but our own. We substituted
our own sign for the Amorc sign. Q How soon after the severance of your connection did
89
1 2
3 4
you substitute the sign? A I dont remember exactly, but it was just as quickly into
as we could get a sign painter to change the Amorc sign our own. Q A What did the new sign say?
5
7
It had a winged globe on there with stars instead of
interlaced triangles, and over it it had the words, "U.O.A. M.", and underneath. "The Universal Order of Ancient Myste ries." f t A f t A Q A What else? That is all I can remember being on there. Do you remember that it said "Rosi Crucian?" Oh yes, in parenthesis. It said in parenthesis, Rosi Crucian? Yes.
g 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
1 6
16 17
f t , Now, was there any inquiry made by any member after your severance of your connection with the plaintiff order as to whether or not these lessons that you were giving out were identical with the plaintiff orders lessons? A Q A There were. And what did you reply? The answer was that they were not identical, butthey
IB
19
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
contained the truth, the same as many other organizations are giving out. f t These, Mr. Thomas, have already been introduced in evidence, but I want you to verify your signatures?
90
1 2 S
4 5
A Q A Q A
Yea, that is mine. What ia that? An application blank. Into the Amorc Order 7 Yea. MR. ARON: I will read this application, being (Reading)
6
7
plaintiff1a Exhibit 4. Q A
8
9
Is thia your signature, Mr. Thomaa? Yea. MR. KEMPLEY: To save time, I am willing to stipulate
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
that they may be considered as read into the record. MR. ARON: I think we will not read them at this time,
but will save them for use in the argument. Q (By Mr.Aron:) How long were you a member of Amorc at
IB
16 17 18 19
the time you severed your connection? A Well, from the time that application was signed, in
August, 1926. Q A You were e member? Yes.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
Q , Later on you became Master? A Q Yes. Now, you say in your new order you had a Defense
Committee? A y A Yes. That were members of your Order? Yes.
I 1 2 3
4 5
Q A
What waa their* duty?
^ ! *'L
Well, really the Defense Committee was that just one
of our members fixed up a letter--Q A Q , A I asked you what their duties were? I can't tell you unless I tell you in my own way. If you dont know, tell us? I do know.
6
7
S
9 10 11
12
Q , Tell us what their duties were? A Q A I am trying to Very well, tell us. The Defense Committee had no regular duties. They
were just for one particular letter only. time they ever served. Q A
That is the only
13 14
That was for one particular letter.
That was just for that one purpose? Yes.
IE
16 17 18 19
20 21 22
Q , What was the date of that letter? A Q A Q I don't remember, but it is there some place. Have you a copy of it? Yes. Mr. Thomas, you stated that this Defense Committee
was organized for the sole purpose of sending out a certain letter, and after searching your records or the records of your counsel, you handed A Q A Ye s . That is the letter? Yes, that is the letter. this letter to us,did you not ?
23 24 25 26
1
2
3 4 5
6
On Was there another
Q , Have you a copy of this letter?
copy of this letter going on the stationary of your new or ganization? A yet. Q tion? A Q A No. Thia letter is dated July 2nd, 1929, is it not? Yes. None went out on the stationary of your new organiza No, it all went on "blank paper; we had no stationary
7 8
9
10 11
Q , When did you get your stationary of the Universal Orde: of Ancient Mysteries? A I don't remember how long it took to get it printed
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22
23
exactly; bat just as soon as we could. Q A Q A

Q
But it was after this letter went out, was it? I, believe so. And you say the letter went out in this form? Yes.
And y o u know the contents of this letter?
Yes. MR. ARON: THE COURT: I offer this letter in evidence. It will be received in evidence as Plain
tiff's Exhibit No.5. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 5.) Q Now, Mr. Thomas, I will show you this document and ask
24 25 26
you whether or not it has your signature?
9C 1
2 3 4
A Q
Yes.
However, It is a rubber stamp one-
Is that a fac-simile signature of yours, used for
your purposes? A Q A Q A Yes. And this is a letter you wrote to me, is it not? I think it is. Is this the letter-head of your new organization? At the time, yes.
5
6
8
9 10
11
Q , This is dated June 29 , 1929* is it not? A Yes. MR. KEMPLEY: and immaterial. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21
The witness has testified these others
were sent out July 2nd and has testified they didn't have the letter-head then. impeachment MR. ARON: The purpose is not for impeachment. The I presume this is for the purpose of
purpose is to find out if there is any explanation of his former answer. MR. KEMPLEY: no explanation. THE COURT: A You may answer the question Mr. WitnessIt is an immaterial matter and requires
22 23 24 25 26
I was quite sure that the letter-heads had not been
made until after that letter ; but I see I may have been mis taken . Q , Can it be possible you are also mistaken in your state ment that that letter of the Defense Committee did not go
94
1 2
3 4
out on your order's letter-head? A Q I don't think I amI will show you this and ask you if itis the letter
head of your organization? A Q Yes. And I will ask you if that is not the letter of the
f i
6
7
Defense Committee? A Q A YesAre you mistaken now? Again. MR. ARON: We offer this in evidence. It is the same ofthe
8 9 1 0
11
12 13 14
letter of the Defense Order. THE COURT: tiff's Exhibit 6 MR. ARON:
Committee, on the letter-head
It may he received in evidence as Plain
I S
16 17 18 19 20 21
22
Except, your Honor please, there are pencil
notations on it which it is admitted by us were not written by the defendant or any of his associates. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 6.) Q , What dues did you charge to the members of your new organization immediately when you orgahized your new organ ization? MR. KEMPLEY: and immaterial. THE COURT: A Objection overruled. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant
28
24 26 26
Well, at the beginning it was $5.00 initiation fee and
1 2
3 4
$2.00 a month, the same aa the other: and that only contin ued for a few weeks. Q A Q is? A C J A Q A Q . A Q Yes. What is it? It is a due card. Of what? Of the Amorc. Of the plaintiff organization? Yes. Now, I show you the dues the for same card onthereverseside, June and July,andaskyou what But that was the practice for a while, was it not? Yes I will show you this and ask you if you know what that
6 6
7
8
9 10
11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
referring to
notation is there? A I I * 0. N. is aa much as I can see; our organization was
U. 0. A. M. Q Do you know whether or not the dues paid on that card
were received by your organization? A lieve I do not. In fact, Idoubt it,because If so, I dont be she can
21 22 23 24 25 26
the treasurermade thatnotation.
verify it when you get her on the stand. MR. ARON: This is offered in evidenceObjected to as incompetent, irrelevant
MR. KEMPLSY: and immaterial.
C H A R L E S
A.
B O W M A N
O fficial
R e p o h t e h _______________________________________________________________________ i____________________________________________ _
9G 1 2
3
MR. ARON:
If your Honor wishes a statement as to its
materiality, I will be glad to state; but I will say this, we will connect it up. I believe it is customary to admit
4
5
such a document on the statement that it will be connected up. THE COURT: We will mark it Plaintiffs Exhibit 7 for
6
7
identification purposes only. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.) Q A Q A Q Mr. Thomas, what were the initials of your Treasurer? I believe she just signed Katherine Bentley. What is her middle initial? I dont remember. I show you this and ask you if due card. you know what that is?
S
9
10
11
1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
AThat is another Q A Q A Q A Q Of what ? Of Amorc.
Of the plaintiff order? Yes. And to whom is this due card issued? To Henry B. Roberts. Now, I show you on the reverseside and shows as to payment of June ask you what
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
the notation
dues , what initial
appears there? A Q A It looks like K. E. B. Is the Treasurer Katherine E. Bentley? I think so.
0 7
1 2 a
4
Q A Q A
Do you know whether this is her handwriting? I believe that is her handwriting. She was the Treasurer of your organization? Yes. MR. ARON: We offer this card in evidence. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant
5 6
7
MR. KEMPLEY: and immaterial. THE COURT:
8
9
It will be received
in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 8. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 8.) MR. ARON: We ask at this time that the previous ex
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18
hibit be received in evidence. THE COURT: enough yet. Q A Q Mr. Thomas, I ask you if you know what this is? I don't think it has been connected up
That is another Amorc due card. I ask you to look at the reverse side and ask you what
that shows as to payment of June dues? A Q A It says on here, Katherine Bentley. That was your Treasurer? Yes. MR. ARON: We offer this card in evidence. No objection. It will be received at Plaintiff's Ex.9.
I S 2 0 2 1 2 2
23
24
MR. KEMPLEY: THE COURT:
25 26
(Plaintiff's Ex.9) Q May I ask you who was treasurer of Amorc Lodge, before
1 2
3 4 5
you severed your connection with that order? A Q Mrs* Virginia O'Neal. Now, Mr. Thomas, did you have application blanks for
your new order? A Q A Q A Yes. I ask you what this is which I show you? That is one of our application blanks. Of the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries? Yes.
6
7
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Q , Did the plaintiff order while you were the Master have membership application blanks? A Q A Q A Q Ye s . Have you any of them in your files? No, I have not. I show you this and ask you if you know what that is? Yes, this is an Amorc application blank. That was an application blank used while you were the
Master? A Yes, it looks like it, looks just like it. MR. ARON: V5e offer both of these in evidence. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
MR. KEMPLEY: and immaterial. THE COURT:
Objection overruled; received in evidence
as one exhibit, Plaintiff's Exhibit 10. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 10.) Q Mr. Thomas, I show you this and ask you if you know whe
this is?
99
1 A Yea, that is a letter we sent out to our different 2 members.
3
Q A Q A
Is that your signature? Yes, with a rubber stamp. But you used that for your signature, did you not? YesMR. ARON: THE COURT: We offer this in evidenceIt will be received as Plaintiff's Exhibit
4
5
6
7
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
11. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 11.) MR. ARON: Further to identify this, this is a letter
headed U.O.A.M., Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries, dated Los Angeles, California, June 11, 1929, and signed by E. E. Thomas, Supreme Grand Master. Q I show you two pieces of paperpasted on a larger
paper, and ask you If you know what the printed matter is? A Q , A Q A Q A Q Yes. What are they? The first is "Amorc'1 and the secondis"U.O.A.M What do they represent? Amorc represents the plaintiff-No; is it a letter head or what? "
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
It looks like a letter-head. The first one is a letter-headdevice andwritings of
the plaintiff order? A Yes.
C H A R L E S
B Q W M A N
OFFICIAL
R E P O R T E R ____________________________________________________________ ___________________________________________________________
100
1 2 3
4
And the second one you say is the device and words,
printed matter, used for your letter-heads after you organiz* your own order? A Yes. MR. ARON: which are ours. THE COURT: it 12. (Plaintiff's Exhibit 12.) Q , I will show you, Mr. Thomas, this paper, and ask you il Received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhib Vi e offer these, except the pencil notations
6 6
1
8 g 1 0 n 1 2
13 14 15 16
you know what this is? A Q A Q A Q Yes, that seems to be a bifcthday greeting. Of what? Of Amorc. Of the plaintiff order? Yes sir. Were these sent out to the members while you were Mas
11
18 19
ter of the lodge? A Q A Rot like this, no. Not like that? No.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
Q , How were they? A It says here 1 1Imperator" When I sent out one I sent
it out as Master. Q I don't mean what you sent out as Master, but were thea
sent out to the members by the Supreme Lodge?
1.01
1 2
3 4 5
A Q
Yea, I think so. Did $ou make use of greeting cards after you organized
your next organization? A Q A Ye s . Have you any of them? I don't think I have any here now. one into court tomorrow morning? We no longer
6
7
QWill you bring A
8
9
I haven't one; that is from TJ.O.A-M.
use that name. Q , You have none left? A Q No. Mr. Thomas, I will show you p newspaper clipping,
1 0 1 1 1 2
13
14 15 16 17 18 19
first referring to the first one above, if you know, what does that refer to? A Yes. I don't believe I ever saw this before. I donM
remember seeing it. Q you can A Iwill ask you if you will look these over and see if identify the literature that speaks of?
This is the time, the occasion- -MR. KEMPLEY: (Interrupting) I don't believe there I don't think the
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
are any newspaper men present now
newspaper men's writings are sufficiently accurate to be received in court. in some newspaper. This appears to be an item that appeared I object to its introduction on the
ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. MR. ARON: This is not offered for the purpose of
2 6
l.C 1 2
3 4
binding this defendant on the statement of the nevfspaper; but one of the chief elements of this case is a series of acts which were designed to mislead and in fact did mislead and confuse the two organizations, which is a very vital issue in this case. THE COURT: MR. ARON: tification. THE COURT: Let it be marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 13 Objection sustained. May we offer it for the purposes of iden
5 6
7
9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
for the purpose of identification only. MR- ARON: Both of the clippings, on one page.
(Plaintiff's Exhibit 13,FOR IIENTIFICATION ONLY.) THE COURT: row morning. (Thereupon a recess was taken to 10 o'clock A.M., Tuesday, January 6, 1931.) We will take a recess to 10 o'clock tomor
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
i 1 2
3 4
Tuesday,
January 6 , 1921; 10 o'clock a. m.
E. E. THOMAS resumed
the stand.
DIRECT EXAMIHATIOR oontinued
5 B Y MR ARAM: 6
7
Mr Thomas, I show y o u this oard and ask y o u if y o u
know what this is, A 4 Yes, this is an Amoxo membership card.
8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A n d the stamp on the front part of it, what stamp
is that? A
4
" U 0 A M." What organization is that? Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries.1 * Is that the organization y ou formed after you severed
A Q
y o u r connection with the p l aintiff organization? A 4 A

4
Yes* A n d that membership was issued to whom? John L. Johnson. I will ask y o u to look at the back of it for the month
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
of June, and ask y o u if y o u recognize the initials there. What are they? A Q A "K. B , b u t before that is "Virginia O'Bell,"
But Katherine Bentley was your treasurer? Yes. I am not sure that is her handwriting. I offer this card for identification. It may be marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 for
MR ARAM: THE COURT:

26
1C4
1 2
3 4 5
identification purposes.
(Card in question marked Plaintiff's B x h i b i t 14 for I d e n t i fication, ) Q BY MR 4RAU: Ur Thomas, will y o n state to the court
just what quarters, what s p a o e t the plaintiff organisation
6 had in the K u B i e Art Building?

7
A Q
Well,
they had the spaoe we n o w oeoupy,
8
9
Just h o w mans rooms did it consist of? I don't wi s h to he technical, and only object
U R KEttPLEY:
2 0 to this for the purpose of saving time.
The witness has tes
1 1 tified, and we freely admit and contend they took the very 1 2 quarters oocupled by the old organisation.
23 14 15 16 17 18 19
I don't see that
it makes any difference how muo h spaoe it was. UR ARAM: Counsel oan't possibly know what we are laying
a foundation for, THE COURT: it. Q A 3 A BY U R ARAU: What floor was it on? If we can shorten it by stipulation, let's do
The fourth floor. How maqy rooms? At the time the Amoro had it there were six rooms,
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
with divisions or partitions in one of them for offices,

3
A n d y o u had the very same quarters, Yes. Was there a lease on those quarters? There was.
did you?
A Q A
26
i cr 1 2
3 4
Q A Q A 4 A $ A 4 A Q
Have 7 0 a that lease with 7 0 a? I have not. Gan y o u tiring it to oourt? n e w lease Binoe then.
It is an old lease. We have a I understand. Ho. Have
5 6
7
y o u theold lease? is my question.
In whose name was the old lease? I n mine. Are y ou oertain ahout that? Yea. Would you say the lease was not In the name of Amora,
8
9
1 0 1 1
1 2 and that you did not hare it ohanged immediately when you
13 14 15 16 17
severed your connection with Amora? A Q A Q Host emphatically. That is your statement? Yes. Bow, it 1 b true, is it not. that themembers of the in their work from grade to
plaintiff organization progress

18
grade, do they not?

19
2 0 2 1 2 2
A Q A
Yes. How many grades are There were nine, there?
supposed to he nine, and later anothei
one, a tenth degree or grade.

23
Q
24
So they progressed from grade to grade, did they not? Yes. When you formed your organization, did your members
A
25
4
26
f CO
1 2
3 4
progress from grade to grade? A $ Veil, we have only two grades.

1 a m not
speaking of now.
Immediately when yon is what I
severed jour connection with the plaintiff order,
5 am referring to, 6 7
A We hadn't yet organized into grades. We followed the
same line for ahout four to six weeks until we oould r e
8 organize. 9
Q Take, for instance let us suppose a member had
1 0 progressed up to the end of the fifth grade with the pl a i n 1 1

tiff order; when you b e g a n with your new order did they p r o
1 2 gress right on from the fifth to the sixth grade?

13 14
A
Q A Q A
4
Tea. Just progressed right on from where they were? Tea. As though no change had occurred? Yes.
1 believe you stated that this letter of the Defense
I E
16 17 IS 19
Committee which has been offered in evidenoe,
you knew the
2 0 contents of it? 2 1 2 2
23 24
A Q A Q
Yes. At the time it was sent ont? Yes. How, what was done w i t h the members of the plaintiff Did you make any
order who owed their dues to the plaintiff?

2E
arrangements about that?

26
107
1 2
3 4 5 E 7
A Q
I don't know just what y o u mea n by "arrangements." Veil, take a member who perhaps owed for two months' say;
dues to the plaintiff order, hadn't paid for two months,
n o w r when y o n took such a member over, did y o n make any ar rangements about the payment of dues? M B KEMPLBY: I am going to enter on objection to all this. it 1b difficult for me to kno w What But y o u won't dispute, I take it,
Some of these questions,
8 point you are driving at.

9
that an agreement was entered into,in which I think y ou repre sented the plaintiff order and executed an agreement, and Mr
1 0
1 1 Thomas exeouted it, in w hi c h all questions of money one way 1 2

13 14 15 16 17 18 19
or the other from the time of the agreement were adjusted and each of the parties were mutually released; money consideration. that there was no
I have a copy of that agreement here, That, of course, is not
if there 1 b any question about it.
before the court, but I am making that statement in an at tempt to save time if it is possible so to do. I don't re
call the exact date of that agreement, but I think it would be subsequent to the date counsel is talking about. MB ARAM: I submit,whatever that agreement may be, whether My ques
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
or not it is in force, doesn't go to this question.
tion is merely to establish to the court what the aots and conduot of the parties were with respect to the plaintiff order.
24
THE COURT:
25 26
I don't know of any arrangements that have been made.
1 Whan Bomeone wanted to k now what dues were due, we explained 2

3 4 5
1.00
that thoroughly. Q A BY MB ABAM: Shat did you explain? and if That
That we were no longer connected with Amorc,
they paid any dues here it was to the new organization.
6 was the explanation we made to everyone who asked what they 7 owed; at least, that was the instruction to the treasurer, 8 and I am quite sure she carried it out.
9
D i d you. or not.
circularize the entire membership of
1 0 the plaintiff order? 1 1

A Ve did. We didn't kno w their members from ours, inas
1 2 much as most of them stayed with us; we couldn't tell who was
13 14
who. Q Y o u had the membership list of the plai n t i f f order your connection, did you not?
I S before y o u severed
16 17 18 19
A 3 A 3
Yes. A nd did you circularize that membership list? that was on our book.
Ve circularized every member
Have you the first letter you sent in circularizing
2 0 the membership? 2 1
A I don't think so. I don't think I have a copy of the
2 2 first one.
23 24 25
9 A
Do you remember the date of the first one? 1 do not. I will show you a letter and ask y o u if y o u that is
your signature.
26
1C9 1 2
3 4
A Q A
Yea,
that is my signature.
D i d you send that out to the members? I did. This letter dated Los Angeles, California, June
MH ARAM:
5 11th, 1929, we offer In evidence. 6

7
THE COURT: and so marked*
It may be received as Plaintiff's Exhi b i t 15
8
9
(Letter dated June 11th, 1929, received In evidence and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 15.) M R ARAM: I desire to rea d this letter to the court. UNIVERSAL ORDER OP AHCIEHT
1 0
1 1 This letter is headed "U 0 A M, 1 2 MYSTERIES.

13 14 15 16 17
(Roaicrueian];
dated "Los Angeles, Calif., June
11th, 1929." "Beloved Member: "We are no longer oomieoted with the AMORC. we are giving the true teachings just the same. However,
"All members who are in arrears will have all past dues remitted,
18 19
so that the; oan start in with a clean slate, Therefore, if
if the; like, and carr; on the great work.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
; o u desire to continue to affiliate with us, will y o u please let it be known by writing to us, sonal interview. and tell y o u or by coming in for a p e r
We will be glad to have a chat with you We are doing bigger and
just how things are.
better w ork than ever before.

24
"Hereafter,
25
the lessons will not consist of a lot of
meaningless words, but there will be, in addition to a regu26
f10
1 lar laoture to lie read, experiments and practices whioh 2
3 4 5
tend to unfold the Within. a lot of dry reading matter
This will be far superior that one soon forgets.
to
"We are sending this letter to all members, knowing full well that it will fall into the hands of some Who al In that oase, the member
6 ready know the entire situation.

7
will please disregard it, but thiB is the only way we have
8 of informing everybody of the true status of the whole matter

9
A personal interview will explain much.
Hours for interviews
1 0 are on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays only, from 9:30 to 12 1 1 and from 2 to 5, 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
l ith sincere best wishes, (Signed) "B. B. Thomas "Supreme Grand Master. "P.S. The name chosen for our new Organization is The significance and power
given at the top of this letter. of this name will be realized,
if, when taking your deep
breaths, y o u pronounce the vowel sounds that this name con tains. "
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
Q A Q
BY MS ARAM: Yes,
Bow, you wrote this letter, y o u say?
Bow, here you state,
do y ou not, in your circularizing
to members of the plaintiff order, that y o u remit all past dues? MB K E M P L E Y : We object to the question as not the best
ill 1 evldenoe. 2
3 4
It is introduced In evidence. Objection sustained. Sow, y o u say in that letter, Mr Thomas, just the same?
THE COUBT; Q
B Y MB ARAM:
y o u are giving the true teaohings A

5
S 6
7
Yes. Just what did you mean hy that? I mean, by "the true teachings" the teaohings contained
8 in all honorable associations which give out the teaohings of 9 philosophical, scientific and so on, generally under the head 1 0 of esoterla or occult matter. 1 1
Q A n d y o u testified, if I remember correctly, yesterday,
1 2 that you sent out the lessons of the p l aintiff order, did y o u
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
not? A Q A ( 2 A I didn't say exactly that. What was your testimony? That the essenae of the lessons, not the exact lessons, You didn't give the exact lessons? Ho; that they were revised and revamped. We have stipulated we could be enjoined from This is primarily a n injunction matter.
MR KEMPLBY:
2 0 using those lessons.
2 1 1 don't see the necessity of taking the time of the oouzt ove: 2 2 all these matters.
23 24 25 26
We object to it as incompetent,
lrrelevanl so, conse
and immaterial.
We don't want to use the lessons,
quently, have no objection to being enjoined from using them. THE COUBT: now. There is nothing before the court to object to
1.12
1
U S AHAM: I will read a paragraph from Plaintiff's Exhibit ( B eading:) which in that the
2 6 in that connection:
3 4 5
"We wish to answer one point to begin with, sinuates, as was before stated in a public lecture,
mimeograph leotures given to the members were not identical
6 with the official leotures sent to Or, Thomas by Headquarters,

7 a
Or. Thomas took the precaution for one whole week, to hold thd official lectures here before turning them over to the other
9 side, for the purpose of comparing the official lectures with 1 0 the mimeographed lectures. 1 1 we have.
This was done by every class that
S e v e n nights in the week this was done as the mem
1 2 bers present can testify, and the mimeographed leotures and

13 14 15
16
the official leotures were found to be identioal. what abject would there be lessons?" THE WITNESS:
Besides,
in withholding anything from the
Yes, that refers to Amorc lessons while we
17 18 19
were with Amoro; not after the separation, Q A Y o n saw this letter, did you not? Yes, that was dated after the separation, but we r e the separation. That was one
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
ferred to what occurred before
of the contentions of the plaintiff,
that our lessons we had
b e e n mimeographing while with Amorc were not identioal with the official lessons. Q A That is your explanation, Yes, This letter says "before turning the lessons over to is it?
25
Q
26
113
1 2
3 4 5
the other aide.B A Q
Who ie meant by "the other aide ?
The plaintiff. What object would there have b een,If thia referred to turn
to a time prior to the severance of your connection, it over to the other aide? A The object was,
6
7
thia letter is a refutation and
answer to a circular letter aent out by tha plaintiff to our
8 membera*
9
Q A Q A
Where did y o u make the oopies? Copies of what? It says oopies were made and compareda Copies were made before, before the separation. We
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 16 16 17 18 19
made no oopies afterwards. Q Thia letter sayB that before turning them over, for
seven nights in the week and by every class they were com pared. A Q A Q A Q A Tea. By what alasseB were they compared? They were compared w i t h a key from eaoh After the severance of your organisation? After severance of the organization. To What offioial leotures does that letter refer? T o the offioial lectures we had been giving While class.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
with Aznorc. Q I will show y o u a page from a newspaper and ask you
if you recognize the p o r t i o n in the circle of red,drawn by

26
1 red ink. 2
3 4 5
H R KatPLEY: to see it.
Ve object until counsel has an opportunity
I don't know whether this is a proper matter for
the witness to he questioned about or not. H R ARAM: Very well, y o u may see it. (Paper handed to
6 counsel for defendants.)

7
HR K3CPLEY:
We objeot to the question on the ground it The ad. has a b
8 Is Incompetent, irrelevant and Immaterial.

9
solutely nothing in the world to do with any issue involved If they wish to go into the question of what
1 0 in this oase.
1 1 these two people taught or attempted to teach -- I have reams 1 2 of stuff I would love to introduce to the oourt and have the
13 14
court spend some hours of time in perusing; but I don't think we are interested in that. issues before the oourt. THE COURT: A Q A Q A You may answer the question. H r Witness. I think we are Interested in the
IE
16 17 18 19
I raoognlze it. BY U S ARAM: Yea. Placed by you? Yes. This is from the Los Angeles Kxamlner of Saturday Is that a paid advertisement?
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
HR ARAM:
January 4, 1930, and the matter referred to ia on page 6 of Section 1 .

24
Q
26
Hr Thomas, you announce that y o u are to give a lecture
which will disclose some amazing secrets never given before

26
4 A r1 AJ
1 from a public platform, and disclosures of the true or real 2 B o sicrncian Order?
3 4
Yes. He offer this in evidence. Objected to as inoompetent, irrelevant and
M B ARAM:
s <
7
M B KEMPLEY: immaterial. THE COUBT:
It is received for what it is worth as P l a i n
8
9
tiff* s Szhlbit 16. (Advertisement received in evidence and marked Plaintiff's
1 0 K xhiblt 16.) 1 1
Q B Y MR ARAM: How, what secrets of the Hoaioruoian
1 2 Order are y o u referring to where you announce you will dis

I S
14 15 16 17
close What has never been disclosed? M B KBMPLEY: immaterial. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
The charge in this case is that the defendants
are attempting to secure members by representing or pretend ing that their order is the plaintiff's order by various meant and devices. The defendant Thomas is not charged here with if that is what they are driving
I S
19
divulging fraternal secrets, at.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
I don't know what the purpose is. THE COUBT: M B MAYCOCK: Objection sustained. I would like, your Honor, please, to read
just briefly from our complaint. was not within the issues.
24 25
The objection was that it of course, of the
The purpose,
injunction, your Honor will apprehend,

26
is that these p a r
ticular defendants, formerly standing in a confidential re-
t LG
! l a t i o n e h i p , are now and have bee n conducting themselves in 2 such a manner as to damage the plaintiff order, by represent
a
ing that they are carrying on the work of that order, by the
4 unauthorized use of significant names and symbols, and by

S
oonduot in general whioh,because of their former connection We say this
6 and confidential relationship, is inequitable.

7
is in our complaint:
That any unauthorized teachings of the
8 principles of plaintiff Order, or any confusion in the minds

9
of, or mistake or misleading on the part of, the p u b l i o at
1 0 large as to the teaohings and the mode of imparting said 1 1 teachings of this plaintiff with that of any unauthorized 1 2 and unsupervised Order or individual will oause great and
13 14 16 16 17 18 19
irreparable injury to this plaintiff by bringing its teach ings and its aim and objects into disrepute, or by such u n authorized and incorrect teaohings by the use of said lessons lectures, and class instructions of this plaintiff, lessen
and destroy the esteem of the publio at large as to the value of the teachings and the benefits to be derived therefrom and the benefit to be derived from membership in plaintiff Order,
2 0 which said esteem by the publio at large of plaintiff Order, 2 1 and of the value and benefits of its teaohings has b e e n gaine 2 2 by this plaintiff through years and years of carefully super
23 24 26 26
vised study, researoh and thought by and at great expense to this Order as hereinabove alleged." We then plead that great and irreparable injury will continue if that be done, and then ask that they be enjoined
4 ' >L 1
from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff in the
2 oondnot of its order, and from doing or causing to be done

3
4
or continuing any of the actB or things herein complained of. It is therefore direotly within the issues before us as an unauthorized aot of a former member w h o gained certain
6 knowledge and seoretB because of his affiliation and then

7
goes around saying he is going to reveal those teachings or
8 something of that sort, whioh is the gravamen of this offense

9
and the thing we are actually
seeking to enjoin; and to fore
1 0 close us n o w of the opportunity to show these things 1 b to 1 1 foreclose us from proving our complaint. 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I ask that your Honor reconsider your ruling on the last gueBtion and reverse that ruling. THE COURT: Q The oourt has ruled. Ur Thomas, So ahead.
BY H R ARAM:
do y o u recall the meeting of on a Wednesday?
the n 0 1 I I on the evening of June 5th, 1929, A Why, 1 think it is about that date. I think that is the date.
I remember we had I am not p o s i
one on Wednesday. tive. Q
2 0
Bo y o u recall stating publicly,
that is, to the membern
2 1 stating that lessons and lectures would oontlnue as before a n 2 2 would be identical with the lessons and lectures of Amorc?
23 24 25 26
A
3
I said nothing of the sort. B i d you or did y o u not state at that time and at that
meeting that the lessons and lectures of the universal Order of Ancient Mysteries and the corresponding lesson and leoture
! 18 1 2
3 4 5
of the plaintiff order would he found on a tahle out in the outside room, placed side by side, so that any member mho wished to know that they were identical could compare for themselves? A
3
No, I made no such statement in a public lecture, I didn't say a public lecture; I said at the lodge
6
7
meeting. A 3 A
3
8
9
A t the lodge meeting, yea. O n that Wednesday evening? No Wednesday public meeting, no* What meeting waa it on, that meeting? It was every night for a week. Every person who de
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
sired to aompare the lessons we had been m imeographing while with Amorc, to compare them with the official lessons to Bee that they were correct. It was insinuated or intimated we had
falsified or incorrectly mimeographed the lessons and that they

3
were not true copies of the lessons, Is that the statement y o u made Tea, What lessons were y o u referring to? The Amorc lessons throughout, not ours, D i d you or did you not, after establishing your order on that evening?
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
3 A Q
and after you had severed your aonmeotion with the plaintiff order,
24
circularize the membership and send out lessons and the lessons that
lectures in accordance wit h their progress,

26
would be duw to them?

26
110
J
A Q A
To all whom we thought were our membera, yea. S id you sell any lessons and leeturea? Ve never have sold the lessons and leotures them Ve sold the paper and the stenoiling and the Ink just the same as we did with the Amoro
2
3 4
selves.
5
a
7
it took to make them, before, 3
with the oonsent and knowledge of Amoro*a head, Y o u haven't answered my question. Will you read the
question, Mr Reporter? (The question was read by the reporter.) M R KBMPLEY: 1 think it has been answered. He said they
1 0
11
sold the paper and ink and so forth. Q A B Y MR ARAM: Is that what y o u sold?
1 2
13 14
The paper and ink and stenoils; the materials making that was just the oost of the materials only Do you recognize this handwritlng|?
up the lessons; Q
IS
16 17 18 19
I show you a paper.
MS K EMP LEY: immaterial.
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
It looks like brown wrapping paper with an a d
dress o n it, and oertainly it oould have no potency. THE COURT: A Q Y o u may answer the question.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
I do not reoognlze the handwriting. B Y MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, you are wholly familiar with
the lectures and lessons of the plaintiff order, are y o u not? A q Veil, I was at one time. I haven't seen it in so lonf;-
A t the time y ou were master of the lodge? Yes. And y o u are acquainted with the oover?
24
A
25
Q
26
m o
1 2
3
4
Yes.
Q
A Q cover? A q A ?
Ib thiB the cover?

Ye a , it looks pretty Were all the lessons m u c h like it. Yes, I guess it is.
and lectures oovered with this
6
7
Yes, or some similar
oover. same.
Vail, examine it and see if it is the I wouldn't swear anything is the same, Have yo u any lessons
8
9
or lectures of the plaintiff
1 0
order, with the oover that w a s on it at the time y o u were
1 1 master? 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
I have not.
I think
our counsel has.
M R ARAM:
May I have one, pleaae?
(Counsel for defendants hands a paper to M r A r a m . ) Q BY M R ARAM: Yould y o u say this 1 b a oover aa it was
at the time? A
3
Yes. Y o u know this statement, do y o u not, and k n e w it then:
"The contents herein are to he used for the purpose intended, and for no other, and all rights and privileges are retained hy the Imperator."
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
Yes. I offer this in evldenoe. It may he reeeived in evidenoe as Plaintiff's
MR ARAM:
24
THE C O U R T : E xhibit 17.

25
(Dooument entitledI V Aaorc Official Leoture So. 24" received

26
in evidence and marked Plaintiff's E xhibit 17.)
BY UR ARAU:
How, U r T h o m a s , there waa introduced
yesterday,by your counsel, Defendants' Srhlblt A, a lecture on Arcane Philosophy. Were y o u acquainted, and are y o u now.
with the preceding lecture to this number? A W h y , I haven't looked at it in so long, no. Iam not
familiar with it now; but I was at one time. Q Have y o n a oopy of the original of the preceding
leoture? A
3
1 don't know.
Counsel may have it. No, 3.
This is Grade A-P, Ho, 3, Arcane Philosophy
Now, you know, do y o u not,
that No, 3 lecture on Arcane Philou
ophy is a continuing discussion of matter discussed in No, 2, is it not? A Q I presume so. How, do you know whether or not in the matter discussed
on the first part of Ho. 3, whloh is a continuation, you say, from Ho, 2, whether or not credit was given for any matter
contained there whloh was taken from any book? U H KEMPLEY: evidence. not? THB COUBT: Q Objection sustained. Ur Thomas, it is true, is it not, that Ve object on the ground it is not the best
What difference does it make whether he knows or
BY MB ARAU:
the lectures in Aroane Philosophy are not part of the credit leotures of the plaintiff order, are they? A Ho, they are not part of the credit, as I understand it
3 'O 1 2
3 4
They are In tha nature of a aort of seminar or dis-
ouaaion? 1 Q What do y o u mean toy that word? A discussion of various viewpoints of other schools
of thought, and so on, toearing on that subject, showing what
6 other people think of it, just different viewpoints and

7
thoughts that have toeen expressed on that sutojeot. M B KBMPLEY: evidence, We otojeot to the question as not the best irrelevant and immaterial.
S
9
incompetent,
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14
MR ARAM:
It seems to me oounsel has gone into the matter
and tried to show there is matter copied without giving due credit. We Insisted at the time there was absolutely no
ground for that in this case. THE COURT: A You may answer the question.
IS
I don't remember those quotations or oredlt given, Read the question, Mr Reporter,
1 6
17
M R ARAM:
(The question was read toy the reporter.)
IS
19
A
Q A Q A Q
I don't remember
it that way at all.
Well, how do you remember it? I don't. Y o u don't remember it at all? Ho. How, Mr Thomas, I show y o u this document and ask you
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
if you k n o w what that is,

24
A
25
It says hers, "Lecture T w e nt y - t h r e e , Grade &ix.n O f what order is that lecture?
q
26
1 2
3 4 5
A 3 A 3 A 3
There Is no name on it. Do you recognize it? It looks like a copy of the Official Leoture. Of what leoture? Of the Amorc'a leoture. How, do you have Lectures23 to 26 of the ( 70 A U
6
7
lectures? A Q Ho, I don't think so. T o n have not?
8
9
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
A
3 A
I don't remember It.

C a n y o u produce it? I don't think so* All those things pertaining to
those past lectures were discarded and we only took the essenoe out of the Amoro lessons 3 That is not the question. from 4 Would you to 6 , say this Is or
Is not a U 0 A H lecture? A 1 don't think so, because It contains the word "Bcsl-
crucian." Q A n d for that reason y o u don't think it Is a U 0 A M
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
leoture? A I don't think so. Wemight hare made itourselres,
because we considered ourselves as much Rosioruclan as they were. 3 A It may be. It may be U 0 A H ? It may be. I offer this in evidence.
HR ARAH:
26
1
2
3 4 5
M R KEMPLEY: immaterial. THE COURT:
Objected to as incompetent,
irrelevant and
I can't see the purpose of all these lectures. It has not b e e n properly identified so far.
We will mark it Plaintiff's E x h i b i t 18 for identification purp oses. (Paper entitled "Lecture Twenty-three, Grade Six" was marked Plaintiff's Q BY MR ARAM: Exhibit 18 for Identification Only.) Mr Thomas, in the last line in that
6
7
8
9
lecture A Q A
it says: "Close Convocation aooording to Ritual.
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15
Yes. What ritual did that refer to? It has been so long ago; but
I don't remember that.
we formulated a ritual of our own and then disoarded all rituals afterwards. I don't know whether we used a portion if that be one of the
of their ritual or not at that time,
1 G U 0 A M lectures.
17 18 19
What is your best reoollection as to what ritual that
refers to? A Q A ritual As I say, I am not sure, not positive. It might be the ritual of the plaintiff order? So, not exactly in its entirety. That is all. CROSS -EXAMUJAT ION BY M R KBMPLEY: Q Y o u have testified on this examination that you held in its entirety. We wouldn't use the
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
M R ARAM:
1 a m e e ti n g within three or four days after
a meeting of
2 your lodge or organization within three or four days after

3
4
the separation.
Had there been any difficulty between you
and Lewis prior to that time? A Yes. I object to that on the ground it is incom
UR MAYCOCK:
7 petent. irrelevant and immaterial and Improper cross-examina 8 tion.

9
He can ask the witness this if he swears the witness
as his own. but not on cross-examination. THE COURT: Q Objection sustained. Had Lewis been down here to Los
1 0 1 1
B Y M R KBME1EY:
1 2 Ang e l e s immediately before this meeting you speak of?

13
14
Yes. I ask that the answer be stricken out for
MR MAYCOCK:
IE
the purpose of making an objection, THE COURT: M S MAYCOCK: MR KBMPLEY: M o t i on granted. And now 1 make the same objeotion. I don't see any necessity for it, except I
1 6
17 18
19
w ant to state to the oourt my purpose in asking these ques tions. The testimony brought out before by counsel oarefully
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
avoided anything except simply the question that Mr Thomas called a meeting or held a meeting of his lodge within three or four days after he had separated from the other organiza tion, and went on w it h the testimony, bringing out those
24
things to lead the court to believe that Thomas gathered all

25
the members he could into his fold and just separated from
26
ISO 1 2 3
4
the other organization.
It is all one transaction.
This
entire thing was one transaction,
and when they inquire on redirect
into that transaction on cross-examination,
examination I have a right to hring out all the phases of that transaction. It doesn't make any particular difference Vhlle it is fresh in
6
7
to me whether I do It now or later.
onr minds it would be more helpful to the court and to me
8 and to the witness and everybody if we could b r i n g it out

9
at this time.
It is one transaction, we claim, and w h e n
1 0 all the transaction is k n o w n it has an entirely different 1 1 aspect than when just a portion they elicit is heard. 1 2 It is all one transaction that they went into on cross
13 14 16
examination. M B ARAM: I have no objection to h i m going into that if
he will do it at the proper time and in the proper manner. But this is not that proper time nor is it the proper manner, and I certainly am surprised that counsel for the purpose of arguing an objection will state as faeta things which are not in evidence, which cannot have any bearing on the matter and are evidentiary purely, is relevant or proper. THB COUBT: I think the best way to b r i n g it out is when as to whether or not this question
16
17 18
IS
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
you put the witness on in your defense. KB KEMPLBY:

24 26 26
That is all.
-o---
127
1 2
3 4
H. B R O B E R T S , called as a witness of tha plaintiff, lows: THE CLERK: THE WITNESS: What is your name? H. B, Roberts. DIRECT EXAMINATION B T MR UAYCOCK: Q Mr Roberts, being first duly sworn,
on behalf
testified as fol
E 6 7 3 9
10
do you recall whether or not you attended
a meeting on Wednesday, June 5th, 1929, at the meeting piaoe that had formerly b een that of Aroro? A Q O n a Wednesday, about that time, What was your purpose in attending at that place at
1 1 1 2
13 14
that time? A Q session? A When I went to the regular lodge room, as I remember, I went down to the The regular meeting of the lodge I belonged to, Amoro. And when you got there did y o u find Amoro Lodge in
1 5
16 17 18 19
I was told the meeting was downstairs, larger hall downstairs. Q M r E.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
I will ask you whether or not at that time and plaoe E, Thomas did not state that a new organization was
being formed, but that the lessons, your lessons in the new organization, tinue A in comparison with those of Amoro, would oon
Just the same, and that the lesBons would be Identioal? To the best of ay recollection that is so. That is all.
MR MAYCOCK:
rz Q
1 4
3 4
CRO SS-EIAM EJATI05 BY MR KEMP LEY: Q That was a public meeting downstairs, wasn't it?
It w a s n t far lodge members alone?
S 6
7
I d o n t know.
I went in without giving any p a s s I was under the impression it was open.
words or anything. M R KHCPLEY:
That is all.
8
9
REDIRECT EXAM H U T 105 BY M R MAYCOCK: Q One thing more on dlreat examination: At that time
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
did y o u secure the next lesson of your grade? A

4
I did. f r o m Doctor Thomas? P r o m the desk there; somebody there at the desk. Did y o u pay for it? Yes. And this is the lecture you reoeived at that time (Showing paper to the witness.)
A Q A Q
and place? A Yes.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24
M S MAYCOCK:
I ask that this be admitted in evidence. it there at that time and place
He has testified he purchased and p aid for it. Q A B Y THE COURT: Yes.
Did y o u so testify?
26
THE COURT:
26
It may be received in evldenoe as Plaintiff's
.109
E x h i b it 19. (Paper entitled "Lecture n i n eteen received in evidence and marked Plaintiff's E xh i b i t 19.) HR MAYCOCK: That is all.
REGROSS-EXAMINATION BY MS KEMPLEY: Q A Q H o w much did y o u pay for it? If 1 remember right, fifteen cents.
That was the price you had been paying for them
regularly? A Yes. That That is all. is all,
MS KEMPLEY: MR MAYCOCK:
ANTHONY M. H E R N A N D E Z , called
as a witness
on
behalf of the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, as follows: THE CLERK: THE NITSESS: Vhat is your name? Anthony M. Hernandez. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY M R MAYCOCK: Q Mr Hernandez, do you recall whether or not visited thelodge rooms that
testified
on or about were former
June 1 0 th, 1929, y o u
ly occupied by the Amorc Order?
1 2
3 4
Q A Q
Y e s , I did. Were y o u a member of Amoro? Yea. At that time did you know of any change having been
5 6 7 8
9
made In the organization? A Q A Q A Hot any at all. Of Amoro or U 0 A M? Hot any at all. State what you did at that time and plaoe there. for the purpose to of
1 0 1 1 1 2
1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9
I waa to the lodge that evening
paying my duea, and aa I did
80 I paid my dues
the aeore-
tary and treasurer or whoever waa there to received the money, and ahe acknowledged the receipt of the money and marked the card duea paid, and I went away. And I alao requested that
my lessons would be sent home, on account I didn't have time to attend the lodge meetings. Q A Q A Q A What card waa it you presented for signature? A n Amorc card. A n d it waa receipted up o n that card? Yea. Were you told it waa a new order? Bothing at all; no explanations were made to me. That la all. CROSS-BZAU IB ATI 05 BY MS KEMPLEY: Q Wh e n did y o u say thla was?
2 0 2 1 2 2
2 3 2 4 2 8 2 6
US UAYCOCK;
1 2
3
On the particular night that the oonnsel
just now
mentioned. M B MAYCOCK: my question. Q A Q BY MB KEMFLBY: June 10th, 1929, Is the night I asked in
4
5
H o w do y o u know it was June 10th?
6
7
Because that was the night. How do you know? In answer to my question y o u just
8
9
said, "The date counsel mentioned." counsel's memory or your own? A My own.
Are you relying on
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16
17
I oan't reeall eiaotly the It is so long ago,
date of
the
night I was there. memory. Q
it has escaped my
Tou have no independent reoolleotion of when y o u then? It is represented by the oard.
were there, A Q A
I have.
Is there any way you fir the date? Ho, there is not. The date was put down by the person
18 19
who reoeived the money. Q Tell, do you know of any lnoldent, the card or any
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
thing else, on whioh the date was w ritten at that time? A Q A Q Yes. What was it? June 1 0 th. You didn't understand the question, Mr Hernandez. oard or paper on which the date
24
I say, do you k n o w of any

25 26
was written at the time y o u were there?
4 >>0
i
1 2
3 4 5
A q A Q A 3 A
Yea.
It ia here. that card or paper, if it ia here?
G a n yon get Yea. What
It ia here. la it?
It ia the card. What la the date; does the date appear on that Yea, air. May I see the oard? The date doean't appear; just the notation oard?
6
7
8
9
MS KEMPLEY: HR MAYCOCK:
1 0 "June. 1 1
Q
(Card handed to Ur Kempley.) That ia the oard y o u refer to, ia it,
BY MB KEMPLEY:
1 2 Mr Hernandez?
13
14
A Q
Yea, I believe ao. A nd that oard shows, all that oard shows, ao far aa
15 16
y o u oan see, ia Just "June ; it doesn't show any date in June? A q A q Well, it was right around the 10th. of course, don't you?
17
IS
19
How, you know Dootor Thomas, Yea, I do,.
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
24 25
A nd do y o u remember of having a conversation w i t h him talking with him that night? to him, was all.
that night, A
Said "Hello"
Do y o n remember h av i n g a talk with him just before you
went into the treasurer's offioe? A Q H o t at all. Didn't Mr Thomas, on the evening that yo u were there
26
k U l J
and paid your dues, whatever
evening It was,
just at the
door of the treasurer's office,
talk to yon and tell y o n that
the aharter of the looal lodge had hee n revoked by Lewis,and that a n e w lodge had ing on the same work, heen organised,and that they were carry and explained this separation to yon?
A
Q A
9
Ho, he didn't explain to me anything of that sort. He didn't say anything to y o n ahont It at all? He didn't say anything to me ahont It at all. Y o u made a written statement that same night, didn't
yon, of what transpired?
A
Q
What statement Is that? Lid yon sign something In writing of what yon had done
that night? A $ lo. Have y on at any time signed anything setting forth the payment of these dnes? some two or three weeks afterwards
what yon did that night, A It w a s , I believe,
that I signed a communication to headquarters at San Jose, an account of a letter I received from M r Thomas explaining that a new organisation had be e n formed. I said to my surprise
Doctor Thomas had separated from Amoro, and that he h a d forma9 a new organization, and as 1 did not approve of suoh a thing I was not willing to follow him. tion I signed. Q A Didn't you sign some No. communication to Mr O'Heil? That is the only communica
1 transferred some of the leotures that were
1 2 2
4 5
sent to me by Mr Thomas'a n e w organization,

9
I will show yon what p u r ports to be
a oommnmioation
signed by E. E. Thomas, and ask y o n if not that partionlar one, to that, A Thomas. Q A Q A lo,
yon recall receiving,
I don't mean that, but one similar
6
7
I never did reoeive any oomzmmioation from Doctor
8
9
I o n never received any communication? Xo. At no time? A t no time, except later, very, very muc h later than It wasn't
1 0 1 1 1 2 1 2
14
that time did I receive a communication from him. a communication; ing, I presume, the lodge, Q A And it was very muc h later than this? it was
just a circular letter he was send to all the former members of
to everybody,
I S
16 17 18 19
Yes, it was long before I paid my dues to the lodge -
long after. Q A Q A Long after, yon mean? Long after, But y o u are very sure you did not receive one of these? I am very sure, 1 will ask that this be marked for identifi
2 0 2 1 2 2
23
M B KBMPLEY: cation,
24
TEE COUBT:
25
It will be marked as D e f e n d a n t s 1 Bxhiblt C
for identification purposes.

26
i' 1 2
3 4
(Letter dated June 4th, C for Identification Only*) Q BY UR KEMPLEY:
1929, marked Defendants' Exhibit
Did y o u have any talk with Mrs Bentley
an this Bame evening that you paid your dues? A Q A lot at all. Nothing Nothing was said to y o u at all?
5 6
7
was said to meat all. That is all. That is all.
8
9
MR KEMELEY:
M B MAYCOCK:
1 0 1 1 1 2
13 14 15
?BED 3 E S 3 L E H , called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follow i THE CLERK: What ia your name? Fred Bossier. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY M B MAYCOCK:
3
THE W I T N E S S :
1 6
17 18 19
Mr Seaslex,
did y o u on or about the 8 th day of July,
1929,
go to the former lodge rooms of Amora at 235 South
2 0 Broadway, L o b Angeles? 2 1 2 2
23 24 25 26
A 3 A Q A Q
Yes,
sir.
Tor what purpose? To Join the Boaiety.
To Join? To Join the brotherhood,
The brotherhood or Amorc?
i r>G 1 2 a
4
5
A 3 A
Ho, the brotherhood of Boctor T h o m a s . T o n went there at that time to join that? Yea. A t this time I will atate I am surprised and ask per m is s i o n now to treat h i m aa
MB UAYCOCK:
at thia testimony,
6
7
an adverse witness and impeach him by a former statement. When I refer to surprise, sonal astonishment. U H KEMPLEY: suspeotB.before It must be actual surprise. If a party even I mean legal surprise and not p e r
8
S
10
he calls a witness,that he is not going to
1 1 1 2
13 14 15 16 17 18 IB
testify favorably, he oan't oall h i m and get the testimony he actually expects to get and then in that way get some statement before the court that would be otherwise pure hear say, incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. A nd I don't
think there has bee n any showing by this witness yet that counsel is sufficiently actually surprised to entitle him to oroas-examlne or impeaoh his own witness. question before the oourt, of what he expeots to do. UR UAYCOCK: Legal surprise means that. It is just coun While there is no
there la a statement from counsel
2 0 2 1 2 2
23 24 25
sel's unfamiliarity,
doubtless, with the distinction between
astonishment and legal surprise.
THB COURT:
Q
So ahead, proceed. I show you a document dated July 12,
B Y M R UAYCOCK:
1929, purporting to be signed by you, and ask y o u if that is your signature.

26
1 2
3
4
MB K E M P L E Y :
We object on the ground that It la Incompe It is purely hearsay. If
tent, irrelevant and immaterial.
it is for the purpose of impeachment, his own witness. THE COURT: A Q A Q A Q You may answer "Yes" or
it is impeachment of
"Ho."
6 7 8
9
10 11
12
I don't remember ever signing any document like that. B Y UR MAYCOCK: It looks similar, What? It looks Bimllar, but it is not Is that your signature? proper, 1 ask you if that is your signature. yes, but not exactly,
lo.
That is all. That is all. The witness will not be excused, your Honor,
13 14
M B MAYCOCK: M R KBMPLEY: M R MAYCOCK: please.
IS
16 17 18 19
20
MISS KATIE L. W A G R E E , called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, a a follows: THE CLERK: THE WITNESS: What is your name? Katie L. Wagner. DIRECT EXAMINATION B Y MR MAYCOCK: Q M i s s Wagner, did you or did you not, o n or about the being first duly sworn, testified
21
2 2
23 24 25 26
1158
1 13th day of July, 1929, attend a meeting of the 2 olaes at 233 South B r o a d w a y , Roo m 432?
3
4
A Q
I did. Sere yon a member of the plaintiff order, the Amorc,
6 at that time?
3
A Q
1 was. I ehow you a document entitled "Grade Bight, Leoture
8 fen, Page One," and ask you If you recognize what that la.
9
A Q
I do. Lid you or did you not purchase It at that time and Thomas or oertain of hie assistants?
1 0
1 1 place from Doctor 1 2

13 14 16
16
I did. I It ask it may be ba admitted in evidenoe. reoeived as Plaintiff's Sxhiblt 20,
MR MAYCOCK: THE COURT:
fpaper entitled "Grade Bight, Lecture Ten" reoeived in evidenoe and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 0 .) M R MAYCOCK: That is all.
17 18 19
20
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY M R KEMPLEY: Q A Q A Q Shat meeting was this you attended, Miss It was a meeting held by Doctor Thomas. It wasn't a meeting of Amoro? Vail, he was supposed to be teaching Amoro. It wasn't a meeting of Wagner?
2 1
22
23
24
25 26
That is not the question.
Amoro, was it?
1 2
3 4
A Q A 9 A Q A Q
So, it wasn't a meet i n g of Imoro. T o n knew It? He had heen expelled. A n d yon knew that? Yea. T o n knew that before y o n went? Yea. A n d no deception waa praotloed on y o n when yon went then?
E 6
7
8
9 10
11 12
to thla meeting at all, A Q A Ho, not at all,
T o n were not a member of Doctor Thomas's order? Ho. Doctor Thomas told me that he was going to teaoh
13 14
the pure Hosloruoian doctrine as taught in Amorc as before, and I merely went to see if he was going to do it. Q Didn't he tell y o n he was going to teaoh pure Bosi-
I E
16 17 18 19
20
21 22
ornoian? A Q A Q A 9 A Yes, as taught in Amoro, He said "as taught in Amoro"? Yea. And yon Just went to find out? Tea. A n d y o n purchased this lecture? I did. That is all. Ho further questions.
23
M R EBCPLEY:
24
- o 25 26
.
1 2 3
1 0
called aa a witness on
CLARA L. TREAT,
b e h a l f of the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK: THE WITBT23S: Vhat is your name? Clara L, Treat. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR MAYCOCK: Q Doctor Treat, do y o u recall whether or not on or about
1 S
6
7
S 9 1 0 1 1 1 2
12
the 1st day of June, 1929, y o u went to the former lodge rooms of Amorc, at Bo* 432 Music Art Building, Los Angeles? Do y o n
remember whether you went there on or about the 1st of June? A Q A Q I think I did. For what purpose. Doctor? I went up to secure some things that were there*
14 16 16 17 19 19
20
21
22
I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit Bo* 7 for Identifica
tion and ask you what that is* A Q That is a membership card. Did you at that time and place present that membership
oard with certain dues for payment of your dues in Amoro? A Q A Q A

3
I had paid in advance; not at that time* Y o u had paid in advance? Yes, some time before* D id you ask that your card be reoelpted at that time? Mo* Were you told at that time and place there was any
23
2
26
discussion or any change b etween Amorc and the organization

26
1
2 3 4 5
that was then holding forth In those quarters? A Yes, 1 kne w it. That is all.
M R MAYCOCK:
CROSS-EXAMIHATION B Y H KEMPLEY: Q 1 understand, Doctor I didn't eatch the last answer
6
7
8
Do I understand you knew,before you went there and paid there had been trouble and that they had severed
9
10
this card, relations? A Q
11 12
I had paid this some time before the disturbance arose But you hadn't had your card receipted; was that it,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
or what? A It had been reoeipted before. I had paid my dues
several months in a d v a n c e . M R KEMPLEY: Q That is all. Do you know who wrote the words "V.
BY MR MAYCOCK:
0. N ." ?
A Q Virginia O'Beil. BY MR KEMPLEY: Y o u didn't pay any dues to the Thomas
21 22
organization after A I did not.
the trouble? I had already paid in advance for two
23 24 25
months. MR K E M P L E Y : That is all. REDIRECT EXAMINATION B Y M R MAYCOCK:
26
Did you at any time pay any dues to Clide Armstrong?
A
3
It must have heen early in the T o n did pay oertain dnes?
year.
A tary. 3 A Q
There was a Mrs Armstrong that was temporarily
secre
When was that? It must have hee n around Ma rc h I show you your or April.
card again, with the wordB "Clide
A rmstrong written across on the words -- on the line with the words "May* and "June," and ask y ou if you paid your
dues in those months to Clide Armstrong. A I paid my dues several months ahead, hut I don't I remember someone Ididn't know
remember Clide Armstrong.
very well that I paid some of the dues to. Q A Y o u don't know when? I don't know just when. At this time I olaim again legal surprise
MB MAYCOCK:
and ask to impeach this witness by a former statement. M B KEMPLEY: by Mr May c o c k . ) Q B Y MB MAYCOCK: B i d y o u thereafter, after you had go to the n e w headquarters of Amorc May we see the statement? (Paper submitted
paid to Clide Armstrong,
and pay dueB to Virginia O'Heil? A ' 1 did. Q That is a duplication of dues, is it not, Yes. If the court please, I insist there must be Doctor?
M R KEMPLEY:
I II>
1 2
3 4
some real reason.
This witness,
I am certain, has impressed
the court with trying to be fair and candid and testify to what she recollects; and because she didn't testify what counsel wanted her to, he wants to impeach her. There is
5 no indication counsel is surprised, and no indication this

6
7
witness
testifies in cross-examination
We object to any
cross-examination of this witness.
Be object to the question
as leading and suggestive, not be ing proper direct examina tion, being an attempt to impeach or at least cross-examine his own witness. THE COURT: Head the question.
9
10
11
12
(The qnestion was read by the reporter as follows: "That is a duplication of dues, U R KBMPLEY: THE COUBT: THE WITHES3: THE COURT: is it not, B o o t o r ? " ) I might add further.
13 14
It is argumentative, Ton may Hay 1 Ton may
IE
16 17 18
19
answer the question. answer why 1 paid twice? answer the question and then explain,
if y o u desire. A I paid twice. Explain now.
H R KEMP LEY:
20
A
21
22
Because Amorc was in need of funds and I knew that
later it would be oarried on as my dues. Q

23 24
B Y HR HAYCOCK:
I show you a document purporting to
be signed by you July 11, 1929. and ask yon if that is your slgnatnre.
25
H R KBHPLBY:
26
Same objection, an atteiqpt to impeach their
4 m4 t - i 1 2
3 4 5
own witness without any grounds shown therefor; Irrelevant and Immaterial. TH3 COURT: A That is Ton may answer the question "Yes" r a p signature. I I offer it in evidence.
incompetent.
or "Ho."
U R MASCOCK: U R TTKtfPLEY: at impeachment therefor; hearsay.
6
7
objeot to it on the ground it is an attempt ground shown
of their own witness without any
8
9 10
11
incompetent,
Irrelevant and immaterial and purely competent hy way of impeachment.
It could only he
MS MAYCOCK: THE COURT: Exhibit 21.
That is what it is being offered for, exactly, Let it he received in evidence aB Plaintiff's
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
21
(Letter dated July 11, 1929,
signed by Clara L. Treat,
received in evidence and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 21.) U R MAYCOCK: I ask that Plaintiff's Exh ib it Bo. 7 for
Identification, whioh was this witness's card, be now r e ceived in evidence. THE COURT: Exhibit Bo. 7. (Membership oard of Clara L. Treat reoeived in evidenoe and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 7.] The card is received in evidence as Plaintiff's
22
U R MAYCOCK:
That is all.
23 24 25 26
RSCEOS3-EXAMIKATIOB
B Y UR KEMPLEY: Q I am going to aak y o u if you have any explanation you
want to make of this, referring to paper marked Plaintiff's
1*15
1 2
Exhibit 2 1 . A Q I have no explanation. Vho proonred that from you? I object to that on the ground it is a s s u m that it was procured from her
3 4
S 6
7
MR UAYCOCK:
ing a matter not in evidence, by someone.
It might have been a voluntary statement by her. I withdraw that question.
KB K E M P L E Y : Q
8
9
Bo you know whose handwriting the body of the instru
ment is in? A q A q A I do not k n o w the handwriting, It is not in your handwriting, Hot in my handwriting, D id someone write it in your preBenoe? I do not remember. Do you know who presented it to you for signature? 1 think Mr O'Heil. Did you have any conversation with Mr O'Heil at the is it?
10
11
12
13 14 18 18 17 18 19 20
21 22
q
A
time he presented it to you? A q A Q A Ve had a conversation, He asked you to sign it, did he? I believe so. D i d he say why he wanted you to sign? Ve knew pretty thoroughly why.
23 24 28
The statement contained in this is not correct, though' I object to that on the ground that this wit
M S MAYCOCK:
20
ness by this Impeachment is shown to be adverse to the plain-
u c
1 2
3
4
tiff and that therefore it ia improper for this aounael to lead this particular witness. THE COURT: THE WITNESS: M E KBMPLEY: Yon may answer the qnestion. What is the qnestion? Please read the qnestion, Mr Beporter. "The
6
7
(The qnestion was read by the reporter as follows: statement oontalned in this Is not oorreot, A Shis says "on or about June 1st. though?*)
8
9
10
It must have bean
the latter part of K ay that I paid my dues; probably the last week in Hay. Q And at the time yo n paid your dues there had b e a n no
11
12
severance between A $ There had been no severance. A n d Doctor or Mr Thomas was still master of the Amoro time yon paid yonr dues?
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
lodge located In Los A Q
Angeles at the
He was still master of Amoro. Consequently there was no reason for any explanation
being made to yon at all at that time? A Bo. Objected to as argumentative and ashed and
20
21
H R MAYCOCK:
answered, and I ask that the answer be stricken. THE COUBT: MR KSIPLEY: MB MAYCOCK: Objeotion sustained and the answer is strioke: That That Is all. Is all.
22
23 24 25 26
117
1 2
3
MHa KATHLEBH E. BEETLEY,
called as a witness
on hehalf of the plaintiff under sec. 2055 C C. P., being first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLKKK: THE WITHE33: Vhat is your name? Kathleen E. Bentley. DIRECT EXAMIEATIOH BT MR ARAM: Q A Q A Q Mrs Bentley, were y ou a member of Amoro? Tea. A nd did you continue to be I did until the time of the a member? separation.
4
5
6
7
9
10 11 12
13
And did you hold or assume any office in the new order
of M r Thomaa? A I was asked to act as treasurer.
14
15 16 17 18 19
THE COURT: M R ARAM: Q A Q
You call M t b Bentley under 2055? Yes, She is a defendant.
And you did act as treasurer? Yes. I will show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 14 for Identifi
20 21 22
23
cation and ask y ou if y o u know what that is. A Q A Q Yes. Vhat ia that? It is a card formerly Is that a dues Yes. card? stamp on it, an Amorc oard.
24
A
25
And I changed it, put "U 0 A M"
with the consent of the owner,

26
andwith the understanding
1 2
3 4 5
the; would use that -from then on aa a U 0 A H card. Q Calling your attention to the notation opposite the la that your Initials?
month of June; A Q A Tea.
Those are your initials? Yes. We offer this at this time in evldenoe. Plaintiff's E x h i b i t 14 for Identification is
6
7
MB ARAM: THE COURT:
8
9
received in evidence aa Plaintiff's Exhibit 14. (Membership oard of John L. Hernandez reoeived in evidence and marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 14.) THE W I T H E S S : I might say here that the duea receipted
10 11 12
13 14
for there were received aa U 0 A M duea. Q BY MB ARAM: I show you Plaintiff's Exhibit 8 and
IE
16 17 18 19
aBk you if you know what that is.

A Q That la an Amoro dues card. Calling your attention to
Look at the reverse aide.
the notation opposite "June," A Q A Q A The initials "2. E. B."
what la that?
20 21 22
23 24
Are those your initials? Yes. Is that your notation 1 can't be sure about alao (indicating)?
the pencil notation.
q
A Q
Y o u reoeived the duea marked by your initials? Yea. A nd marked it paid?
2E
26
140
1 2
3 4
A .
Yea.
Whenever I took dues it was my policy to ask
the person paying dues if they understood the ohange that had occurred and understood they were paying dues into the new organization* Q
1 show you a document and ask you
5
6
7
if that is your
signature A Q A It looks like it. Is it? I would say it was. We offer this in evldenoe. It will he received in evidence as Plaintiff's
8
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
MR A R A M : THE OOHHT: Exhibit 2 2 .
(Hotioe dated July
5 t h ( 1929. signed hy Kat hl een K.
Bentley, reoeived in evldenoe and marked Plaintiff's Exhi bit

2 2 .)
MB a r a m ; 5th. 1929. take able
I will read this, Mra Bentley. "Beloved Member:
It is dated July
The 7th Grade Initiation will We trust you will be With all good Kathleen E.
place Wednesday, July 17th, 1929.
to be with us on this important date. Sincerely yours,
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
wishes for Peaae profound. Bentley, Q Treasurer.1 *
Bid you send a similar letter to all the members? to that, because my duties were not as
A I can't say as secretary,
and I didn't have much to do about writing and
sending out letters.

q
What is your recollection;
did you send out many of
i50
1
them? A I don't know. I know it was the policy of notifying an
z
3
4
those who applied for new m e m b e r s h i p ; they were notified, I believe the old members were notified, too. remember that particular incident. at that time. Q B ut I don't
6 6
7
Things were so confused
It was over a year and a half ago.
I will show you another document and ask y o u if that
bears your signature. A

3
3
10 11 12
13 14
Yea. And it is a similar letter, dated similarly and worded
similarly as the one before? A Tea, it is carbon copy of the same Ve offer this in evidence. It may be reoeived as Plaintiff's Exhibit 22. 5th, 1929, signed by all the sane.
ICS ARAM: THE COURT:
I S
16
(Carbon copy of notice dated July
Kathleen E. Bentley, received in evidence and marked P l a i n t i f f s Exhibit 22.)

3
17
18 19
BY M R ARAM:
Mrs Bentley,
I will show you what p u r
ports to be an envelope and ask you if you k n o w the hand writing on it. A Q A Q lo, I don't. handwriting that is?
20 21 22
23
24
You don't know whose Bo. It is not your
handwriting?
A
25
Most certainly not. Sow, in that letter which has been offered in evidence
Q
26
15 1
1 2
you referred to seventh grade
initiation.
Was that sent
to members who were ready to take the seventh grade initia tion? A member, I couldn't aay as to that, because I was a low-grade didnt know anything about the higher grades, but I
3
4
suppose it was. Q Well, how did you know he was ready to take the
7
8
seventh grade initiation in order to send that letter? A Q A I was instructed, Who instructed you? 1 don't know. It must have b e e n theseoretary or
9
10 11 12
someone in charge.
I d o n t remember the inoident at all;
u
14
had completely forgotten such things were done, even. 9 A Q But y ou were instructed to send thatletter? Tea. Bid y o u assist in the preparation of the U 0 A U
15 16 17 18 19
lectures from the Amorc lectures? A Q A Bo, I was too busy doing other things. Who did that work? I am not sure, but I think it was mostly thefirst
20 21 22
23 24
volunteer help. Q
But I had nothing to do with that work.
Well, did you make any comparisons yourself between
the leotures? A Q So. Who were the ones that did the actual work of prepar
25
ing the U 0 A II leotures from the Amorc leotures?

26
- ' ' *
1 2
3 4 5
Well, as I Just said, I am not sure; I d i d n t have
anything to do with that. Q A Ton d o n t recall any of them? Ho. I d i d n t pay any attention. I was leaving that
to others.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until two o clock p. m

7
of the same day.)

8
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
' i %
1 2 2 4 5 6
7
Tuesday, January 6 , 1931;
2 o'oloak p. m.
ICRS GEORGS B. SCHELL DIG,
called as a witness
on Behalf of the plaintiff, Being first duly sworn, testified as follows: THE CLERK: THE WITNESS: What is your name? Mrs George B. Sohelling. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY M R MAYCOCK: Q A Q 1929? A 3 A Q A years. Q A Q A Q Have you talked to him often? Many times. Have you ever conversed with him over the Many times. During the latter part of June, 1929, did y o u have telephone? Yes. D o you know E. B. Thomas, Yes. H o w long have y ou k n o w n him? Z v e r Bince I entered the order; about two ox three the defendant? Are you a member of the plaintiff order? Yes. Were y ou a member In or during the month of June,
8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15
16
17 18 19
20 21 22
23
24
25
a conversation with Dootor Thomas over the phone?

26
I did.
1 2
3 4 5
Q A
State the conversation. The secretary or someone called me and said Doctor And I had previously endorsed
Thomas wished to speak to me. some notes for MR XBMPLEY: him Of
course 1 couldn't tell,When the question I thought perhaps
6
7
was asked, what thlB conversation was. some of It might he material. THE WITNESS: I am coming to that.
He said if I would
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
get these two other parties and come down, that he needed Borne more money. I said, "Mr Thomas, I am going with Amoro; I would not go with you I hav
I have heen with them all this time.
I would not miss the eighth and ninth grade teachings. heard you say yourself they were b o wonderful." "Come down and I can give them to you.
He said, can ter
I said, "You And that
give them to me?"
A nd he said, "Why, yes,"
minated the conversation. M R MAYCOCK: That is all.
CROSS-EXAMINATIOH B Y M R KEMPLEY l Q A When did you say this conversation ocaurred? Ahout Jane 29th, ahout three or four weeks after the
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
break with Amorc. Q A Q Yo u knew all about the br e a k at that time? Yes. A n d you had already gone into Amorc, had you?
k J ij
1 2
3
Isa, I was going with Amorc,
and I so stated to Mr
Thomas over the phone* Q A Had they been holding lodge meetings, Amorc?
4
5
1 had never at that time attended, but I knew where
my desire and duty was* Q Y o u knew that Amorc had in I won't say established, a local chapter?
6
7
but continued their lodge work A
1 knew wherever they established a new lodge I was
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
going with them. Q Did y o u kno w at that time they had continued their
lodge here? A yes, I kn e w they were going to reestablish their lodge, and continue their work. That is all. That is all.
M B KEMPLEY: M B MAYCOCK:
MB MAYCOCK:
At this time I will offer a statement July 12, 1929,
dated
Los Angeles, California, stated he did not sign, THE COUBT:
the one Fred Sassler
20 21 22
23 24
for m arking for identification.
It will be marked Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 for
identification purposes only* (Statement dated July 12, 1929, signed T r e d Seaslar," marked P l a i n t i f f 1 a E x h i b i t 24 for Identification Only.] MR MAYCOCK: Your Honor, there are two witnesses, the
25
last two we were going to call;

26
they will be very short;
the; are not present.
One is a witness to the document of It might be we oan allow the de
fered for identifioation.
fendants to go on with their case and put them on out of order u po n their return, if that is satisfactory to counsel. A l l Mr O'Heil will be asked to testify is he signed this as a witness to the signature of M r Sessler, testify I presume he will
he will be offered for the purpose of testifying
he saw Mr Sessler sign that document and he himself signed as a witness thereto. If it oan be stipulated that if he were
here he would so testify, wc needn't call him at all, M S KBMPLEY: U R UAYCOCK: What is your other witness going to cover? The other witness is cumulative in charaater,
upo n the matter of statements of the defendant Thomas as to the carrying on of the Amoro work with the same lectures and teachings and that the work was to be identical, M S KOCPLEY: eliminate We have no objection to proceeding. To
the testimony of O'Heil, I will stipulate that if
O'Heil were on the stand and were asked the question, ha waul answer as counsel indicates. I would object on the ground
that the document in question is purely hearsay and it incom petent, irrelevant and immaterial, and the only purpose it
oould possibly be used for would be for impeachment, and that no proper foundation,even if they could impeach their own witlness, there is not suffiaiant foundation laid for impeachment,
If that might help the matter, I would stipulate that and 1 would make that objection if Ur O'Heil were here and were
i 1 2
3 4 G
asked that question. THE COURT: Very wall. -o-
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 14 1G 16 17 18 19
20
21
22
23 24 2G 26
1. > t J
B S B
.a *
HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS, recalled aa a witness on behalf of the defendants under sec. 2055 C. C. P., fied as follows: DIRECT EXAMINATION B Y MS KEMPLEY: Q
9
testi
Y o u made a trip down to Los Angeles along about the did you not, Ur Lewie
time of this trouble at the end of Hay, A
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 16 16
I think it was sometime before the end of May that I
made a trip down here, and then I think my next trip was a few days after the 1 st of June, I haven't anything at the
moment to refresh my memory on the date, Q I show you a telegram dated Uay 31st, 1929, addressed Im-
to E. E. Thomas, and with the name "H, Spenaer Lewis,
perator," signed to it, and ask you if y o u did not send that telegram, of Whioh that is a copy, A Yes, I believe I sent that telegram, 1 offer it in evidence and ask that it be exhibit,
M S KEMPLEY:
20 21
32
marked aa defendants' M R MAYCOCK: immaterial.
Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
Now, your Honor, the issue in this case is
whether or not after severing connection with the Amoro

23
organization these defendants,

24
formerly members and officers
of that organization, did conduct themaelvea in a manner
I S
which equity will not countenance.
26
The reasona for the
i 1 2
3 4 5
severance of that connection is not an issue in this case and haven't been brought out on the case in chief and cannot be brought out in the case of the defense as a matter of refutation or rebuttal. The only issue before your Honor
is as to the conduct of these individuals; was it equitable in character, or did they, because of the former relation ship, step beyond the bounds of good faith and good morals and do acts which equity will enjoin? Therefore any ques
6
7
8
9
10
tion going bade to a time before the break occurred cannot have any bearing whatsoever upon the conduct of the indi viduals afterwards, which is the matter in dispute. The
11
12
eye of the court is to be directed to their conduct after they severed connections with the lodge, and not before. If we were to go into that, of course the door would be laid open to a great deal of evidence on both sides as to the justification for the revocation of its charter, which is not the matter before your Honor . action. This is an injunctive
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22
411 it was necessary for us to do was to show the
relationship that had theretofore existed between the parties from a certain time and then inquire whether or not their conduct was in good faith. Therefore any letter or document
emanating from either side prior to the time when the in equitable conduct of which we now complaint and wish enjoined for the future occurred is incompetent, irrelevant and im material. THB COURT: Objection overruled* The telegram is received
23 24 25 26
IC O
1 2
3 4 5
in evidenoe as Defendants' K r h ibi t D. (Telegram aatea May 31, 1929, received in evidence and marked Defendants' Exhibit D. ) Q BY M R KEMPLEY: I show y o u another paper, which p u r
ports to he copy of a telegram addressed to Jack O'Heill, ana with the name "H. Spencer Lewis, thereto, and ask y o u if you Imperator," signed
6
7
aid
not send that telegram a d
8
9
dressed to Mr Jaok O'Heill on the date thereof. MB MAYCOCK: immaterial. Objeoted to as Incompetent, irrelevant and
10
11
Jack O'Heill is not a party
to this action in
any way, shape, manner or form. the grounds as stated before,
I further object to it on
12
13 14
that this telegram was a com
munication from the head of the lodge to a member of the lodge not a party to the action, prior to the date when the severance occurred and prior to the time of any of the aots complained of in this action. and immaterial. It is incompetent, irrelevant I
IS
16 17 18 19
20
I object to its admission in evidence,
object also to any questions concerning it. TEE COURT: "Yes" A or not. Q B Y M R KEMPLEYi In other words, y o u do not k no w or "Ho." I cannot tell whether that telegram was sent by me Objection overruled. Answer the question
21
22
23 24 25 26
whether you sent this telegram or not? A I can't say whether that is a copy of a telegram I purports to b e a copy*
sent or not.
iCl
1 2
3 4
M R HAYCOCK: Kempley? HE XEMPLEY:
It ia not the copy received,
is it, Mr
I didn't reoeive it.
I ask It he marked
for identification. THE COURT: Defendants' Ex hib it E for Identification.
5
6
7
(Copy of telegram dated May 30, 1929, marked Defendants' E x h i b i t E for Identification Only.) Q BY MR K E M P L E Y : Row. Mr lewis, I asked yon about com
8
9
ing down to Los Angeles, with reference to the date of these telegraiss. A Row, Do y o n know when y on came down here?
10 11
12
Hell, I know I came down here and was here on S u n d a y . I can't tell whether that was two or three days or a It all depends on when the first S un
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
week after that date.
day fell after that date. 3 Y o n say it was the first Sunday following the date
of this telegram? A 3 It probably was. Row, on this trip that y o n came down to Los Angeles,
y o n went ont to the lodge room h e r e , did yon not? A Q way. A 9 Ro, I did not. go to any other Objected to as meeti ng place? ino om pet en t, irrelevant and came down Which lodge room? Well, the lodge room where Amoio had held forth, any
21
22
23 24
Sid you
MR MAYCOCK:
25
immaterial,
26
assume he went to some place if he
1 C 2 1 2
3 4 G
h ere. THE COURT: m e e tin g p la c e MR KEMPLEY: THE COURT: A I Do y o u mean w h e th e r he w e n t to o f t h e lo d g e ? Yea. He may a n s w e r . s e v e r a l h u n d re d o f our had ashed me t o come any o t h e r
6
7
w e n t t o a p l a c e w here
members were g a t h e r e d and w here th e y and m eet w i t h Q th e re ? A Q you? A Q Yes. And in Two Y ou or t h r e e h u ndred. them .
8
9
10
BY MR KEMPLEY:
And how many would y o u say were
11 12
13 14
a d d re s s e d th o s e members on t h a t o c c a s i o n ,
d id n 't
1 5
16 17 18 IB
t h a t a d d r e s s y o u s t a t e d to
t h e s e members t h a t
th e e h a r te r
had b e e n r e v o k e d and t h a t Mr Thomas ' b r e l a t i o n s d i d n ' t you?
w i t h t h e lo d g e were s e v e r e d , A Q th a t A Q Yes. You a d d re s s e d
th e members on more t h a n one o c c a s i o n d i d n ' t you?
20 21 22
23 24 25
tim e when you were down h e r e , 1 was o n ly h e r e on S u n d a y .
And d i d y o u make one a d d r e s s o r
d id you make more
t h a n one a d d r e s s on Sunday? A W e ll, I met w i t h th e members c o l l e c t i v e l y and th e n
w i t h a c o m m it te e . Q
26
B u t so f a r
as any a d d r e s s
to a la r g e
g rou p,
th e re
was o n ly one o c c a s i o n ,
as y o u r e c a l l ?
1C3
1 2
3
A 9
I cannot say. How, shortly after that yon sent letters out, did
you not, to the members of the Los Angeles lodge, or those that had been members of the Los Angeles lodge, n o t i c i n g them of the revocation of the charter, or at least sever ance of relations with Doctor Thomas? A I probably did, some weeks later; that is, to all
4 5
6
7
members we could reach. Q And some little time later you employed -- perhaps but you specifi
9
10 11 12
13
14
he iB on regular retainer; I don't know
cally employed Mr Aram to come down to Los Angeles and settle the differences between the plaintiff order and Ur Thomas, didn't you? A Q 1 engaged Ur Aram to attempt to do so. You engaged Ur Aram to come down to Los Angeles
15
IE
with instructions to settle the differences with Mr Thomas, didn1t you? A Q As peacefully as possible. And in your conversation with Mr Aram you gave him
17
18
19
20 21 22
23
authority to do all things necessary in order to settle the differences, didnt you? MR MAYCOCK: 1 object to that as a confidential communi
cation, and we claim the privilege. THE COURT: US KEMP LEI: Objeotion sustained. That is all.
24
25
2E
1C4 1 2
CROSS-EXAM IKATI01I BY MR MAYCOGK: Q In regard to Mr Kemp ley's question in regard to
3
4
whether or not you communicated with all the membars, you said that yon Qommnnicated with some, as far as you could reach.
A Who had the membership list?
8
7
That had been our chief problem.
The membership
list was in the archi7es somewhere of Hermes lodge, and we didn't have a complete list. 9
A
9
10 11 12
13 14
In loa Angeles?
Tes. That is all.
MR UAYCOCK:
REDIRECT R X A M U U T I O H
I S
16
17
BY MR KEMPLEY: Q I show you copy of a letter addressed:"To all the
Members of the Hermes Lodge of Los Angeles," and ask you examine that and state whether or not you authorized the sending of that letter by your plaintiff organization to the members of Hermes Lodge. MR MAYCOCK: We will stipulate that came from Head And we will also stipulate it may
18
1 9
*0 21 22
23
quarters, to save time.
be introduced in evidence, MR KEMPLEY: THE COURT: I offer it in evidence. The letter is received in evidence and
24 25 28
marked Defendants' Exhibit P.
I
s
3 4
(Amorc letter dated Jime 25, 1929, reoeived in evidence and marked Defendant a ' Kxhibit 7.) Q Y o n are the supreme head of the organization, are
y o u not? A Q Yes. Your authority exceeds and controls over any hoard does it
s
6
7
of directors or other hody of the organization, not, under your by-laws? M B MAYCOCK:
8
9
1 objeot to that on the ground it is incom on the ground it assumes
10 11 12
13 14 16
petent, irrelevant and immaterial; a fact not in evidence;
and also it is admitted in evidence and there
at the present time and admitted hy the pleadings,
fore the statement could not he true as a matter of law. THE COURT: A Objection overruled.
Ho, because we have a board of directors and a
16
17 18 19
Supreme Council. Q BY MR KEMP IS Y: Your authority exceeds that of the
Supreme Council, does it not? A Q Only in matters of doctrinal teachings. Veil, in all matters pertaining to the government does it not?
20 21 22
23
and control of the order, A Q Ho.
Who constitutes the Supreme Council? Ohjeated to as incompetent, irrelevant and
MR MAYCOCK:
24 25
immaterial and beyond the issues of this case. THE COURT:

26
Objection sustained.
1 GO
1 2 2
M B KEMPLEY: this question. THE COTJBT:
It seems to me I am entitled to go into
Yon may ask how many the hoard oonsists of; is it not?
4
6 6
hut who they are is immaterial, M B KEMPLEY:
I hate to state the reason why I don't Under the peculiar oiroumstanoes heoause I be is oomposed al
think it is immaterial.
7
8
of this oase I think it would he material, lieve the answer would show that the hoard
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
most entirely of the members of his own family. That is all.
o---
E. E. THOMAS, recalled as a witness on behalf of the defendants, testified as follows: DIRECT BIAMLHATIOK BY MB KEMPLEY: Q Mr Thomas, w he n did y o u become a member of Amoro? Objected to as inoompetent, irrelevant and
MR MAYCOCK: immaterial.
The question is whether or not he became a
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
member, but the method by wh i c h he beoame a member is,be cause of the fraternal character of this organization, a matter wh io h cannot be gone into in this proceeding. court has referring could not The
already ruled, when the same question was asked to rituals and methods of initiation, be adduced at this trial. That was on the general question how perthat it
M B KEMPLEY:
1G T
1
sons became members; but in this case y o u have waived it, because y o u have introduced in evidence his application and oath and everything else. MR MAYCOCK: member, We haven't waived anything. He became a
I
4
S
6
7
and those were for the purpose of showing what his
obligations were. THE COURT: The question is indefinite. Do yo u mean
how he happened ta become a member or how he became a m e m ber? MR KEMPLEY: more definite. Q The application signed by yo u has be e n introduced Y o u have seen it? I will withdra w that question and make it
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
in evidence here, Mr Thomas. A Q Yes.
Where were you residing at the time y o u signed that
application? A Q A
9
In Redding, California. Was there any lodge of Amoro in Redding?
Yob.
Where, if you know, was the lodge nearest to Redding?
20 21
92 23 24 25
Tampa, Florida. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
MR MAYCOCK:
immaterial and beyond the issues in this case. THE COURT: A Objection overruled. in Tampa, Florida.
The headquarters at that time were
THE COURT:
26
The question was, where was the nearest lodge
1.68
1 2
3 4 5
to Bedding, where 7011 signed that application. A Q At the time that was the only one I knew. BY MR KBMPLBY: And did yon receive any evidence of
any kind that you had been admitted to membership? A

3
Yes. Between the time you signed this application and the
f i
7
receipt of this acknowledgment that you had been admitted to membership did you attend ary lodge meetings at any place? MB MAYCOCK: immaterial. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
8
9
10 11 12
13 14
It is a matter that is admitted in the plead We have
ings, that Doctor Thomas was a member of Amoro. freely conceded it. on the witness-stand.
He has not denied it; has admitted it How, just what purpose this line of
questioning can have, as to whether thereafter he conducted himself in an equitable manner, in a manner that equity will countenance, is the problem your Honor will have to decide, and the realm of materiality doesn't extend back several years before, as to whether or not at any time or shortly after he received evidence of his admission that he actually attended a lodge. It has nothing to do with the issues in
IS
1 6
17 18 19
20 21 22
23
volved in this case. THE COUHT: Objection overruled. Answer the question.
THE WITHESS: MR KEMPLEY:

24 25
What is the question? Please read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter.) A

26
I did not.
ICO
1 2
3
The n later, you testified, you became master of
the local lodge in Lea Angeles? A H Tea. Y ou have seen a telegram that has been introduced H. Spencer Lewis, to you, directing
i
5
in e v i d e n o e , signed by
6
7
you to turn over the lodge
charter, or whatever
it was?
Y o u have seen that telegram? A Q Yes, Did you see Doctor Lewis ahortly after the receipt
8
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
of this telegram? A Q A Q I did not, Do you know whether or not he oame I do. Were there any meetings held? Just a moment. I ask that the answer be and object to L o a Angeles?
M B MAYCOCK:
stricken for the purpose of making an objection, to it on the ground it is hearsay, Q BY THE COUBT:
Do you know of your own knowledge,
Mr Witness? A I didn't perceive h im w it h my own eyes, but I knew
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
he was here. MR KEMPLEY: We will consent that it be stricken out,
if counsel insists. THE COURT: Q The answer is stricken. Did you have any meetings or public
BY M R KE M P L E Y :
gatherings of persons who had b e e n members of Amorcohere in
t 0
Los Angeles shortly after the date of this telegram?
Tea.
Kindly wait nntil I have an opportunity
M S MAYCOCK: to object. THE COURT:
The answer is strioken for the purpose of
m a k i n g an objection. M R MAYCOCK: I object on the ground that any action of members
this defendant with any other individuals n o t of this order
is not binding upo n this plaintiff and, as irrelevant and immaterial. Any
such, are incompetent,
statements made there, of course, are hearsay. M R KKMPLEY: One of the complaints is that the defendants
by fraud and deception damaged the plaintiff and procured the members to join with them in a n e w organization. If
those persons were told of the severance of the relations and knew all of the facts and ciroumstances kne w all the facts and c i r c u mst an oes , but I don't mean
if they were in
formed of the severance of the relations they certainly were not deceived by any similarity in letters or any other papers if they knew there had been a severance. A n d 1 understand
the whole gist and substance of counsel's case and the whole purpose of putting in a lot of applications and things is an attempt to show that because of the similarity of these things there was a deception practiced, TEE COURT: A We did. Objection overruled. He may answer.
4 * I 4^1
Q
BY MR 2EMPLKY:
Did you address those persons in
any public meeting? A Q Yes. In that address was anything said -- I don't mean
any details you gave, but was anything said about the severance of your MR MAYCOCK: I relations with Amoro? object to that on the ground it is call
ing for a self-serving declaration by an individual, made by himself out of the hearing and presence of an individual; incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. J f f i KBMPL 8 Y : It was a means of giving notice to these and consequently there
persons that there was a severance,
was no deception practiced upon them. THE COURT: A Y o u may answer. one of the first
I made that very c l e a r ; that was
things we mentioned, M S MAYCOCK: I
to make it olear to all.
object to the answer and ash it be stricken been asked calls for and the
on the ground that what has answer states a aonolusion. THE COUHT:
The answer can be "Yes" or "Ho."
The former
answer is strioken out. A Q Yes. B Y M S KEMP LEY: Was anything said about the reoeipt
of this telegram by you? A Q Yes. Were the members at that time informed that the charte:
4 '*
L<
1 2
3 4 5
under your direction had been revoked? A Q Tea* May I amend that question? It would perhapB he
misleading in the record. ceived M R HAYCOCK: He
Vere they informed you had re
6
7
That is certainly leading and suggestive.
can direct hiB attention to certain parts of the conv er I maintain it is all self-serving, but he can't
8
9
sation.
state what he said and ask him then,as his own witness, whether or not he said it. THE COURT: Q That 1 b leading and suggestive.
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Objection sustained. Was anything said to the members
BY M R KEMPLEY:
at that time about this telegram that has been introduced in evidence and marked Defendants' Exhibit B? A Q A Yes. What was said? That the charter had b een revoked. In fact, the besides.
telegram was read,and posted on the wall, Q
Aside from this, did you have any private conversa
20 21 22
23
tions with m e m b e r b or any member? MR MAYCOCK: immaterial; Objeoted to as incompetent, irrelevant and
conversations between this defendant and i ndi
viduals, the plaintiff not being present, are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not b i n din g u po n thiB plaintiff,
24
and are aelf-Berving,

25
MR KEMPLEY:
26
They have attempted by three or four cardB
II J
to show people came in and paid duea without knowing any thing shout it. We want to ahow this defendant did e v e r y
thing he oould at least to carry information to these people of the severance. (Further d i scu ss ion .) MR KEMPLEY: In other words, all you claim is what you
have introduced here almply goes to prove these particular three or four persons were deceived. M R MAYCOCK: That ia not true. Ia that true?
What I mean to say is,
that if he ia going to take the method of negative proof, he must do so hy proving all the other individuals were told except these few. An inference can he drawn from a
few that others were deceived, hut he cannot hy negative testimony aay," This person was not deceived," or, "I told
thiB or that person," without naming what group or indi viduals, "that we were no longer ccnneoted with Amoro," and thereby refute anything in the plaintiff's case. is negative testimony. THE COURT: A Q Yes. BY MR KEMPLEY: Do you recall having a conversation Objection overruled. Answer "Yea" or "No," It
wit h a man named Hernandez? A Q A 9 I do. The gentleman that was on the stand this morning? Yea. Where did that conversation occur?
I i
1 2
3 4 5
A
3
In the outer office,
in the treasurer's door.
Bo y ou remember when that was? Some days after the separation. I don't recall the
exact date.
3
What was said in that conversation relative at leaBt
6
7
to the separation? A He said he had Just heard of the trouble and want ed
8
9
to know something about it. Q A And what did you say to him? I explained the whole situation I ask that be stricken, to him fully.
10 11 12
13 14 15
MR MAYCOCK: THE COURT: 3
It 1 b stricken out. What did you say to him? Bot your
BY MR KEMPLEY:
conclusion. A That we had separated from Amorc; that Amorc was no
longer within those walls.

16 17
The conversation was about twentj
minutes or thirty minutes of duration. 3

18
Bid you have similar conversation with other members? V e r y , very few. When did you next see Lewis, if at all? irrelevant and
A
19
20
MR MAYCOCK:
21
immaterial.
22
THE COURT:
23
A
24
I didn't see him at all;j not until in the court-room BY MR KEMPLEY: L i d you see Mr A r a m subsequently to
3
25
this time?
26
a 7 7)
1 2
3 4
A Q A
'Sea. Do you remember about when that waa? Hot the exact date; but it was within a day or two
after the trouble or separation. Q I will show you what purports to be an agreement
6
7
and ask you if that is your signature appended thereto. A Q Sea. And the name written thereon "Alfred Aram," did you
8
9
see anyone sign that? A Q A I did not. Y o u don't know who signed it, then? Ho.
10 11 12
13 14 15
ME KEMPLEY:
t o
Will you stipulate y ou aigned
it, Mr Aram?
MR ARAM:
Yes. This is offered in evidence. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and The con-
ME KEMPLEY: ME MAYCOCK:
1 6
17
immaterial and not within the
issues of the case.
I S
19
duot we are complaining of was subsequent to this, and the only bearing it would have would be whether or not he car ried out that agreement. We are not suing upon the contract, The contract is immaterial.
20 21 22
23
but u pon equitable grounds. THE COUBT:
We will receive it for what it is worth. It will be reoeived as Defendants'
Objection overruled. Ex h ibi t G.
24 25 26
(Document entitled "Agreement" received in evidence and marked Defendants' E xhibit G . )
k . < i
( 2
BY MR KEMPLEY:
There have "been soma mimeograph some, I believe, y ou tes
lectures introduced in evidence;
tified were sent out prior to the severance of your r e l a tions with Amorc. Were those sent out by the local lodge,
or sold by the local lodge? A We were constantly sending out different kindB of
correspondence that was mimeographed and so on. A Q A Q These lectures, Yes. And to Whom? To the members. Did the residential members of the local lodge were they sold by the local lodge?
ordinarily receive the lectures in writlng,prior to the time y o u started selling these, UR MAYCOCK: immaterial. MR KEMPLEY: You brought out upon your examination that and I just wanted
1 mean?
Irrelevant and
they sold some of these for fifteen cents,
to brin g out the fact as to h ow they happened to be selling them. THE COURT: Answer the question. Objection overruled.
(The question was read by the reporter.) A Q Ho D id you have any correspondence or conversation, with
M r Lewis relative to your selling these lectures? A Yes.
1 2
3 4 5
Just briefly, what was that? Let's have with whom and where and when. Well, was it by letter or personal
M R MAYCOCK: Q
B Y M R KEMPLEY:
conversation? A Q A Q us? A On the occasion of his two visits in 1928, I don't remember the exact dates. I believe, I think Personal conversation. Where? In our ledge room. Approximately when, as near as you can give it to
6
7
8
9
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
one of them was;
one was in May and the other in October. exactly.
I wouldn't say
He even showed the lady running the mimeograph
h o w to mimeograph them to better advantage. Q And was anyone else present besides yourself and
Doctor Lewis at that time? K Q A Yes. Who else? Mrs Scott and several of the office staff, the secre
20 21 22
23
tary and the treasurer. Q What was said in that conversation relative to mimeo
graphing these lessons? MR MAYCOCK: What lectures axe yo u referring to now? Some of them, I
There seem to have been several hundred.

24 25
believe it has been testified, were confidential in character Let's have what lessons you are referring to.
26
1 2
3 4 5
UR KEMPLEY:
I am referring to all lessons that were
subsequently sold. THE COURT:A Let him answer. the
We mimeographed all the private lectures for
benefit of the members. Q B Y MR KEMPLEY: I am asking n o w for the conversation
6
7
that occurred between you and Lewis at the time and place mentioned, relative to your mimeographing and selling these lectures. A At times the conversations were somewhat lengthy. 1
8
9
10 11 12
13 14 15
don't remember all that was said, but he showed us some of the lessons that had bee n issued in Sa n Jose and were not clearly typed, and showed us how to use the mimeograph so it would be clearer. Q A Was any thing said about your selling them? we were getting
1 6
17 18 19
Nothing whatever, except we told him
fifteen cents for them, which was the cost of the materials only. Q Was anything said in that conversation about why you
20 21 22
23 24 25
were mimeographing these in the local lodge? A Q A Yes. What was said? Because the members wanted the lessons at home to just hear them in the lodge
review at their leisure and not
room; the main complaint was it would go in one ear and out the other,
26
so they wanted something to take home and read.
t :9 1 2
3 4 5
just like the oorresponding members would, 3 A

3
Did you have a mimeograph machine? Yes. What subsequently became of that mimeograph machine? Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
M R MAYCOCK:
e
7
immaterial and has nothing to do with the iBBues in the oase. THE COURT: A Y ou may answer. mimeograph and
8
9
They made a raid on us and took the
money and other things during the process of that temporary injunction. 3 BY MR KEMPLEY: Were there other furnishings and
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
furniture in the lodge rooms at the time? A 3 A

3
Yes. What became of that furniture and furniBhingB?
They took nearly everything away. Lid you collect dues from the members after the sever
ance? A
3
Hot from the Amorc members ?ro m your members? Yes.
not knowingly.
20 21 22
23 24 25 26
A Q dues? A
3
For how long a pe riod did y o u continue to collect
Only
Just a few weeks.
Do you collect dues now? We do not. How long la it since you have collected any dues?
A 3
1 2
3 4
I think we began within probably six weeks or eight
weeks after our severance to let everything be voluntary, what the person was capable he could afford, of paying, according to what
and we charged no entrance fees or no Voluntary contributions.
5
6
7
dues of any kind after that. Q What,
if ai^, use did you make of the rituals put
out by Amora after the severance? A We made use of them twice, I believe it was, by
8
9
excluding certain parts and explaining other matters more gard, in accordance with our own inclinations in that r e leaving out in every instance the word "Amorc" and and taking some of the matter en
10 11 12
13 14
substituting nU 0 A M,"
tirely out and putting in other matter. Q Did you make any use of these rituals after the two
IS
16 17 18 19
20
occasions you speak of? A Q No. Was there any statement made to the members or
persons in the lodge room at the time or times these rituals were used, relative to the severance of the relations b e
tween Amorc and yourself? MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as calling for a purely self-
21
serving declaration made by the defendant to members of his

22
own organization, not binding upo n the plaintiff;

23
incompe
tent, Irrelevant and immaterial.

24
THE COURT:
25
A
26
We did.
1 2
3
B Y M B KEMPLEY:
Sot
to ask y ou for the contents,
now, tut y ou are familiar with the rituals used by Amoro? A Q Yes. That were used at that time, at least. Are you
4
5
familiar with the"Brotherhood of Bosae Crucis," by A. E. Waite? A Q Yes. What have you to say with reference to the contents
6
7
S
9
of the ritual, as to whether or not it largely appears in the "Brotherhood of Bosae Crucis," by Waite? M R MAYCOCK: immaterial; to answer; Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17
on the ground that this witness is not qualified on the further ground that he is himself, by his
own conduct, estopped from claiming the ritual he reaeived under the terms of particular solemnity and which he swore never to divulge can now be by hi m complained of as not be in g the ritual and the property, as such, of the organiza tion whose confidence he is violating. (Discussion.) THE COUBT: MR MAYCOCK: Objection overruled. Answer the question.
IS
19
20 21 22
23
I object further on the ground that it is In order to prove the
not calling for positive evidence. matter
they are endeavoring to elicit by this, they are and I am very insistent on this point;
asking this man

24 25
so much so that I will let that rest there for the moment. I make
26
this statement:
That in order to elicit this informs-
.1 On-r 1 2
2 4 5
;p n
tion that ia endeavored to he elicited hy this question it would he necessary to put in evidence the ritual of the plaintiff order, and these documents, "Brotherhood of the Rosy Cross," hy A. E. Waite, which would be the best evi dence as to whether or not they were largely the same. And to do that would mean we would have to submit in this court to publicizing of our seoret ritual. of this litigation it is incompetent, material to the issues drawn. For the purpose
6
7
* I
10 11
12
13
irrelevant and im
A nd I am going to ask your
Honor,before ruling on that question, if it is in your H o n o r s min d to overrule our objection, to grant me a continuance
at this time so 1 can appeal to a proper court far a writ of prohibition. We are not going to submit to having this
14
15
ritual brought out here, because it would be detrimental and damaging to the very structure and basis of our frater
1 5 nal organization.
17 18
1
UR KEMPLEY: did.
That is the reason I put the question as I
I am not asking for the contents of their ritual, and
nobody could possibly select the contents of their ritual from a volume of that size; but I am entitled to ask the question I have asked, in this ritual, original. THE COURT: ritual? MR MAYCOCK: Unless we have theritual.it is immaterial It is not your purpose to bring out the to show there was not hin g original
20 21
n2 23 24 25
or at least that a large part of it was not
2 5
1 2
that parts of it may he taken from other sources. (Further discussion.J MR MAYCOCK: purpose May I ask now for an adjournment for the
3
4 5
of protecting my client by a wTit of prohibition? I will reserve ruling on the question. So
THE COURT:
6
7
ahead and ask some other question. (Whereupon a short reoess was taken.) MR MAYCOCK: I am ready to await your Honor's ruling
8
9
upon this question. TH3 COURT: Probably a sufficient foundation has not yet He has
10 11
12
bee n laid for the question.
juBt testified he is
and I think
familiar with this volume about the Rosy Cross,
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
u p o n this alone I don't intend to let the Rosy Cross go in to evldenae. M R MAYCOCK: help it, What I am not going to permit, if I can
is to allow the ritual to go into evidence, nor to
allow a person to say that in that particular book or some thing else all of it is to be found, whiah is just the same
as saying, "I won't tell you what it is, but here is a piece of paper; you can go and read it all, and it is all there; it is substantially the same thing." THE COUHT: The court will rule at this time there hasn't
21
22
23 24 25 26
be e n sufficient foundation to justify the witness in a n s wer ing the question. M R KEMPLEY: Q 1 will withdraw the previous question, then.
Have you read and are y o u familiar with a work entitle!
1 3 .1
1 2
3 4 5
"Brotherhood of Rosy Cross," UR HAYCOCK:
by A. E. Waite?
Objeoted to as i nc om pet ent , irrelevant and
immaterial and not within the issues of the case* THE CODBT: Q That has been asked and answered. Have y o u compared the ritual of the
BY H R KEMPUSY:
6
7
Amorc Order, at the time you were using the Amorc ritual, after the severance of these relations,with the contents of this book entitled "The Brotherhood of the Hosy Cross"? M B HAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and and
S
9
10
11
12
immaterial and an attempt to do an inequitable thing,
that is, to elicit evidence by an individual who receives certain things of a peculiarly confidential character under a most sacred and solemn vow, and which are in evidence, for the obvious purpose of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
and elicit a comparison by him, getting into this record, whether it is or not,
if it be a fact, and I don't know
that in certain publicized work
a por tio n or a large portion of that which he received as a solemn secret is actually pu blished in a recondite work. THE COURT: Y o u may answer the question "Yes" or "Ho,"
whether you have or not, A I have, Bow, I will state, so y o u may kno w why I
21 22
23 24 25 26
MR K E M P L E Y :
am dropping the subject, rather than cause any delay at this time, I am not going to ask the question I think you would If I do ask it, I will do it
have particular objection to. later.
1 2
3 4 5
There are certain other persons named with you as So you know who
defendants in this action, Ur Thomas. those persons are? A Q A letter. Tes.
What oonneotion do they have with you? Veil, they were members and signed that defense However, I would like to take my full responsibil
6
7
8
9 10
ity for that letter. 3 Let me ask you this question: In any of their actions
did they aot simply as employees or under your direction and guidance ? A Q Ho, as members. Some of them acted as employees, did they not
11 12 12
14 15 16 17 18 19
Mrs Bentley? A Yes. Objected to as leading, and 1 ask that the
MB ARAM:
answer go out, as well as the question. MB KEMPLEY: I will withdraw the last part of the ques
tion and ask it this way: Q A Was Mrs Bentley an employee of yours? Yes. That is all. Are you going to reoall the dootor I may. I don't know. again?
20 21
22
MB KEMPLEY: MB MAYCOCK: MR KEMPLEY: MR MAYCOCK:
23 24 25 26
If your Honor please, I am going to request, examination, that I may now
if this be theend of the dire at
i8 G
1 2 i
4
"be so advised,
in order that I may
cr oss-examine, 'because
I do not wish to carry on a cross-examination piecemeal and allow direct examination thereafter instead of rebuttal* I
am perfectly willing to waive cross-examination at this time if he intends to call him again on direct, but I wish to be advised at this time. MR EEMPLEY: I grant y o u it is in the discretion of the
6 6
7
8
9
court, and perhaps it may be imposing upon you and the court by recalling him. THE COURT: MR KEMPLBY: You don't intend to reoall him? I don't intend to. I may want to recall
10
11
12
12
h i m for that one question, or I might want to recall him for something else} but for all praotiaal purposes I am through.
14 15 16 17 16 19
20
CR0S3-EXAMDIATI0H BY MR MAYCOCK: Q Y o u stated, Doctor Thomas, that you took full r e
sponsibility for the so-called Defense Committee letter. Do you mean by that that y ou wrote it? UR KEMPLEY: Objected to as asked and answered. The
21
22
doctor was on the stand under 2055 and that was Introduced in evldenoe and he was fully examined about it. He acknowl
23 24 25 26
edged it was sent with his knowledge and authorization. THE COURT: A Answer the question. Objection overruled.
I did not write it.
i JT 1 2
B Y M B MAYCOCK:
Bid y o u direct them to write the
letter? A Q Bo. What did y ou mean hy saying you assumed full r e
3 t
5
ap onsihlliij for it? A I mean 1 would like to have the burden put on me
7
8
S
10
and exonerate those whose names were signed there, if it is legally possible. Q Yo u are willing to waive our rights against those
people? M B KEMPLEY: THE COUHT: Q Objeoted to as argumentative. Objection sustained. It is stated in this letter, Doctor,
11
12
13 14 15 16 17
B Y MB MAYCOCK:
that y o u did not wan t to do anything about a previous let ter to whioh this is supposed to be an answer. fot? A Q A Q A Q Yes. To whom did y o u state that? To Mr Presoott Smith, Who wrote the letter. He was the one who wrote Yes. Do you know whether any of the other members of the the letter? Is that a
1 8
19
20
21
22
Defense Committee collaborated with him in its preparation?

23 24 25
A Q A
I do not. Lid he tell you he wrote the letter? Yes.
26
i uf i
C1 ( ^
1
2
Q A a A a A
a
Y o u stated y o u had a conversation with Mr Hernandez? Yes. Where? In our lodge rooms* When? A few days after the separation. What was the oooasion for it? The occasion was, Mr Harnandez was in some kind of
3 4
5
9
10
trouble, had been for some time, and I was trying to a d vise him and help him out in his trouble, get him out of his mental anguish, lines, of it. Q Let's have the conversation, Lootor. Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and all that sort of thing, along those
11
12
and that was what the conversation was about, most
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20
M B KEMPLEY: immaterial. THE COIJHT:
The witness has
stated the conversation
lasted twenty minutes to hal f an hour, and many, many things could be talked about in that time. Confine it to the p a r
ticular matter brought out on direct examination* MB MAYCOCK: have it all. I have a right, as I understand the law, to This is oross-examlnation and is not for the is for the purpose of
21
22
23 24 25 26
purpose of eliciting the truth, but eliciting untruths. M B KEMPLEY:
I think counsel is stepping beyond the insinuations
bounds of oounsel and indulging in an attack and
against the witness's testimony on direct examination theraby. ME HAYCOCK: I maintain I asked about this on cross-
examination and instead of getting a reply that he gave on direct examination, he started to tell about Mr Her nandez's mental trouble and how he gave him psychological consolation and so forth. And that is the purpose of
cross-examination, to see whether a witness on crossexamination will give the answers consonant with his former testimony. The fact that he did not do so is the
most eloquent reason why I should be permitted to elicit fully this conversation. I think,if counsel recalls,the
question he asked was when he started to talk with him or how the conversation occurred. THE COURT: let's have the conversation relative to the
matter that was brought out on direot examination. ME MAYCOCK: Is your Honor going to limit me to that
portion, as to that portion of the conversation? THE COUBT: MR MAYCOCK: That portion of the conversation. Your Honor, please, I feel, for the purpose
of the record, that I am being curtailed in proper limits of cross-examination. At thiB time I wish to diamiBS this
action, in order to bring another action. MR KEMP1EY: To which we object, and ask for a judgment for the defendant. ME MAYCOCK: We have a right, in law, to a dismissal at We have a distinct right
any time, and not with prejudice.
1 90 1
2
In law.
If your Honor wishes authority upon the question,
I shall he glad to furnish them. M R KEMPLEY: M R MAYCOCK: THE COURT: M R KEMPLEY: M R MAYCOCK: coats. THE COURT: Dismissed with costs. With costs? That includes coats. Y ou have no objection to the dismissal? H o t with costs. That is the law, your Honor, please, with
2
4 5
7
8 9 10
11
12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22
23 24 25 26
1
2 3 4 5
CALIFORNIA, ) 1 33 COUNTY OF LOS A N S E L E S . ) I, CHARLES A. BOWMAN, an Official Reporter of the Superiol
STATE
OF
Court of the State of California, in and for the County of Los Angeles, hereby certify that the foregoing 190 pages comprise a full, true and correct transcript of the testi mony taken and proceedings had in the case of THE ANCIENT AND MY STI CAL ORDER OF ROSAE CRUCIS, vs. E. E. THOMAS, a corporation, Plaintiff, in D e
6
7
8
et a l , , Defendants, No. 282,405,
10
11
12
partment 40, on January 5th and 6th, 1931, Dated thiB 16th day of June, 1931.
13
Official Reporter
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21
22 23 24 25 26

The Case of AMORC (Plaintiff) Vs E. E. Thomas, Et Al. (Defendants) (1931)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Case of AMORC (Plaintiff) Vs E. E. Thomas, Et Al. (Defendants) (1931)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, IN AND FOE THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES.

Department No. 40.

Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge,

Charles A. Bowman, Official Reporter.

Department No. 40.

Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge.

Charles A. Bowman, Official Reporter,

Honda;, January 5, 19Z1; 10 o'clock a. .

This complaint la rather voluminous In Its

between this order and that one.

with the Supreme Order, these defendant maintained a head-

The famous Masonic and Odd Tallows

Tour Honor. 1 think we oan save a great If

deal of time of the oourt by a brief statement from us.

dreds o4 orders that uae the word "Roaiorueian.

red,* "black," or anything else

take half a dozen oommon, ordinary worda that nobody oould

11 1 ferred to in 'plaintiffs complaint in any form ao aa to mis 2 lead the pnblio.

Ve are perfectly willing to be reatrained Ve don't have aiy

from nalng the ritnala or robaa at all. deaira to nae them.

We are perfectly willing to be enjoined

from nalng the word "Bosicrucian or any combination of worda

6 in anoh a wap aa to mialead the pnblio; that iat in any form

1 1 aome abort remarks*

1 2 of the plaintiff, bat in view of the statement of counsel for

2 0 give anybody a right to nae them.

That means thia, that that ia not

an issue in this case, whatever our right may be aa against

I B injunction was first heard and offered to oease to do these

but I understand at the time this original temporary in

2 G Counsel knows we had this same question up before When we

were attempting to take a deposition.

He have always been

V I willing to that, hut the; don't want to atop at that point.

2 They don't want ua to uae the word "Hoaicruoian" or any of

those things in any way, shape or form.

Ve are not attempt

THE CLERK: THE WITHESS:

What is your name? Harvey Spencer Lewis, DIRECT EZAMHSATIQH

8 Order of Rosae C r u d e has an abbreviated name by whioh it is

Do you know whether or not throughout the State of

immaterial and oalling for the conclusion and opinion of the

THE COURT: A $ A 4 Tea*

That ia that name?

to aa what? A Q A Boaloruoiana* Ton have heard thla Amora Order

Oh* yea, in all magazine articlea that are written

Hoatly from professional life, auoh as school teacherB,

6 dividual in his personal and intimate affairs of life; and,

secondly, the advancement of his interests and efforts in

a either his vocation or avocation, so that he as a scientist

or teacher or experimenter in science can improve himself

kinds covering many subjects, and a person after being ad

Ar I 1 Q Are your teaahinga and instructions and lectures and

2 lessons published, ao as to be available to the general pub

1 0 called out In detail Its educational aim and object.

1 1 that aim carried out primarily as a school or oollege or as 1 2 a fraternal organization?

organization. the members,

are practical workers doing other things than study.

ship, to have those courses of study.

2 2 lessons are not available to the general puhllo.

They are loaned to them.

They are not given

books and instruction papers and return them to the organi