Proceedings of the Grand Lodge of Illinois - University Library

Tuesday ? GRAND LODGE OF ILLINOIS, I. O. O. F. 2/9
Nov. 18, 1913. f
out intending to cast any reflections upon either the claimant or his
counsel, the failure on the part of the claimant to fix these dates
specifically, in our judgment, savors somewhat of "side stepping."
The testimony on the part of the Lodge establishes clearly to our
minds that the claimant, Paris Wilson, practically recovered from the
stroke of 1907, that is to say, he was in such physical condition that
no Lodge, in our opinion, would have paid him benefits from within a
month at least after his first stroke up to the time of his second stroke.
It is also clearly established to our minds from all of the evidence
in the case that the second stroke suffered by Paris Wilson was on the
9th day of October, 1908, at which time he was not beneficiary and
could not have become so until the expiration of thirteen weeks from
October 1st, 1908.
It is attempted to be shown by the statement of Mrs. Wilson that
the testimony of the two brothers, John and Price, and also of the
nephews, resulted from prejudice on account of the fact, as she states,
of there being bad feeling between the families. We cannot reconcile
ourselves to the conclusion that a man would be so depraved, no
matter what his feelings might be, that he would wilfully swear against
his brother or relative, especially in view of the fact of the wrecked
mental and physical condition of Paris Wilson at the time this testimony
was given. We do not deem it necessary to discuss the law
pertaining to this case, or the action of New Hope Lodge from the
fact that the evidence alone clearly convinces us that the claimant
has no right to recovery in this case.
It is therefore ordered that the action of New Hope Lodge in
rejecting said claim be sustained and that said appeal be and is hereby
dismissed.
CASE NO. 437.
W. E. P. ANDERSON,
HENRY PHILLIPS,
HENRY A. STONE,
OWEN SCOTT,
CHESTER M. TURNER,
Committee.
T. R. Davis, 1 Before Committee on Judiciary
vs. t and Appeals, February Ses-
Watson Lodge No. 321, I. O. O. F. \ sion, 1913.
Opinion by Brother Henry Phillips, of No. 16.
The contention in this case is that Watson Lodge No. 321, I. O. O.
F., is indebted to Bro. Davis for sick benefits. "The payment of weekly