Judicial Council Decisions Search
Decision No. 168
May 01 1960
In Re: Re-Submission of the Rev. Blake Craft's Ap- peal to Answer Questions Raised in Decision No. 116
Digest of Case
Unmeritorious and untimely re-submission of appeal declined.
Statement of Facts
On July 20, 1955, the Judicial Council rendered Decision No. 116. On April 21, 1956, the Rev. Blake Craft wrote the Secretary of the Judicial Council to answer questions of law raised by two statements or rulings in the Judicial Council's Decision No. 116. On May 7, 1956, the Secretary wrote the Rev. Mr. Craft: "This matter was carefully considered by the Council and the Council directed the Secretary to advise you that Decision No. 116 rendered by the Council in July, 1955, was a final decision in accordance with the provisions of the 1952 Discipline and that the Council under the provisions of the Discipline can only consider matters and answer questions submitted to the Council under the provisions of some applicable provision of the Discipline." On March 21, 1960, the Rev. Mr. Craft, enclosing an eight-page "paper" wrote the Secretary of the Council: "I am enclosing a re-submission of my appeal to the Judicial Council, for an answer to questions it raised in its Decision No. 116. Ten (10) copies are furnished herein. It is my sincere hope that it will be admitted and considered. In my opinion it has legal merit, since the Judicial Council in Decision No. 116 stated that I was not triable under a section of law, which was the actual basis for constituting the trial jury which tried me. Furthermore, it could not be argued that it is now a moot question, since the matter of my pension for one year is involved. Thanking you, I am Sincerely yours, Blake Craft." The Rev. Mr. Craft's "paper" discusses the statements concerning Paragraphs 935, 936 and 937 of the 1952 Discipline contained in the Digest and sub-paragraph 4 in the Analysis and Findings of Decision No. 116.
Though there is no provision in the Discipline authorizing the Judicial Council to re-hear a case, since our decisions are "final," we are of the opinion, in a meritorious case where the request is made within a reasonable time after the decision is rendered, we should do so. We do not think this re-submission of appeal meritorious or timely, and accordingly decline to consider it.