Jasper County Democrat, Volume 11, Number 51, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 28 November 1908 — PEACOCK WINS OUT. [ARTICLE]

PEACOCK WINS OUT.

Grand Lodge K. of P. Reverses Ac- ’ tlon of Local Lodge. The Democrat has never considb ered it the province of a newspaper to jump onto a mjm whose actions or affairs were the subject of Investigation by the courts, or were pending in the courts, and find him guilty and hang him before the latter had been given a chance to pass judgment. The constitution of our land grants a man a free and Impartial trial by jury, no matter what crime he may be charged with, and until proved otherwise and declared guilty the presumption carries all along during the trial that he is Innocent. This paper has refrained from comment on the family troubles of Mr. and Mrs. Erastus Peacock, of this city. These matters were in the courts for adjudication, and we considered the courts amply able to determine on and decide the merits of the matters in controversy without our pointing the way.

There are usually two sides to all family jars, and possibly this one Is no exception. We have heard both sides to this controversy, but it is not our province to decide it—especially when the matter is a subject of court inquiry. One matter that has not been mentioned- through the press, however, which grew out of this trouble, was the action of the local lodge K. of P., in expelling Mr. Peacock from the lodge. This happened several months ago, and Peacock, who has been very prominent in K. of P. circles, took an appeal to the grand lodge. He is said to have made a few remarks to the lodge here about the time this action was taken, in which some of the members who so ardently espoused his expulsion were held up to the limelight in a way that was not very pleasing to them, and of course this did not cause them to feel that brotherly love for him that these orders are supposed to have a special long suit on. The appeal was heard by the proper tribunal at Indianapolis last Friday, Geo. A. Williams, Mr. Peacock’s attory, appearing for him, and Abe Halleck, Mrs. Peacock’s attorney, appearing fbr the lodge. This tribunal reversed the decision

of the local lodge and it is understood will order Peacock’s re-instate-ment as a member of the Rensselaer lodge, although the official ruling has not been received at this writing. This action would indicate that the local lodge had either acted hastily in the matter of expelling' the appellant, urged on possibly by personal enemies of his, or that the evidence on which they had arrived at the conclusion they did, was not worthy of the consideration given It by the local lodge. The decision of the grand lodge tribunal is a victory for Mr. Peacock In more ways than one.