AMORC Vs E. E. Thomas (1931) PDF

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
—o—
Department No. 40. Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge.

—o—
THE ANCIENT AND MYSTICAL ORDER

ROSAE CRUCIS, a corporation,
Plaintiff,
vs.
E. E. THOMAS, et al.,
Defendants
---o---
REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT
INDEX
EXHIBITS
Plaintiff’s Exhibit
1 ....................19
2 ...................22
3 ................... 23
4 ...................23
5 ...................92
6 ...................94
7 ...................96
8 ...................97
9 ...................97
10 .................98
11 .................99
12 ............... 100
13 for Ident.- 102
14 ......... 104-148
15 ................ 109
16 ................ 115
17 ................ 120
18 for Ident.- 124
19 ................ 129
20 ................ 138
21 ................ 144
22 ................ 149
23 ................ 150
24 for Ident.- 155
Defendants’ Exhibit
A ................... 62
B ................... 67
C for Ident.--135
D .................. 160
E ...................161
F .................. 165
G..................175
1
Monday, January 5, 1931; 10 o'clock a. m.
MR. MAYCOCK: This complaint is rather voluminous in its character, your

Honor, and I suppose for the first time now your Honor is made aware of the case,
so perhaps it would be well if I would briefly outline in a short opening statement
the position of the plaintiff in this matter.
The plaintiff, your Honor, please, is the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae
Crucis, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of California. It consists
of a grand lodge or supreme lodge and has various subordinate lodges, both in this
state and throughout the United States. I want your Honor to be sure and not
confuse this order with another order of Rosicrucian Brotherhood, which existed in
this locality and San Francisco immediately after the passage of the Eighteenth
Amendment. There is no connection whatever between this order and that one.
That other order, as your Honor will probably recall, has abandoned its charter, if it
ever had one. It seems to have been, according to the adjudication of the court,
instituted for the purpose of obtaining sacramental wine for beverage purposes.
There is no connection whatsoever between that organization and this. With that in
view, we will proceed to an analysis of the facts.
The Supreme Lodge of Rosae Crucis, of the Rosicrucian Order, as it is
commonly called, was established in Los
2
Angeles and a number of members joined that organization. On or about the 31st
day of May, 1929, and for a long time previous thereto, the defendant E. E.
Thomas was duly elected and approved as Master of this Hermes Lodge of Los
Angeles, a subordinate lodge of the Supreme Lodge. On or about the 31st of May
1929 all connection between E. E. Thomas and the other defendants and the
Rosicrucian Order was severed.
The Rosicrucian Order is a fraternal organization and operates on a purely
fraternal basis. It has certain principles and truths which it endeavors to inculcate
among its membership, and it has certain lectures on certain subjects, which are the
product of its own editorial staff and its own organization, and which are the
property of the supreme organization. These are given to the various subordinate
lodges for the purpose of instructing the members. The members are entitled to the
instruction contained in these lectures and courses, but have no property right
whatsoever in the lectures themselves. They belong to and are the property of the
Supreme Council.
As Master of Hermes Lodge in Los Angeles, the defendant Thomas and various
other defendants as members and officials were entrusted with all the records and
documents of the lodge, and with these lectures and courses, the property of the
Supreme Lodge. After severing all connection with the Supreme Order, these
defendant maintained a head
3
quarters in the old headquarters or lodge rooms of the order and maintained the
same telephone number and organized a new organization, using membership
cards, letterheads, certificates, receipts, of a kind and character and with certain
printing and set-up which sere startlingly similar to those of the Rosicrucian Order.
They also used as part of their stationery the word “Rosicrucian,” which has
become identified with the Amorc Order of America, and referred to the familiar
name by which the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae Crucis is designated
among its members, formed by the initials of the name.
This new organization, U. O. A. M., as they call themselves, before delivering up
the records, documents, paraphernalia, vestments, robes and lectures of the Amorc
organization, caused copies to be made of all the lectures in their possession, of all
the courses in their possession, and a copy of the membership list, which was
confidential in its character and the property of the Amorc order, and then
circularized the membership of the Amorc organization, and by lectures, by
interviews, by advertisements of it, by circular letters, set forth to the public at
large, and particularly to the members of Amorc, that they, while not connected
with the Supreme Order, were giving the true teachings just the same. It sent out a
circular letter, for instance, stating that they had compared their lectures with the
lectures of Amorc organization and that they were the same, word for word. That
infor
4
mation went out, not only in this community, but various other communities in this
state and in other states, with the result that there was a great loss of membership to
our organization, dissatisfaction among the members. The new organization sold
these lectures for a small price, fifteen cents, I understand; they were never for sale
before; and members who were paying their dues for the benefit of the order were
now confronted with the proposition that anybody on the street could now obtain
the same lectures verbatim upon the payment of fifteen cents, with the result that
this organization, the Amorc organization, was greatly damaged and harassed, has
suffered greatly in reputation, and in dissatisfaction among its own members
among the various lodges, and there seems to be no proper or possible relief save
that of injunctive relief.
When the case was originally tried a temporary injunction was granted in this
court and it has been in force for some time, over a year now, during the pendency
of this trial, and we are now asking that upon proof of these facts I have stated that
the injunction be made permanent; that an accounting be had of certain moneys
which were paid in by members of our organization and received by the other
organization, upon their books, our members not knowing that the change or
severance had taken place, and for damages suffered, and for general relief.
Now, the proof, your Honor, will be divided into three
5
main classifications: first, the use of a membership list obtained by the defendant
while in a confidential relationship with the plaintiff, in a manner unfair to the
plaintiff and for the benefit of a competing organization. In this regard we will
invoke the rule as laid down in California and elsewhere in those cases generally
referred to as unfair competition cases. The rule has been laid down in respect to
laundry list and ice lists and various other lists, and your Honor is familiar with
that long line of decisions. It is not contended that we have any patent or exclusive
right to the use of the word "Rosicrucian,” as a matter of law. We are contending,
however, in this respect, that because of the confidential relationship existing
between these defendants and this plaintiff whereby in that relation of confidence
they obtained this information, they are themselves estopped from the use of the
information so obtained, to the detriment of the person who trusted them.
The second classification of proof will be the use of distinguishing words and
symbols used by plaintiff over a long period of time and which are characteristic of
and by the public associated with plaintiffs organization, in a manner tending to
and which did deceive members of plaintiff order into the belief that the
defendants' order was associated with or connected with or a part of plaintiffs
order.
In that respect there is no necessity for the cita
6
tion of authorities. The famous Masonic and Odd Fellows cases throughout the
country have laid down the rule in that respect.
The third classification of proof will be the use of rituals, ceremonies,
distinctive robes, vestments, paraphernalia, lessons, lectures and teachings of
plaintiff which were entrusted to defendants while they were members of plaintiff
organization, for use in a competing organization, and for sale to the public and to
members of a competing organization.
Now, to recapitulate, we are not contending we have exclusive right to the use
of any paraphernalia or the word “Rosicrucian," or "Rosae Crucis,” as against the
general public. Your Honor is probably familiar with the fact yourself in Masonic
orders, and I understand it has been used in other orders in the past. But we are
contending that the defendants in this case are not strangers to the use of that word,
but having been associated with the organization wherein those words and those
lectures have been identified, they are by their confidential relationship with that
organization estopped from the use thereof. The particular vice of the defendants’
action in this case is based upon the fact that they were not merely business
associates and as such confidentially related to the plaintiff, but were members of a
secret fraternal organization and as such members had the property of the plaintiff
confided to their charge, under
7
conditions of particular solemnity and under promises by which they swore to hold
them inviolate. Under these circumstances it would appear the doctrine of
equitable estoppel would apply.
MR KEMPLEY: Your Honor, I think we can save a great deal of time of the court
by a brief statement from us. If one or two points involved in this litigation could
have been eliminated, to my mind there would have been no necessity for any trial
in court at this time. The defendants are not here contending they have any right to
the use of any membership list of the plaintiffs order, to use that list in any way
whatsoever. We recognize the fact that that list of membership, if it came to the
defendant Thomas at least by reason of his relation to the plaintiff order in this
case, came to him as an employee or in a confidential relation, — it doesn't make
any particular difference how we define it. Consequently we do not contend for
any right to use that membership list. We do not admit the various statements made
as to the activities of the defendant, but so far as I can see those activities have no
place in this trial, because we will be willing to enter into a stipulation right now
that we might be enjoined from that, so there is no necessity of trying that issue of
fact at all, except perhaps as to the question of damages. We don't admit we made
the use of it they contend.
So far as the second proposition advanced by counsel
8
is concerned, that is, the use of distinguishing symbols, labels, and so forth, this is
our position, and our position exactly, — that as to many of those symbols they
were used and in common use long before the plaintiff order was ever heard of.
That doesn't mean the plaintiff order can't adopt those symbols as insignia of its
order. They have been in common use in different shapes and forms. We don't
contend we have any right to the use of any of those symbols in such a way as to
mislead the public. In other words, just to take one of the symbols that is involved
in this notion, a winged globe, for example, we don't contend we have any right to
use the exact diagram used by the plaintiff to indicate its symbol, nor do we
contend vs have any right to use a diagram of that symbol so nearly similar to
plaintiffs as to mislead the public; but we do contend we can't be enjoined from
using a symbol that might be called a winged globe in some form or another,
because we contend the winged globe has been used for centuries before the
plaintiff order was ever even heard of. And what I say with respect to that I mean
with respect to all the other symbols involved in this case.
We will again offer to stipulate in open court that we may be enjoined from the
use of any symbol that is used by the plaintiff order in such a way as to mislead the
public, so identical in form or shape as to mislead the public and lead the public to
believe it is the plaintiff organization. So far as the ritual, robes and other
paraphernalia, that may
9
be connected with the plaintiff order, it is our contention we have never need them
as they were used as part of the plaintiff order, and that we have no desire to use
them in any way, shape or form, and consequently we are perfectly willing to be
enjoined so far as that part is concerned.
So far as the words "Rosae Crucis" or "Rosicrucian" is concerned, exactly the
same thing applies to that as applies to the symbol. What the plaintiff is attempting
to do is to enjoin us from using that word in any shape or form. That is the point of
misunderstanding apparently. And the same thing is true of the symbols, they are
attempting to prevent me from using them in any way, shape or form whatsoever.
That we contend we cannot be enjoined from doing, because the same thing is true
with regard to the words "Rosae Crucis” or "Rosicrucian" in its various forms as is
true of these symbols, it is a word in common use, in the common language. It is
used in hundreds of books. There are hundreds of orders that use the word
"Rosicrucian." In other words, it is a word that has been in common use for
centuries. It may be found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, and in the editions that
were issued before the plaintiff order was ever organized. Consequently we
contend that neither upon the theory of estoppel or any other theory can we be
enjoined from using that word. We do admit this, — any common word, “red,”
"black," or anything else — in other words, we can take half a dozen common,
ordinary words that nobody could
10
have a monopoly on and we can so arrange them as to designate our business, or

whatever we are doing, and I do admit that no other person can come and so
purposely use that same arrangement or an arrangement so similar as to deceive the
public. So far as that is concerned, we are perfectly willing to be enjoined to the
extent that we can't use a name so similar to plaintiffs name as to confuse or
mislead the public, whether the words contained in it are "Rosicrucian” or
whatever they may be.
With that statement, it seems to me that we may eliminate a great deal of the
evidence in this case. Just briefly, so we may have it before the court if counsel
cares to make any remarks in connection with it, we are perfectly willing that the
defendants be enjoined from making any use whatsoever of any list of members
that may be in their possession, from soliciting the members of plaintiffs orders, at
least those that were members at the time of this severance anyway; I don't know
that it should go any farther than that. However, we won't quibble over that
question. Or make any use of any list whatsoever.
We are perfectly willing to be enjoined from using any — I believe the plaintiff
claims to have one symbol that is copyrighted, but it doesn't make any difference
whether it is copyrighted or not so far as my offer is concerned, — we are perfectly
willing to agree that we may be enjoined from using any of the symbols or insignia
or labels that are re
11
ferred to in plaintiffs complaint in any form so as to mislead the public. We are

perfectly willing to be restrained from using the rituals or robes at all. We don't
have any desire to use them. We are perfectly willing to be enjoined from using the
word "Rosicrucian" or any combination of words in such a way as to mislead the
public; that is, in any form which would be so nearly identical with the name of the
plaintiff as to mislead the public.
MR ARAM: If the court will indulge me, I wish to make some short remarks.
My associate has covered the statement of the plaintiff, but in view of the
statement of counsel for the defendant I would like to add a few remarks. Counsel
speaks of the word "Rosicrucian" being found in dictionaries and encyclopedias.
So are all words that are used in any way of course referred to in books and
encyclopedias. That doesn't make them public property. Take, for instance, the
Masonic Order; their characteristic words are referred to in all books and
encyclopedias, but that doesn't give anybody a right to use them. My associate
made the remark that we do not claim we had exclusive right to the use is the word
"Rosicrucian." That means this, that that is not an issue in this case, whatever our
right may be as against others; we claim that whatever our proprietary right may
be, that is not in issue in this case, because this case is being tried on the ground of
violation of a confidential relation
12
ship, and therefore these defendants are absolutely estopped by well established
principles of law. We will further show during the trial that the right of the plaintiff
to the use of that word exclusively has been publicly acknowledged by the
defendant Thomas himself. There arises the question of estoppel again.
Now, as to counsel for the defendants' offer to be willing to be enjoined from
doing certain acts, my reaction to that is this. That is fine; that clarifies the issues
and saves the time of the court; but the defendants' offer to do equity comes after
over a year of the case being pending in court to be tried and during the meantime
the defendants continuing to do what we have complained of all the time. The
defendants could have come into court at the time the injunction was first heard
and offered to cease to do these things, instead of now coming into court and
saying this after all this damage has been done.
MR KEMPLEY: May I say, —I wasn't present at the time but I understand at

the time this original temporary injunction was made really as a matter of
agreement between the parties; and so far as violation subsequent to that time, we
are not here on any contempt proceedings. Counsel for plaintiff have had an
opportunity during that year, if we have been violating it, to cite us into court for
contempt. Counsel knows we had this same question up before when we were
attempting to take a deposition. We have always been
13
willing to that, but they don't want to stop at that point. They don't want us to use
the word “Rosicrucian" or any of those things in any way, shape or form. We are
not attempting to deceive the public and are willing to be restrained from doing
that.
THE COURT: Proceed.
— o—
HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS, called as a witness on behalf of

the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: What is your name?
THE WITNESS: Harvey Spencer Lewis.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR HAYCOCK:
Q Mr Lewis, what is your business or occupation at this time?
A I am the chief executive of the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae
Crucis.
Q Is that a corporation?
A Yes.
Q Incorporated under the laws of what state? Under the laws of what state was
it organized?
A The State of California.
Q Does it consist of one or more lodges?
A A great many, scattered throughout the United States.
14
Q Is there a Supreme Lodge?

A Yes.
Q And subordinate lodges?
A Yes
Q Where is the Supreme Lodge located?
A At San Jose California.
Q So you know whether or not the Ancient and Mystical Order of Rosae
Crucis has an abbreviated name by which it is designated among its members?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A Amorc, composed of the initials of the name.
MR MAYCOCK: May it be stipulated hereafter in the trial the use of the word
"Amorc” can be used to designate the plaintiff?
MRKEMPLEY: Surely, no objection.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: do you know approximately the number of members
in America, in the United States?
A Well, without having the latest records of the various lodges throughout the
country, I can only give a very conservative approximate membership of about
30,000.
Q Do you know whether or not throughout the State of California and
elsewhere the public at large has a common name by which the members of Amorc
are designated?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
calling for the conclusion and opinion of the
15
witness.
THE COURT: Objection overruled.
A Yes.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: What is that name?
A Rosicrucian Order.
Q And the members of it are commonly known and referred to as what?
A Rosicrucians.
Q You have heard this Amorc Order so designated?
A Oh, yes, in all magazine articles that are written about it, newspaper
comments and public lectures.
Q You state a conservative estimate of your membership in the United States
is 30.000?
A Yes.
Q From what classes in American society are your members drawn?
A Mostly from professional life, such as school teachers, university professors,
physicians of various schools, lawyers, judges, newspaper men, magazine writers;
and then in scientific fields, and especially those in industrial and experimental
fields of chemistry, physics, electricity, and in the arts. Recent statistics show
about 62 per cent of our members throughout the country are students in colleges
or graduates of colleges and universities, having degrees.
Q As chief executive head of the Amorc Order, you are familiar with the aim
and object of that order, are you not?
16
A Yes.
Q State what its aims and objects are.
A The objects and efforts or the objectives of the organization come really
under two classifications; first, the spiritual or ethical and moral improvement of
the individual in his personal and intimate affairs of life; and, secondly, the
advancement of his interests and efforts in either his vocation or avocation, so that
he as a scientist or teacher or experimenter in science can improve himself in them
through contact with our research bureaus and our research work, such as the work
of excavations in Egypt, which we have supported, and other scientific expeditions
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 you endeavor to pursue the objects; what is your
method or means of inculcating your objectives?
A There are graded courses of instruction of various kinds covering many
subjects, and a person after being admitted into the organization, they are classified
according to their interests and their vocations and their desire to improve along
certain lines, and they are given the necessary or desired instructions and guidance
in graded, weekly manuscript instruction, plus correspondence and personal
advice, either by mail or in our local branches in the principal cities, or
combinations of both.
17
Q Are your teachings and instructions and lectures and lessons published, so
as to be available to the general public?
A No.
Q To whom are they entrusted?
A Only to the members of the organization. In order to receive these
instructions the person must be an initiated, qualified member of the organization.
Q In stating the aims and objects of the order, you called out in detail its
educational aim and object. Is that aim carried out primarily as a school or college
or as a fraternal organization?
A No, the Rosicrucian Order is essentially a fraternal organization. Its courses
of instruction are available to the members. Not all the members are students; some
of them are practical workers doing other things than study. Those who want to
take courses of study can have them without any additional cost. That is one of the
privileges of membership, to have those courses of study. It is a fraternal
organization with college work as one of the activities.
Q And you say, I believe, that the instructions and lessons are not available to
the general public.
A No, they are not.
Q Does your organization sell these lectures or lessons to its members?
A Not at all. They are given free to those who want them;
18
the lessons and everything necessary to study them are furnished them as part of
their membership dues, if they want them. They are loaned to them. They are not
given to them to possess, but they all agree to return them in case of resignation
from the order or going into foreign lands where they can't take care of them; to
send back all books and instruction papers and return them to the organization.
Q Then, in whom does title to the various manuscripts containing the lessons
reside?
Q MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
calling for the conclusion of the witness.
A To the organization.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Now, can any member receive any lesson or lecture
which he desires at any time?
A If he is a member and la qualified and has taken the lessons in their
progressive form. He can’t go ahead of his studies; he can't jump about in them.
Q They are given to him, then, progressively?
A Progressively.
Q Is Amorc a religious or sectarian order or cult?
A Not at all. There are persons of every denomination and religious belief,
Buddhists, Mohammedans, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant, all classes, and
religious doctrines have no bearing upon the fundamental teachings or our
principles
19
and work at all.

Q On or about the 31st of May, 1929, was the defendant E. E. Thomas a duly
elected and approved Master of Hermes Lodge in Los Angeles, State of California?
A Yes.
Q And that Hermes Lodge was a subordinate lodge of the Amorc Order, was
it not?
A Yes.
Q By what authority did that lodge exist?
A By a charter granted by the Supreme Council and Supreme Lodge.
Q I show you a document which is headed "Ancient and Mystical Order of
Rosae Crucis of North America,” signed by H. Spencer Lewis, Imperator for North
America," and upon which the signature of E. E. Thomas is purported to be
affixed, and ask you what that is.
A This is the original charter granted to Hermes Lodge No. 41, and Mr
Thomas, on the 25th of December, 1926.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that that be admitted in evidence.
THE COURT: It may be received and marked an exhibit.
(Said charter was received and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 1).
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Defendant E. E. Thomas was master of the lodge,
you stated, from the date of the charter up to May 31st, 1929?
A That Is right.
Q And as such master of such subordinate lodge, was he entrusted with any
property belonging to Amorc?
20
A Yes.
Q State what it was.
A He was entrusted with official copies of all the secret rituals, copies of all
official lectures, all confidential instructions and guidance and methods of
conducting the lodge so as to conform to the standard regulations, and contacts
with our various research and welfare departments and methods of deriving the
benefit of all our activities.
Q For what purpose was he entrusted with this property?
A In order that he might operate his lodge in accordance with our constitution
and regulations and conform with all other lodges.
Q In entrusting this property to him, did you, or not, rely upon him as master
of this subordinate lodge to use it in the secret and confidential manner for which it
was intended?
A Absolutely.
Q Did you at that time believe the defendant E. E. Thomas would so use it?
A MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as immaterial; in view of our offer to
stipulate, it seems to me it may be taken as true. This is to save the time of the
court.
MR MAYCOCK: In answer to that, may I not state that it is not the plaintiffs
or plaintiffs counsel’s wish to prolong this trial, or to take up the time of the busy
court in
21
going over matters which are not germane, tot this is the situation: he has only
stipulated as to certain of our complaints, not to all of them. As to all of them, it is
necessary to allow for the proper development of this case and the foundation of
the confidential relationship, the relationship of trust and faith that was placed in
the defendants; in order for us to prevail in those matters therein he has not
stipulated, it is necessary for us to be as complete in the proof as though no offer
was made. However, if counsel is willing to stipulate the temporary injunction now
in force may continue in force, we would have something that would assist us in
arriving at a determination of this litigation. But to make a partial offer and then as
a means of presenting or suggesting bad faith or something of that sort in the
presentation 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 which we
believe we are entitled to, proceed with the orderly development of our case.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. You may answer the question.
A I had absolute faith in his promises being fulfilled.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: You state "in his promises." Had he ever given you
any assurances as to the manner or faithfulness with which he would act in his
capacity as a member of Amorc?
A He was already a member of the organization and had
22
already made certain obligations and promises before he was elected master, and
had also signed an officers' oath after being elected master.
Q I show you a document entitled "American Pronunziamento Number 118,"
purporting to be an officers' oath and agreement, by which certain officers have
signed, included among which is E. E. Thomas — This is stipulated, I believe, by
counsel, to be E. E. Thomas’s signature appearing at the bottom of this document.
MR KEMPLEY: So stipulated.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: I will ask you what that document is.
A An official officers' oath and agreement sent to every elected group of
officers of every duly chartered lodge to sign in the presence of each other.
MR MAYCOCK: This document is offered in evidence as plaintiffs next
exhibit.
THE COURT: Let it be received and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 2. (Said
Officers' Oath and Agreement marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 2.)
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: I show you a document entitled "Neophyte's Great
Oath,” signed by E. E. Thomas — and it is stipulated by counsel for the defendant
E. E. Thomas that that is his signature. I will ask you what that document is.
A That is copy of the official oath or obligation or agreement that each new
member makes and signs on the occasion
23
of his admission into the organization.

MR MAYCOCK: I ask that that be admitted in evidence and marked with the
appropriate designation.
THE COURT: Resolved in evidence and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.
(Neophyte's Oath received and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 3.)
Q BY MR HAYCOCK: I show you an application blank upon which
appears the stipulated signature of E. E. Thomas, dated August 17, 1926, and ask
you what that is.
A This is the original application blank filed, filled out and signed by Mr
Thomas at the time he made application for membership in the order.
MS MAYCOCK: We ask that this be received in evidence and marked as
plaintiffs exhibit next in order.
THE COURT: Received as Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.
(Application Blank received and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 4.)
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: From the time of the taking of the neophyte's oath
which is referred to as Plaintiffs Exhibit 3 in evidence, until all his connection with
the Amorc Order was severed on May 31st, 1929, was he during that interim at all
times a member of the Amorc Order?
A He was.
Q I believe you stated that all connection between the defendant E. E.
Thomas and the Amorc Order was severed on May 31st, 1929.
24
A Yes.
Q And the connection between the Amorc Order and the remaining defendants
was severed at the same time?
A Yes.
Q Did your subordinate lodge known aa Hermes Lodge in Los Angeles keep
written records of its proceedings?
A We presume it did, and instructed them to do so.
Q Did it keep a roster or list of its members?
A Yes.
Q Was this roster or membership list the property of the subordinate lodge or
of the Supreme Lodge?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
calling for a conclusion of the witness. That is for the court to determine.
THE COURT: You may answer the question, if you know.
A The list of members belongs to the Supreme Lodge.
BY MR HAYCOCK: Now, is your membership list a list which is open to
observation of the general public, or is it private and confidential in character?
A Private and confidential in character.
Q To whom was that list entrusted in Los Angeles?
A To the master of the lodge.
Q And that is the defendant E. E. Thomas?
A E. E. Thomas.
Q Do you know to what use that membership list was placed by the defendants
after their connection with the
25
Amorc was severed?

A Yes.
Q State what was done.
A It was used to circularize the members with letters and announcements that
the work of the organization would continue just the same; to solicit their support,
their dues; and it was also used to send out printed matter similar to that which we
had issued, announcing new lectures of our own use, our own kind, and under
different circumstances and different dates, and in general the list was used week
after week for a long time to upset our members with a complication of statements
regarding the activities of the organization and so on.
Q Now, what was the effect of that use by the defendants upon Amorc?
A In the first place, we lost a great many members, because the change of
attitude in the announcements by saying they would continue to use the same, even
though we had withdrawn the charter, and to say that initiations would be held
under different circumstances, —members began to leave the 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. And newspaper publicity began to result,
magazine articles,
26
and things that were humiliating and even very injurious, and in various ways to
the effect that there was a split in the organization, or two organizations, or
something of that kind.
Q As the supreme head of the organization in America, I believe you stated you
entrusted to E. E. Thomas as Master of Hermes Lodge, certain lectures.
A Yes.
Q Did you entrust him with the lectures designated "Preliminary Grade Lectures,
Grade Nos. 1 to 10, inclusive"?
A Yes.
Q Each one of those grades consists of more than one lecture, does it not?
A Some have twelve to fifteen, and some have forty, and some have one
hundred lectures the grade.
Q Did you entrust him with certain supplementary courses of lectures, familiarly
designated as "Arcane Cosmology," "Arcane Philosophy," "Rosicrucian Analytical
Discussions," and "Bible Class Lectures"?
A Yes.
Q And for what use were they entrusted to him?
A In order to aid him and the officers to carry on and conduct the lodge in
conformity with the charter and constitution,
Q Now, on or about the 31st of May, 1929, what was the approximate
membership in the Amorc Order in Los Angeles and
27
environs?
A Well, in the environs of Los Angeles probably 1000 members.
Q And what is the membership in the organization now in the same territory?
A Well, it is now less than half of that. It dropped down to about 150.
Q What was the amount of membership dues per month from each member?
A $2 a month.
Q These lectures and supplementary courses which you have testified to, were
they the property of Amorc?
A Yes.
Q By whom were they prepared?
A By the official editorial board and research bureau.
Q And all these lectures and courses which you have testified to came into the
possession of the defendant E. E. Thomas while he was master of the subordinate
Amorc lodge in Los Angeles?
A Some came to him as a member before he was elected master, and others
came to him, especially the more confidential ones regarding the conduct of the
lodge and the higher 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
Ancient Mysteries?
28
A Yes, it flashed through my mind for a few days; it had a short period on my
consciousness.
Q Do you know by whom it was formed?
A Yes, I was informed by Mr Thomas that he had formed it.
Q Do you know whether or not its leaders designated it orally, in published
lectures and in newspaper adverting and on its letterheads, as a Rosicrucian order?
A Yes, I saw the advertisements and circular matter issued by them stating it
was a Rosicrucian organization.
MR KEMPLEY: We object to the answer as not the best evidence; as incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: Objection sustained unless you know of your own knowledge.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: The question is: Do you know?
THE COURT: Answer "Yes" or "No."
A Yes.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Do you know of your own knowledge whether or not
that is true?
A Through literature coming from that address to me.
Q And did that so designate it?
A Yes.
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and from
the witness's own statement it is unquestionably hearsay and not the best evidence.
MR MAYCOCK: There is a presumption of law which assists
29
us in this case, and that is, when a pamphlet or document or letterhead comes from
an address of a certain organization it is purported to be sent out by that
organization, and if it is not, it is a matter that positive evidence and reputation can
contradict, but it is a presumption nevertheless. Were it not so, it would be
impossible for any individual ever to tell where a letter came from.
THE COURT: Objection sustained.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Did you ever receive any letters purporting to come
from the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries?
A Yes.
Q Do you know what the address of the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries
was immediately after its formation?
A Yes.
Q What was it?
A The same address on Hill Street that our lodge had had there.
Q Do you know what its telephone number was immediately after its
organization?
A The same telephone number we had used for our lodge there.
Q Do you know whether or not the use of the designation "Rosicrucian” as
applying to the new organization by E. E. Thomas and the other defendants misled
certain members of Amorc and the public as to a connection between the new
30
organization and your order?

MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as assuming facts not in evidence and calling for
the opinion and conclusion of the witness, as to what effect it had on somebody
else’s mind.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Mr Lewis, you stated that the conduct of the defendants
in the use of your membership list, lectures and so forth, was damaging to your
organization, did you not?
A Yes.
Q Will you state wherein that damage occurred?
A In the first place, in the loss of members, reducing the income from them for
many months, not only in Los Angeles 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 members were resigning because
of it.
MR KEMPLEY: We ask that the last part of the answer be stricken as hearsay and
a conclusion.
THE COURT: It will be stricken out.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Continue to relate wherein Amorc was damaged by the
activity of these defendants.
A The reputation of the organization was affected through the reports coming to
us.
MS KEMPLEY: We move that be stricken as incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial and a conclusion of the witness. I didn't assume that was the kind of
answer that was called for
31
by the question. If it was, I move the answer be stricken out and we be given an
opportunity to object to the question.
THE COURT: It may be stricken out.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: What, if anything, did you do to combat the inroads
of these defendants on your membership?
A We had to come down here and hold meetings in this city. We had to issue
letters and confidential instructions to every member what to do and what not to
do, in order that he might not lose his standing in the organization. And we had to
answer many letters day after day from inquirers and persons who wrote to us
saying they had come in contact with confused conditions. And we had to send
representatives down here to try to hold the organization in Southern California
together.
Q Does your organization do any advertising for additional members?
A Yes, we use the newspapers and magazines, scientific publications and the
radio for public matter and information that is of a helpful nature, to show what the
organization has to offer, to solicit applications for new members.
Q About what was the monthly expenditure of your organization in that regard?
A Between four to six thousand dollars a month.
MR MAYCOCK: Take the witness.
32
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q When did you organize your corporation, Mr Lewis?
A When did I organize the corporation?
Q You testified the plaintiff was a corporation organized in California.
A Some years ago. I don’t remember the exact date.
Q Well, about when?
A Around 1918 or 1919.
Q It was organized in 1918 or 1919. Have you maintained your headquarters here
continuously ever since?
A We had our headquarters for a period of two years in Florida.
Q Tampa, Florida?
A Yes.
Q You had it for a while in San Francisco?
A Yes, for seven or eight years in San Francisco.
Q That is where your corporation was organized, in San Francisco, wasn't it?
A I believe so, yes.
Q Do you know?
A Yes.
Q How many members do you have now?
A We have approximately 30,000.
Q In the United States?
A Coming under our jurisdiction, yes.
33
Q In the United States?

A No, some members are living in different cities out of the United States,
moving around, traveling.
Q About how many do you have in the United States?
A I cannot tell that without going through the records and separating them by
cities.
Q I am not asking you how many you have in any particular city, but how
many you have in the United States.
A I can't tell that.
Q You can't tell?
A We have on our records 30,000 members approximately. Whether all of
them are actually in the United States at the present time or a portion of them in
Canada and Mexico, I cannot tell.
Q Now, Doctor Lewis, 1 think you understand what I mean by members in
the United States. I don't mean they may not be traveling or temporarily absent; I
mean members that joined your organization through your main headquarters or
some of your subordinate lodges within the United States of America; how many
members have you?
A Confining it to those who joined in the United States alone, and not
including Canada and Mexico, would probably reduce it to 20,000.
Q You have about 10,000, then, in Canada and Mexico?
A Outside of those.
Q Do you have any any place else?
34
A Porto Rico and Central American states.

Q How many members do you have in Porto Rico or Central American states?
A I cannot tell.
MR HAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
outside the issues.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. It is asked and answered.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You know the word "Rosicrucian" is used to designate
other orders besides your own, don't you?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
beyond the issues in this case. We are not claiming, as stated in our opening
statement, that we have any proprietary right, as far as the issues of this case are
concerned, to the use of the word “Rosicrucian.” We merely contend these
defendants are estopped from the use of it to the detriment of the Amorc Order.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Answer the question.
A There are some study groups and organizations using the term.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Don't you know there are some well-defined
organizations that have been in existence several years using the word
"Rosicrucian” right here in the State of California?
MR MAYCOCK: Same objection. There is nothing in the pleadings, nothing in
the complaint —and the answer is merely a general denial—which brings into
issue the question
35
whether or not other organizations in other countries or in this country have a right
to the use of the word “Rosicrucian.” All we are contending for in this case, and all
your Honor has before you as germane to these proceedings, is whether or not the
relationship of these particular individuals, some five or six, was such that they
should be prohibited from the use of it, due to the confidential relationship they
sustained toward the plaintiff in this action. Therefore any inquiry as to the right of
other individuals to the use of the name, or whether it was used by other
individuals, or whether it was common property, is not germane to this issue, and
is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
MR MAYCOCK: May I have the general objection, then, so that I will not have
to go through with that, to each one of these questions, referring to the use of the
word "Rosicrucian” by other individuals than the parties to this action?
THE COURT: Very well. Answer the question, if you know.
MR KEMPLEY: Please read the question, Mr Reporter.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Don't you know there are
some well-defined organizations that have been in existence several years using the
word 'Rosicrucian” right here in the State of California?")
A Yes, there is one.
Q What one do you refer to?
A Rosicrucian Fellowship.
36
Q At Oceanside?
A At Oceanside.
Q It has been used by other organizations in the state, has it not, the word
"Rosicrucian”?
A Not to my knowledge.
Q That is the only one you know of that has used it in this state?
A Yes.
Q You know it has been used in the United States by many other organizations?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the same grounds. I wish to appear at two
o’clock for the purpose of renewing my argument, with citations of authority on
the matter your Honor has just ruled upon, and I think, therefore, since it is going
to be a question of law that we will argue at two o’clock we would save time by a
cessation of testimony at this time, because all of it is going to be subject to your
Honor's ruling after hearing the citation of authority we wish to present to you. I
think the trial will be speeded and a more clear exposition of the issues had by
taking an adjournment during the remaining nineteen minutes of the morning
session.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Motion to adjourn denied.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "You know it has been used
in the United States by many other organizations?")
37
A No, I don’t know that.

Q You know it has been used by some other organizations in the United States at
least, do you not?
A By a few.
Q It is being used at the present time by other organizations in the United States,
is it not?
A By one or two, yes.
Q They are all generally referred to as Rosicrucian orders, are they not?
A No.
Q What are they referred to as?
A Well, the Rosicrucian Brotherhood calls itself a Rosicrucian Fellowship.
Q That is referred to as a Rosicrucian order, is it not?
A No.
Q What does the word "Rosicrucian" mean?
A It means "Of the Rosy Cross."
Q That is the way you spell the name "Rosicrucian" means "Of the Rosy
Cross”?
A Well, the word "Rosicrucian" is a Latin word and can only mean what it
means in Latin.
Q How do you spell the word "Rosicrucian" or "Rosae Crucis,” as used in the
name of your order?
A In the corporate name it is used as "Rosae Crucis."
Q Isn't that the only way you use it?
A No, when we are speaking of the order we use it as
38
“Rosicrucian” which is an Anglicized form of "Rosae Crucis," meaning “Of the

Rosy Cross” in the same way.
Q But you used the word "Rosae” in your name?
A R-o-s-a-e, that is pronounced "Rosi." Anglicized, it is spelled R-o-s-i.
Q You have studied Latin, have you?
A Some.
Q What is the gender of the Latin word for "cross”?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
BY MR KEMPLEY: How many members did you have in Los Angeles prior to
this difficulty?
A In and around Los Angeles, in the environs, I said approximately 1000.
Q And approximately how many have you now?
A Perhaps a little less than 500.
Q What do you mean by "Los Angeles” in your answer to that question? Do you
mean the city of Low Angeles and the county?
A The county and outlying districts.
Q Those districts immediately adjacent to the county?
A To the county.
Q And you don’t have to exceed 500 members now?
A No.
Q Have you made any examination of your records in that
39
connection?
A A month or so ago.
Q Now, how much do these members pay?
A On the average $2 a month for dues. There is sometime a little slight
difference; if in the lodge they are paying a little excessive rent or trying to make
some improvement, they may all pay a little more, for instance $2.25 a month, for
a while, to make up whatever funds they wish to raise.
Q What is voluntary?
A It may be, or it may be by vote, a raising of dues to $2.25 or something of that
sort.
Q So whom do they pay that money?
A So the secretary or treasurer of the lodge.
Q By the way, is your corporation a private corporation or a non-profit
corporation?
A A non-profit corporation.
Q Where is your principal place of business?
A San Jose, California.
Q That is the principal place of business designated in your articles of
incorporation, is it?
A Yes.
Q Just to go back to this name a little, do you know where the name
"Rosicrucian” originated?
beyond the issues of the case.
40
THE COURT: You may answer the question, if you know. Objection overruled.
A I know only what the Rosicrucian records and history say of it.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You have read histories using the word "Rosicrucian" in
one form or another, that were written and published prior to the organization of
your order, have you not?
A Yes, I have.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You know the word has been used for many centuries, as
a matter of fact?
A Ever since the order was founded.
Q Of course you don't know when the order was founded?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent and improper cross-examination.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Doctor, what, in a general way, are the teachings of your
Rosicrucian Order? That is, I mean by that to designate whether religious,
philosophical, scientific or what.
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. What
the teachings are is not in issue in this litigation. The question is whether the
teachings have been
41
used by these particular individuals in an improper manner and whether they ought
to be enjoined from their further use.
THE COURT: You went into it on direct examination.
MR MAYCOCK: I went into the purposes of it. I didn't go into its teachings,
what its teachings are.
MR MAYCOCK: I will advise my client at this time that if in his opinion the
answer to that question would involve a recital of any secret or confidential work
of your secret organization, you don't have to answer the question. I wish the court,
so I would not be asking my client to disregard the ruling of the court, would so
instruct the witness.
THE COURT: You mean in a general way, I suppose, by your question.
MR KEMPLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Doctor, what, in a general
way, are the teachings of your Rosicrucian Order? That is, I mean by that to
designate whether religious, philosophical, scientific, or what.")
MR MAYCOCK: There is no objection to that question.
A Philosophical and scientific.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You claim these lessons express scientific and
philosophical truths, do you, Doctor?
A Yes.
Q You stated they were prepared by your editorial board.
42
Who prepares them?

A By men and women who are experts in their various fields of study and
research. Who have worked together for years in compiling, revising, modifying
and working on these lectures.
BY MR KEMPLEY: Who are these men and women?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, as to
who collaborated in the preparation of the lectures. I can't see anything germane to
this inquiry in that question. I would like to have counsel indicate where 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 KEMPLEY: They claim they own them, that they are prepared by an
editorial board. We certainly are not bound by 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?
MR ARAM: The chief vice is, it consumes the time of the court and litigants, if it
is immaterial.
THE COURT: What you want to know is the members of this particular board?
43
MR KEMPLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: Obj ection overruled.
A In the first place the foundation of the lectures and instructions are from
original manuscripts of the Rosicrucian Order of Europe.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: The foundation, you say?
MR HAYCOCK: I would like it understood that all questions pertaining to the
editorial staff and the source of the lectures be subject to the general objection that
they are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and beyond the issues of this case.
THE COURT: Very well.
A These were revised and worked upon by specialists, such as those dealing
with music and harmonics, by H. Maurice Jacquet, the composer, and a man by the
name of Earl Purill, who was an expert in harmonics of music. In our chemistry
work, such an editorial collaborator was Doctor Froelich, of New York.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: 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 name actually assisted in the preparation of these lessons
you refer to?
A. In the continued revising and modification of them to keep them up to date.
Q These people you are giving the names of actually did
44
personally assist in the preparation of them?

A By reviewing them and sending us new versions to help us in their preparation.
Q Go ahead.
A Then there is, in electricity, James Rock, of New York; in biology, Doctor
Wilfred Peters assisted; in the principle of physics we have been assisted by Mr
Charles Dean of San Francisco, and by Mr Leon Batchelor and others, I can't recall
all of the names now.
Q Well, so far you have dealt almost entirely with matters purely of a scientific
nature, unless it might be music of an artistic nature. I understood these lectures
were principally philosophic.
A No, not principally.
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as assuming a fact not in evidence
THE COURT: I think we will take a recess at this time until two o'clock.
(Whereupon a recess was taken until two o'clock p. m. of the same day.)
— 0 — -
45
Monday, January 5, 1931; 2 o'clock p. m.
HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS resumed the stand.

CROSS-EXAMINATION continued
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q The lessons are of a philosophic nature partly?
A Yes.
Q Who are or who is the author of the philosophical part of the lectures?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial; second, it is improper cross-examination, the matter not having been
gone into on direct examination. The only issues that are before the court are the
issues of whether or not these particular defendants stood in a confidential
relationship with this plaintiff 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 involved. They are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. 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, but will rely upon my original
objection for the purpose of the record. I will state to your Honor, however, for
whatever persuasive force it may have, this particular question in this particular
46
case has already been gone into in the matter of the depositions. The particular
questions 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 of the Superior Court of the State of
California, that it is not binding upon your Honor in the sense that a decision of the
Supreme Court or Appellate Court would be, as determinative of your action or
ruling here. I am only stating it to your Honor for what such persuasive effect as it
may have upon the court, seeing that the matter has already been fully argued and a
ruling on behalf of the plaintiff herein obtained upon the precise question involved.
THE COURT: I agree with you as to the materiality, but it is a matter you
brought out on direct examination, as to these people who wrote these different
articles. That is the reason I am allowing it to be answered on cross-examination,
and the only reason.
MR MAYCOCK: Your 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 and it was the result of their editorial staff. But that 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
47
end to litigation if that is the rule. The precise point elicited by my question was
going to the question of whether or not it was the property of this plaintiff and
whether or not it was the work of this plaintiff or individuals under its supervision
or control. That was the only purpose, to show the property right, and not for the
purpose of indicating who they were nor where they were spread over the face of
the globe. Therefore, with all due respect to your Honor, I think the matter was not
gone into in direct examination in the sense that it would permit an inquiry lasting
over a long period of time as to the names and addresses and contributions of
everyone who may at one time or another have assisted in the compilation of the
series of lectures. That is the point.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Who are or who is the author
of the philosophical part of the lectures?” )
A That I do not know. The philosophical part of the Rosicrucian teachings have
come down from antiquity in secret manuscripts, even signed with just symbolical
initials or marks.
Q You mean the exact wording in your lectures which you claim these
defendants have used are translations or exact translations of these ancient
writings?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, improper
cross-examination, not gone into on
48
direct examination.
A As close as translations into the English language can make them.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: What language were the original documents written in?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, and not
proper cross-examination, and not gone into on direct examination.
MR KEMPLEY: I am not going to pursue it very far, but I think some of this
may have a bearing, may be very enlightening to the court.
MR MAYCOCK: That is the point; they are endeavoring in this action to air
matters not within the issues in this case for the purpose, as he has stated, of
assisting other individuals to commit 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 action.
MR KEMPLEY: I think counsel's zeal is not because the plaintiff believes some
others may commit depredations, but rather because they do not wish to have
before the court the explanation this witness has previously made, which he could
not very well change at this time.
MR MAYCOCK: If it is something that is not in evidence and can't be placed in
evidence, I object to it being argued
49
before the court.

MR KEMPLEY: One of the questions in a court of equity is the plaintiff coming
into court with clean hands.
MR MAYCOCK: On that point, the exact matter was decided in the case of John
Manufacturing Company of Missouri v. U. S. McClellan and others, decided in
August last year, which was a case arising out of this court, and I believe this
department of this court. I believe Judge Crawford decided the question in
accordance with the theory of the defendants' action here, or defense; that was, that
a person coming into equity had to come in with clean hands. In that case Judge
Crawford permitted a whole line of testimony not at all germane to the issue,
tending to show in other respects the defendants had not been moral in their
conduct 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 particular section, and has nothing to do with the general conduct
of the parties litigant as to other actions. In other words, it must be germane to the
inquiry before the court, or the doctrine of clean hands does not apply.
MR KEMPLEY: I don't dispute that.
MR MAYCOCK: Then what have we here? We have an admitted
50
going afield for the purpose of showing other people may be interested in whether
or not this plaintiff has the right to the use of the word “Rosicrucian," on the
ground, as he now states, the doctrine of coming into equity with clean hands
might appeal to your Honor. Therefore he is committing the vice complained of
and overruled in that case; that is, he is asking a lot of collateral matters to be
considered by the court for the purpose of establishing want of such equitable
conduct on the part of the plaintiff that they can claim equitable relief; and that has
been directly overruled by the court, and in a number of other cases cited in this
case.
MR KEMPLEY: We have no dispute at all that purely collateral matters cannot be
gone into; that is, what a man's morals may have been, except his acts in direct
connection with the question in litigation. Those matters are pertinent, and it is a
vital question whether the man comes in with clean hands or not.
I offered at the very inception of this case to stipulate that we were willing for
the court to enjoin us from using these lectures or anything of this kind. I objected
to questions along that line because I felt that by reason of our stipulation we had
obviated that issue. Counsel did not see fit to accept that stipulation. They
attempted to prove those things were the property of this organization. Literary
products can only be the property of
51
an organization by copyright or by possession. Now, when they come to prove

their literary right by reason of possession of the article, 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 accept his statement that "it was composed by our editorial staff
without asking him who the editorial staff is? I think your Honor has ruled that we
have not.
MR MAYCOCK: Counsel has, I believe, by inadvertence, misstated the law. He
states as to collateral issues he agrees with me, but that is not the ruling of the
Supreme Court. The question is whether or not, as between the parties to this
particular litigation, this particular plaintiff has acted so inequitably toward these
defendants that he can't ask equitable relief from them. That is the law as laid down
in these decisions. The case itself is a direct refutation of the defendants'
contention. In this case they were complaining of the use of certain labels, saying it
was unfair competition to use them — no question of copyright or patent involved;
that it was unfair competition. The defendants in that case, acting under the theory
of a defense of not coming into equity with clean hands, appeared and brought in
evidence to show these particular labels had described the goods improperly, and
that the defendants themselves, because of the improper label, had been subject to
fines in the Federal Court, and subject
52
to criminal proceedings, and therefore had not done justice or equity concerning
those labels to such an extent as would permit them to claim a property right in
them in this litigation. And the court said, "We are not interested in the labels; that
is not the question. The question is as between these two individuals, the plaintiff
and defendant, concerning the matter under inquiry as to whether the plaintiff in
his conduct 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. We have done that by the statement that it was the result of
our own editorial staff and its research work and collaboration. It 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 or not we are coming into a
court of equity with clean hands on a purely collateral matter.
I renew, if your Honor please, the objection.
THE COURT: Obj ection overruled.

MR KEMPLEY: Read the question, Mr Reporter.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "What language were the
original documents written in?")
53
A Some were in French; most of them were in English, in abbreviated or coded

form. Some were in German; some parts in Latin; some in hieroglyphics.
Q Do you mean Egyptian hieroglyphics?
A No, typical Rosicrucian hieroglyphics.
Q And were these articles dated?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not
proper cross-examination.
A A few were dated, yes. I am not quite sure how many, nor what dates were on
them.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You don't know what dates or what ones were dated?
A No.
MR MAYCOCK: I object to the question on the ground it is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial and not proper cross-examination, and not within the
issues in the case.
THE COURT: It has been asked and answered.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that the answer be stricken for the purpose 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: Now, your Honor, please, I am presuming your Honor is going
to overrule my objection. Is that correct?
THE COURT: The court will sustain the objection on the
54
ground it has been asked and answered in the former question.

Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Who translated those articles you stated were in
hieroglyphics?
MR HAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and not
proper cross-examination, and not within the issues in the case.
A Various translators that I engaged in a confidential capacity during the years of
1909 to 1916.
Q BY MR KEMEPEY: You don’t mean by your answer, Doctor Lewis, that there
is anything confidential about their names, do you?
A Well, in some cases there 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 could work it up in a better form
of English.
Q Can you recall the name of any one of them?
within the issues, and improper cross- examination.
A Yes, there was a Mr A. B. Lacrois.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: What is his business or profession?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and
55
immaterial and not within the issues in the case, and improper cross-examination,
and not gone into on direct examination.
A I don't know. We went to the World War and that is the last I knew about him.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: He translated these for you before he went to the World
War?
A Yes.
Q Did you know anything about him at all before he made the translations for
you?
proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct, and not within the issues in the
case.
A Why, I placed an advertisement in one of the New York papers and asked for a
professional translator for confidential work, and among the persons who made
application for the position I received one from him. He gave me satisfactory
references of a personal nature, and I engaged his services.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Well, did you learn at that time where he had gained his
knowledge or ability to translate hieroglyphics?
proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination. I suppose now we
are getting the educa
56
tional qualifications of these individuals, and that is certainly not germane to this
inquiry. Geneology 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 humility and not
arrogance, insist upon my objection.
MR KEMPLEY: I assure your Honor if a prompt answer is given and not too many
objections are made, we can get through with this case within a reasonable time.
MR KEMPLEY: Read the question, Mr Reporter.
(The question was read by the reporter as fallows: "Well, did you leam at that
time where he had gained his knowledge or ability to translate hieroglyphics?”)
A He didn't translate hieroglyphics. He translated French. I engaged a
Frenchman to translate French.
MR KEMPLEY: The whole subject of our examination has been with reference
to a person to translate these hieroglyphics. I didn’t ask anything about a translator
of French or German at all. It is just a misunderstanding entirely. I am asking you
purely about the man who translated the hieroglyphics; confining it to that, who
was he?
within the issues, and improper cross- examination, not gone into on direct, not
germane to the issues involved.
57
A I translated the hieroglyphics.

Q BY MR KEMPLEY: No one assisted you? You translated them entirely
yourself?
Q MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
not proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, not within the
issues in the case, not germane to the issues involved.
A I needed no assistance on that, for I had the key and the code.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You mean by that, no one did assist you, I take it.
A Well, my wife, yes, at times.
Q Had you had any particular training along that line, Doctor?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not
cross-examination, not within the issues of this case. Nowhere in the direct
examination were the doctor's qualifications as a translator urged before this court.
There is certainly no issue on that. And therefore I again renew my objection.
A Well, I was properly instructed in the method of interpreting the Rosicrucian
hieroglyphics, the secret hieroglyphics.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Where and when?
58

Q BY MR KEMPLEY: This may have been asked and answered. I understood a
part, at least, of these lessons and lectures are the exact translations of some of
these foreign writings you have referred to. Is that correct?
proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, and not within the
issues of this case.
THE COURT: You may answer. Objection overruled.
A I do not know how precise the translation may be, but it is generally accepted
among the members who have compared or analyzed the matter as being a fairly
good translation.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: I can understand how might have misunderstood my
question. I didn't mean — I wasn't really delving into the question of how accurate
a translation it was, but I wanted to know whether or not these lessons that you
claim the defendants have no right to use are translations of those foreign
documents or are simply written by someone else based upon the facts or substance
contained in those foreign documents. That is what I am getting at.
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial,
improper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, not within the
issues of the case, al
59
ready asked and answered.

A The lectures, as they are today and have been for the past eight or ten years,
are under constant revision and they probably universally and generally in each
grade section are composed of a paragraph of practically precise translation,
followed by a paragraph of notation, connotation, analysis or addition of our own
editorial staff; then followed by a paragraph or two of precise translation of ancient
matters and teachings, followed again by a modem notation or reference. And in
that way, with the additions, they are kept up to date.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Now, all of them, however, are the product of yours or
your organization there, either as translations or as original writings; is that
correct?
A Yes, I would say that.
Q None of them are copied in any large part from any other published work?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as asked and answered.
A Some of our supplementary lectures for supplementary reading are composed
of quotations and extracts from published works, but are not included in the secret
and graded teachings of the organization. There may be paragraphs that have
appeared in Rosicmcian books or manuscripts in other countries or in this country
at various times.
60
Q Well, one of the lectures that you complain in this case has been improperly
used 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 is a supplementary reading
lesson, taken from various sources in order that our members might not have to
search through various cyclopedias and books to get this supplementary reading,
we have extracted it and put it into readable form as supplementary reading.
Q Doctor, I show you part of paragraph 13 of your complaint, signed by you, I
believe, in which you complain that the defendants are wrongfully using certain
lectures, and among the list you have Arcane Cosmology, consisting of twenty-one
lectures, I believe. Is that correct?
A This one here (indicating)?
Q Yes.
A Yes, but it is not in the list of the graded lessons. It is supplementary there, is
separated from the other.
Q And as to that you make no claim of ownership?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground that it is not a proper question for
the elucidation of facts, but is a question which should be directed to counsel and
not to a witness on the stand; that is, whether or not they are abandoning a portion
of their complaint. It is not a proper question for a witness. We maintain if one
individual —take, for
61
instance, a scrap book of Elbert Hubbard —if an individual went out and put out a
scrap book containing verbatim 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 a property right in that, whether they are
completely the original work of the author or not. Were that not so, it would be
impossible —we have such works as the Harvard Classics and various anthologies
of poetry, both ancient and modem; we have a compilation that our present
Governor collaborated in, and "English Works and Authors." Therefore, we do not
withdraw from our position that they were 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 case.
MR KEMPLEY: I withdraw the question.
Q I show you this instrument, which is headed "Amorc," under that "Trade
Mark,” and "Official Lecture," and ask you if that instmment is one of the lectures
on Arcane Philosophy.
A It seems to be, although it is bound together differently than we usually bind
our lectures.
Q How do you mean; this staple that is in it?
A Yes, we usually have two.
Q That is true. That was stapled in our office. Aside from that, you would say
that was one of your lectures
62
on Arcana Philosophy?
A Yes.
MR KEMPLEY: I offer this in evidence and ask it be marked as Defendants’
Exhibit A.
THE COURT: It will be received and marked as Defendants' Exhibit A.
(Lecture on Arcane Philosophy No 3 received in evidence and marked
Defendants’ Exhibit A.)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: I show you a book, Doctor Lewis, entitled "The Hindu-
Yogi Science of Breath,” and ask you if you are familiar with that work.
A Oh, I am sure we have a copy of it in our editorial library.
Q Do you know whether or not it is a fact that a large part of that Lecture No. 3
on Arcane Philosophy was lifted verbatim from this particular book?
A Not a large part of it, but a portion.
Q Are any quotation marks used or any credit given to the author of this "Hindu-
Yogi Science of Breath"?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. 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 was going out to the public
to deceive persons, the individual plagiarized would have a right to complain. But
here again we have to fight the battles of this Yogi philosopher, whoever he was,
63
who is supposed to be plagiarized. The violation, if any, of that individual's rights

by this plaintiff has nothing to do with this matter before the court here. The
question is objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A No, there are no quotations used, but in the introduction to the work it was
stated various works would be consulted and referred to.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: In the introduction to that particular letter?
A No, but in the letters that go to the students, telling them they are going to
receive some supplementary lectures in the form of Arcane Philosophy and so on.
Q There is nothing in these letters or lectures to designate what particular part of
the literature is the composition of some other writer and what is your composition,
is there?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not
proper cross-examination, not gone into on direct examination, beyond the issues
in this case. If we were litigating a matter between a person who received that
lecture, let us say, and paid for it as the literary product 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 case we have before us. We have the
question of whether or not these par-
64
ticular defendants have a right to take this plaintiffs property as its own property
and compilation and use it themselves. And their argument or theory is, because
you haven't a right to that and use it without giving quotation marks on it, we have
a right to use it and are doing so. That is certainly a very unusual and novel
equitable defense. Our claim is, so far as this is concerned, or a large part of it, the
only man we would have to ask about using it is the man who wrote this book, and
not Doctor Thomas. Our proposition is this: If they want to delete from these
lectures those particular portions which are, if they are, quotations from that work,
they can do so; but they have no fight to our compilation, our composition, our
annotations and criticisms and expositions of that work in other matters. We renew
the objection.
MR ARAM: It seems to me the clear issue involved in this case, and the burden
on the plaintiff to prove it, is this: Assuming for the moment, for the purpose of
this argument, that all of that lecture, every word of it, whether of any nature
whatsoever, was an exact, verbatim copy of some book; does that, under the
circumstances of this case, make it material or relieve the defendant from any
liability? The thought I had was this: The plaintiffs complaint is this, that while the
defendants were in a fiduciary relationship and obtained these things from the
plaintiff, then holding out to the public under deception that they were still
65
representing the plaintiff, they were handing out 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 themselves as going
on with the work just the same as they did before. That is the issue in this case. It
seems to me we are losing sight of that very vital question which is present in this
case. It may very well be, if the defendants were other than the present defendants,
they could very well question the plaintiffs right to use that; but that is not in issue
here. The question is in the deception, not only while in a fiduciary and
confidential relationship and obtaining these things, but in the deception to use it
under such color of title or under such deceptive conditions and surroundings that
people at large are misled into believing they are obtaining the work of the
plaintiff.
MR KEMPLEY: Read the question.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "There is nothing in these
letters or lectures to designate what particular part of the literature is the
composition of some other writer and what is your composition, is there?")
A Yes, in part of the lecture there is reference to Mr Flammarian, and in some of
the lectures the titles and authors of some of the books are given; others were not.
But these letters were accompanied with letters which often
66
contained that information and especially the letters which went with the first
lecture of each of the courses explained why the supplementary course is given,
and its value, and how it saved the member from hunting through many books to
get this additional reference matter. These letters were part of the lecture when sent
out by us or given to the Master to give to his members.
Q In this particular lecture, Doctor, — you have examined it, —is there anything
in that lecture — if there is, please point it out to us — that indicates credit being
given to anyone?
MR MAYCOCK: The lecture itself, being now in evidence, is the best evidence.
We object to it on that ground.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Neither you nor anyone directly connected with your
organization is the author or publisher of that book, Doctor Lewis?
MR MAYCOQK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not the
best evidence, not germane to this inquiry. The book is not in evidence and not
identified. The question is beyond the issues in the case.
THE COURT: Answer the question. Objection overruled.
A No, nobody in our organization was connected with the publishing of that
book.
MR KEMPLEY: By "that book," in the preceding question, I refer to the book
"The Hindu-Yogi Science of Breath," which
67
was referred to in a previous question. I will ask that that book be received in
evidence, solely for the purpose of showing that a large part of that lecture was
taken from this book.
within the issues of the case, explanatory of matter which is not germane, not gone
into on direct examination, a book not properly identified as yet, not germane to
the issues.
MR KEMPLEY: I think the only thing necessary for the purpose of the offer is
the last answer of the witness, that it is not composed or published by anyone
connected with his organization.
THE COURT: The objection to the offer is overruled, and it is received in
evidence as Defendants' Exhibit B.
(Book entitled “The Hindu-Yogi Science of Breath" received in evidence and
marked Defendants' Exhibit B .)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You testified, I believe, on direct examination, that at
the present time you had a membership, I believe you said, of 150, and something
less than 500, on cross-examination, in Los Angeles and adjacent territory. I Just
wanted to ask you if my memory coincides with yours as far as your testimony is
concerned.
MR KEMPLEY: I will withdraw the question.
68
Q I will ask you if you didn't appear before a notary public and give a deposition
in this case on about the 15th day of August, 1930, in your attorney's office, Mr
Aram's office in San Jose, California.
A Yes.
Q I want to show you, Doctor, page 45, in which you were asked these questions
— I will ask you if you were asked these questions and made these answers at that
time and place: "Q—How many members did you have in Southern California on
the 31st day of May, 1929?" —
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that as improper impeachment. There is nothing in
the record concerning the membership in Southern California.
MR KEMPLEY: Then I will have to go back further.
THE COURT: You are withdrawing that?
MR KEMPLEY: I withdraw that portion of the question.
Q I will ask you if you were not asked this question: “Q—Approximately how
many members do you now have in Southern California?” and if you didn't make
this answer: “I should say around 3000.”
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that as improper impeachment, — it could only be
used for impeachment purposes, — because there is no question at all about the
membership in Southern California.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. The testimony was with regard to the
membership in Los Angeles County and vicinity.
69
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Doctor Lewis, do you have a lodge in any place in

Southern California other than in Los Angeles County?
proper cross-examination.
A No. We do not have lodges. We have groups or chapters.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Where do you have any groups or chapters in Southern
California, other than in Los Angeles County?
immaterial, beyond the issues in the case, a matter not gone into on direct
examination. 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 impeachment on his deposition
on matter not gone into on direct examination, which is beyond the power of a
cross-examiner. He can elicit any answers he wishes as to matters gone into on
direct examination, and if then he wishes to impeach them by documentary
evidence or otherwise, he can do so; but he cannot himself, by extending the realm
of the cross-examination beyond the circle gone into on direct examination, lay a
foundation for an impeaching question.
MR KEMPLEY: His testimony was that he had — I think he said 150 or 500
members at the present time in Los Angeles and adjacent territory. He said it
wasn't even confined to Los Angeles County. Your Honor knows what his
testimony was
70
before. I contend, however, I have a perfect right to cross-examine him and show
whether or not there are 2500 members in Southern California outside of Los
Angeles County and the adjacent territory,
MR MAYCOCK: The vice of it is this: He has gotten his information that he
wants to refute from testimony not in evidence, for the purpose of refuting it. He is
using a deposition for the purpose of creating a conflict and then asking the witness
to answer so it will impeach the deposition. Moreover, he can only be impeached
upon a material issue in this case. Impeachment does not lie as to collateral issues.
The scope of the cross-examination may be larger than the issues, because the door
is opened wide for the purpose of a cross-examiner, but the court does not open the
issues wide. The issues are laid down by the pleadings and are very well confined
to certain acts concerning certain individuals in a certain locality. Therefore, any
impeachment as to a matter not germane to the issue is improper. One can only
impeach on a material issue.
MR KEMPLEY: Do you admit the number of members is immaterial?
MR MAYCOCK: No.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Where do you have any groups
or chapters in Southern California,
71
other than in Los Angeles County?” )

MR MAYCOCK: I know of no place in the direct examination 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 novel result of
cross-examination —
THE COURT: I think the question should be how many members he has outside
of Los Angeles County, rather than chapters.
MR KEMPLEY: The reason that question is framed that way, I asked a question
before, if there were any lodges outside of Los Angeles County. The witness
answered they had no lodges, but some chapters or groups outside of Los Angeles
County, and I used the witness's own words. I have no objection to changing it to
"members.”
THE COURT: Let's change the question to "members.”
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: How many members do you have in Southern
California outside of Los Angeles County?
MR ARAM: Objected to because the phrase "Southern California” is not defined.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Do you know where what we call "the Tehachapi" is?
A No.
Q Well, let us assume that Southern California includes Santa Barbara and
Ventura and Kern and Riverside and Orange, Los Angeles, Imperial and San Diego
Counties. I meant to say
72
also San Bernardino in place of Kern. Assuming that is Southern California, how
many members do you have in that territory that are outside of Los Angeles
County?
proper cross-examination, not germane to the issue, and I wish to ask the court to
instruct the witness he may answer he does not know unless he is certain of the
fact.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. You may answer the question, if you know.
A I am not sure of the figures.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Do you have any idea?
MR MAYCOOK: I object to that on the ground the witness has answered the
question as succinctly as he can. We are not after conjecture or guesses.
THE COURT: You may answer the question "Yes” or "No."
A No, I seldom bother with the figures of the membership, and I am not familiar
with the details of localities so as to be able to say with any degree of sureness.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Before you came down here to testify did you check
over the record as to the number of members you had at all?
A No, I am using my recollection only as to that, from our quarterly or occasional
references to the record.
Q Well, is your recollection as to the number of members in Los Angeles and
immediate and adjacent territory better
73
than your recollection as to members outside of that territory?

MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as argumentative.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Is your statement that there are at present 500 members
in Los Angeles and the immediate adjacent territory an accurate statement?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that as a question that has really already been gone
into. He has testified there a certain membership here. Now he is asked if his
statement that there was a certain membership is accurate, which is the same thing.
A I may be out two or three hundred. I cannot say definitely. I can only say
approximately.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Can you give us now an approximate statement of the
number in Southern California outside of Los Angeles County?
MR MAYCOCK: That is a matter that has been already asked and answered.
THE COURT: Answer, if you can.
A No, 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.
74
Q Was your testimony as to membership in Los Angeles and vicinity based on

some inquiry you made?
A Just casual inquiry.
Q From whom did you make that inquiry?
A From some of our departments at headquarters.
MR KEMPLEY: Then I move that all his testimony as to membership be stricken
as hearsay.
MR MAYCOCK: If the witness is taking information from some of his
subordinates in an institution of which he is the head, he is competent to give it.
Otherwise it would be impossible to conduct a litigation where a corporation is
involved.
THE COURT: The motion is denied.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Doctor, what is the method of becoming a member of
your organization?
within the issues in this case. It is a matter that is peculiarly confidential to a lodge
itself, and not a proper subject of inquiry in this action.
MR KEMPLEY: I am not asking for any confidential information as to what
transpires.
MR ARAM: The only material issue is whether or not these defendants were
members, which is not denied.
MR KEMPLEY: The witness has characterized his organization as a secret
fraternal organization. I think I objected to it at the time, but at least it encroaches
upon a con-
75
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 come within that realm or not. That is the purpose of the question.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "Doctor, what is the method of
becoming a member of your organization?")
MR MAYCOK: The argument of counsel is that because he failed to object to the
question which he says was a conclusion, that he has larger rights now in going
into matters which otherwise would not be permitted. In the first place, counsel is
in error in thinking that negligence, if it is such, enlarges his rights. In the second
place, he is wrong in that a conclusion of law cannot be given by a witness, but all
statements which involve a judgment are conclusion of fact. It is impossible for
any person to give any statement whatsoever which is not a conclusion of fact.
Your Honor has a flag behind you. I say it is the American flag. That is my
conclusion from the optical observation of that particular object. But that is not a
conclusion of law.
(Further discussion by counsel.)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Is it necessary for a person to appear
76
in person before any lodge of your order in order to become a member of your
organization?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, calls
for an answer concerning the secret workings of a fraternal organization, and not
proper cross- examination, and is not within the issues in the case.
THE COURT: Objection sustained as not proper cross-examination.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You say you advertise for members, Doctor Lewis?
A Not advertise for them. We advertise in a manner to present the benefits and
some of the instructions of goodwill and welfare and health of the organization, so
that persons may know of the existence 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 Not exclusively, no.
Q How much money did you say you expended in Los Angeles in advertising?
MR MAYCOCK: There was no such question asked on direct examination.
Q BY THE COURT: What did you testify regarding the four to six thousand
dollars a month that was expended?
A That that was what we spent in an average month in keeping the work of our
organization before the public.
77
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You mean by that answer, all over the United States,
and Canada and Mexico?
A Yes, wherever it may reach.
Q Well, what part of that was expended in Los Angeles?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as improper cross-examination.
MR KEMPLEY: Question withdrawn. That is all.
(Thereupon a short recess was taken.)
—0—
78
E. E. THOMAS
being called as a witness by the plaintiff, under Section 2055, having been duly
sworn, testified as follows:
Q (by the Clerk:) What is your name?

A E. E. Thomas.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR ARAM:
Q Where do you reside, Dr. Thomas?
A 1033 West 30th Street.
Q How long have you resided there?
A Nearly eight years.
Q Were you a member of the plaintiff order?
A I was.
Q When did you become a member?
A I believe it was about 5 years ago; I am not very positive.
Q What is your occupation now?
A I am at the head of what we call "Our Brotherhood", an organization.
Q And what is the nature of that organization?
A The teaching of philosophical and scientific principles.
Q How long since you have been the head of that organization?
A Ever since our dissolution from the organization known as Amorc.
However, it was under another name at the time we
79
separated.
Q What was your answer?
A That ever since our separation from the organization known as Amorc I
have been at the head of this other organization—
Q You have been at the head of “Our Brotherhood”?
A No, not under that name; we separated under another name, under the name
of "Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries.”
Q The first name was Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries.
A Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries.
Q Subsequent to your connection with Amorc?
A Yes.
Q Now it is the same organization with a different name?
A Yes.
Q It is the same organization?
A The same organization.
Q And you were at the head of that first organization of this also?
A Yes sir.
Q What was your occupation before you became a member of Amorc?
A I was in the mining business.
Q Where?
A In the Northern part of Shasta County
Q Where?
A Kenneth.
80
Q What was your particular occupation?

A Constructing and mining engineer.
Q Are you a graduate engineer?
A I am not.
Q So you became a member of the plaintiff order about five years ago?
A I believe that is the time; I am not very sure.
Q Did you also subsequently become Master of that lodge?
A Yes.
Q Of the Los Angeles Lodge?
A Yes.
Q How long were you Master of the Lodge?
A I believe it was 2 Vi years or more, something like that.
Q About 2 Vi years as Master?
A Yes, I think so.
Q You say immediately on severing your connection with the plaintiff order
you became the head of the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries?
A Yes.
Q How soon after the severance of your connection with the plaintiff order
did you become the head of this new order?
A Almost immediately.
Q Immediately?
A Yes.
Q How many members did you have from the start of this
81
new order?
A Well, we had nearly all the members that Amorc had; there were very few
that left us.
Q Most of them stayed with you?
A Yes
Q Where was the location or headquarters of this Universal Order of Ancient
Mysteries?
A 233 South Broadway.
Q Was that the same location as the plaintiff order was located before your
connection was severed with it?
A Yes.
Q And the telephone number was the same?
A Yes.
Q You say you started immediately?
A Almost immediately.
Q Did this new order have lodge meetings?
A Yes.
Q When was the first lodge meeting held after the severance of your
organization from the plaintiff order?
A I don’t remember; I think within two or three days.
Q And where was it held?
A In the same place.
Q In the same lodge room?
A Yes.
Q Did your order, in order to hold lodge meetings, require any paraphernalia,
furniture, or anything of the sort
82
for its work?

A Yes.
Q Where did you get that?
A At the beginning we used what we had been using of Amorc.
Q You used what you had before?
A Yes.
Q Now, you say you became the head of the new order?
A Yes.
Q How many members did you have to start with?
A I don’t know exactly.
Q Approximately.
A Something like 450 or 500.
Q 450 to 500 to start with, immediately after the severance of your
organization from the plaintiff order?
A Yes.
Q Now, did you do all of the work and detail work, or did you have
assistants?
A I had assistants.
Q Did you have departments of your work?
A Well, generally speaking, yes. We were so bewildered by the sudden
throwing upon us of an unwieldy and great organization that we didn't have really
very much assistance
Q But you had assistants?
A Yes.
Q Now, you say you had a sort of organization, whatever
83
this organization was in departments, tell us what it was.

MR. KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
MR.ARAM: We are getting at the personnel.
A We had a treasury department and a secretary's department.
Q Who was the treasurer? A Mrs. Katherine Bentley.
Q And the secretary? A Mrs. Eugenia D. Jenks.
Q And who else?
A Well, that comprised the personnel, except voluntary 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 distinguished from the work
of the order from which you had just severed your connections?
A At the beginning there was not very much difference.
Q Not very much difference?
A Not very much at the beginning.
Q Do you mean to say you continued on as you had before?
A In the beginning we gave instructions to some of our assistants to revise the
former Amorc lessons; to take out the essence of those lessons and not copy them
verbatim, as some of them appear to have been since. It seems like
84
some of them had paragraphs that were copied verbatim.

Q 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 won't be positive as to the number of days, but it was very quickly after
the severance.
Q Not more than a week?
A Not more than a week.
Q Did you have to make use of lessons in order to carry on your lodge work
with the new order?
A Yes sir.
Q What lessons did you use?
A 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 lessons of Amorc in your
possession?
A Yes.
Q And you studied them, went over them carefully, did you?
A No, we didn't have time. We had so much to do, so 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 I see.
A But to take the essence from those lessons.
Q Were you charging dues to your members?
85
A Yes.
Q And this new order continued to collect dues?
A Yes.
Q Well now you say when you held lodge with the new order, you used the
same place, held lodge in the same lodge room?
A Yes.
Q With the same equipment?
A Yes.
Q Did you have any rituals?
A Yes, I believe for the first two weeks we used a part, not the whole, but a part
of the rituals we had been using.
Q But you had no connection with the plaintiff order at all?
A No, none whatever.
Q And all of your members of the new order were members of the old order?
A No, not all of them.
Q The majority of them?
A The majority of them, yes.
Q Now, you say you gave orders to revise or cull from the lessons of the
plaintiff order; in what form were your lessons put out, printed or mimeographed?
A Mimeographed.
Q Where were they printed, or mimeographed?
A We had to buy one. We had one before you folks took
86
the one away. 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 machine at the time
you severed your connection with the Amorc order?
A Yes.
Q And did you continue to put out the new lessons on that mimeograph?
A Yes.
Q Was there paper stock for mimeographing there?
A Yes, there was some; we bought some more.
Q But you used what was left, did you?
A Yes.
Q Now you say Mrs. Bentley was your Treasurer?
A Yes.
Q And Mrs. Eugenia Jenks was your Secretary?
A Yes.
Q Were there any other persons who held any official capacity?
A No.
Q Did you have a Defense Committee?
A Yes, we had a Defense Committee.
Q Who were they?
A Well, I don't remember all of them, but Mr. Bentley, Mrs. Samuel Scott, and I
really don't remember them all. I won’t be positive, but I think Mr. and Mrs.
Adams; I am not
87
sure.
Q How about H. T. Cook?
A Yes.
Q Margaret Scott?
A Yes.
Q Eugene Field?
A Yes.
Q And Bronson H. Smith?
A Yes.
Q Those comprised the Defense Committee?
A Yes.
Q What was this Defense Committee for?
A 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 yourself?
A Yes.
Q Now, you would naturally I presume select men for such work that were
competent people.
MR. KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, calling for a conclusion.
MR.ARAM: Withdrawn.
Q Now, 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
announce the presence of this order in that building?

A Will you please ask that again?
Q Before you severed your connection with the plaintiff order, that was at the
Musical Arts Building, was it not?
A Yes.
Q Was there anything downstairs at the entrance to that building to indicate that
the Amorc Order was in that building?
A Yes.
Q What was the nature of that sign?
A It was a sign behind a glass case for that purpose.
Q What did it show? What did it say? What sign or insignia 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 What else?
A If I remember correctly, it had underneath "The Rosi Crucian Brotherhood.”
Q Now, when did you take that sign off?
A Well, we took that sign off later and substituted one 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
you substitute the sign?

A I don’t remember exactly, but it was just as quickly as we could get a sign
painter to change the Amorc sign into our own.
Q What did the new sign say?
A 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 Mysteries."
Q What else?
A That is all I can remember being on there.
Q Do you remember that it said "Rosi Crucian?"
A Oh yes, in parenthesis.
Q It said in parenthesis, Rosi Crucian?
A Yes.
Q 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 order’s lessons?
A There were.
Q And what did you reply?
A The answer was that they were not identical, but they contained the truth, the
same as many other organizations are giving out.
Q These, Mr. Thomas, have already been introduced in evidence, but I want
you to verify your signatures?
90
A Yes, that is mine.

Q What is that?
A An application blank.
Q Into the Amorc Order?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: I will read this application, being plaintiffs Exhibit 4. (Reading)
Q Is this your signature, Mr. Thomas?
A Yes.
MR. KEMPLEY: To save time, I am willing to stipulate that they may be
considered as read into the record.
MR. ARAM: I think we will not read them at this time, but will save them for
use in the argument.
Q (By Mr. Aram:) How long were you a member of Amorc at the time you
severed your connection?
A Well, from the time that application was signed, in August, 1926.
Q You were a member?
A Yes.
Q Later on you became Master?
A Yes.
Q Now, you say in your new order you had a Defense Committee?
A Yes.
Q That were members of your Order?
A Yes.
91
Q What was their duty?

A Well, really the Defense Committee was that just one of our members fixed
up a letter-----
Q I asked you what their duties were?
A I can’t tell you unless I tell you in my own way.
Q If you don’t know, tell us?
A I do know.
Q Tell us what their duties were?
A lam trying to
Q Very well, tell us.
A The Defense Committee had no regular duties. They were just for one
particular letter only. That is the only time they ever served. That was for one
particular letter.
Q That was just for that one purpose?
A Yes.
Q What was the date of that letter?
A I don't remember, but it is there some place.
Q Have you a copy of it?
A Yes.
Q 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 this letter to us, did you not ?
A Yes.
Q That is the letter?
A Yes, that is the letter.
92
Q Have you a copy of this letter? Was there another copy of this letter going on
the stationary of your new organization?
A No, it all went on blank paper; we had no stationary yet.
Q None went out on the stationary of your new organization?
A No.
Q This letter is dated July 2nd, 1929, is it not?
A Yes.
Q When did you get your stationary of the Universal Order of Ancient
Mysteries?
A I don't remember how long it took to get it printed exactly; but just as soon as
we could.
Q But it was after this letter went out, was it?
A I believe so.
Q And you say the letter went out in this form?
A Yes.
Q And you know the contents of this letter?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: I offer this letter in evidence.
THE COURT: It will be received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit No.5.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit 5.)
Q Now, Mr. Thomas, I will show you this document and ask you whether or not
it has your signature?
93
A Yes. However, it is a rubber stamp one.

Q Is that a facsimile signature of yours, used for your purposes?
A Yes.
Q And this is a letter you wrote to me, is it not?
A I think it is.
Q Is this the letter-head of your new organization?
A At the time, yes.
Q This is dated June 29, 1929, is it not?
A Yes.
MR. KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The
witness has testified these others were sent out July 2nd and has testified they
didn't have the letter-head then. I presume this is for the purpose of impeachment.
MR. ARAM: The purpose is not for impeachment. The purpose is to find out if
there is any explanation of his former answer.
MR. KEMPLEY: It is an immaterial matter and requires no explanation.
THE COURT: You may answer the question Mr. Witness.
A I was quite sure that the letter-heads had not been made until after that letter;
but I see I may have been mistaken.
Q Can it be possible you are also mistaken in your statement that that letter of
the Defense Committee did not go
94
out on your order's letter-head?

A I don't think I am.
Q I will show you this and ask you if it is the letter-head of your organization?
A Yes.
Q And I will ask you if that is not the letter of the Defense Committee?
A Yes.
Q Are you mistaken now?
A Again.
MR. ARAM: We offer this in evidence. It is the same letter of the Defense
Committee, on the letter-head of the Order.
THE COURT: It may be received in evidence as Plaintiff's Exhibit 6
MR. ARAM: 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.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 .)
Q What dues did you charge to the members of your new organization
immediately when you organized your new organization?
A Well, at the beginning it was $5.00 initiation fee and
95
$2.00 a month, the same as the other; and that only continued for a few weeks.
Q But that was the practice for a while, was it not?
A Yes.
Q I will show you this and ask you if you know what that is?
A Yes.
Q What is it?
A It is a due card.
Q Of what?
A Of the Amorc.
Q Of the plaintiff organization?
A Yes.
Q Now, I show you the same card on the reverse side, referring to the dues for
June and July, and ask you what notation is there?
A U. O. N. is as much as I can see; ourorganization was U. O. A. M.
Q Do you know whether or not the dues paidon that card were received by your
organization?
A I do not. In fact, I doubt it, because I don’t believe the treasurer made that
notation. If so, she can verify it when you get her on the stand.
MR. ARAM: This is offered in evidence.
96
MR. ARAM: 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
such a document on the statement that it will be connected up.
THE COURT: We will mark it Plaintiff s Exhibit 7 for identification purposes
only.
Q Mr. Thomas, what were the initials of your Treasurer?
A I believe she just signed Katherine Bentley.
Q What is her middle initial?
A I don’t remember.
Q I show you this and ask you if you know what that is?
A That is another due card.
Q Of what?
A Of Amorc.
Q Of the plaintiff order?
A Yes.
Q And to whom is this due card issued?
A To Henry B. Roberts.
Q Now, I show you on the reverse side and ask you what the notation shows as
to payment of June dues, what initial appears there?
A It looks like K. E. B.
Q Is the Treasurer Katherine E. Bentley?
A I think so.
97
Q Do you know whether this is her handwriting?

A I believe that is her handwriting.
Q She was the Treasurer of your organization?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: We offer this card in evidence.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. It will be received in evidence as Plaintiff s
Exhibit 8.
MR. ARAM: We ask at this time that the previous exhibit be received in
evidence.
THE COURT: I don't think it has been connected up enough yet.
Q Mr. Thomas, I ask you if you know what this is?
A That is another Amorc due card.
Q I ask you to look at the reverse side and ask you what that shows as to
payment of June dues?
A It says on here, Katherine Bentley.
Q That was your Treasurer?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: We offer this card in evidence.
MR. KEMPLEY: No objection.
THE COURT: It will be received at Plaintiffs Ex.9.
(Plaintiffs Ex.9)
Q May I ask you who was treasurer of Amorc Lodge, before
98
you severed your connection with that order?

A Mrs. Virginia O'Neal.
Q Now, Mr. Thomas, did you have application blanks for your new order?
A Yes.
Q I ask you what this is which I show you?
A That is one of our application blanks.
Q Of the Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries?
A Yes.
Q Did the plaintiff order while you were the Master have membership
application blanks?
A Yes.
Q Have you any of them in your files?
A No, I have not.
Q I show you this and ask you if you know what that is?
A Yes, this is an Amorc application blank.
Q That was an application blank used while you were the Master?
A Yes, it looks like it, looks just like it.
MR. ARAM: We offer both of these in evidence.
THE COURT: Objection overruled; received in evidence as one exhibit,
Plaintiffs Exhibit 10.
Q Mr. Thomas, I show you this and ask you if you know what this is?
99
A Yes, that is a letter we sent out to our different members.

Q Is that your signature?
A Yes, with a rubber stamp.
Q But you used that for your signature, did you not?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: We offer this in evidence.
THE COURT: It will be received as Plaintiffs Exhibit 11.
MR. ARAM: 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 paper pasted on a larger paper, and ask you if you
know what the printed matter is?
A Yes.
Q What are they?
A The first is "Amorc" and the second is "U.O.A.M.”
Q What do they represent?
A Amorc represents the plaintiff-—
Q No; is it a letter head or what?
A It looks like a letter-head.
Q The first one is a letter-head device and writings of the plaintiff order?
A Yes.
100
Q And the second one you say is the device and words, printed matter, used for
your letter-heads after you organized your own order?
A Yes.
MR. ARAM: We offer these, except the pencil notations which are ours.
THE COURT: Received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit 12.
Q I will show you, Mr. Thomas, this paper, and ask you if you know what this
is?
A Yes, that seems to be a birthday greeting.
Q Of what?
A Of Amorc.
Q Of the plaintiff order?
A Yes sir.
Q Were these sent out to the members while you were Master of the lodge?
A Not like this, no.
Q Not like that?
A No.
Q How were they?
A It says here “Imperator". When I sent out one I sent it out as Master.
Q I don't mean what you sent out as Master, but were these sent out to the
members by the Supreme Lodge?
101
A Yes, I think so.

Q Did you make use of greeting cards after you organized your new
organization?
A Yes.
Q Have you any of them?
A I don't think I have any here now.
Q Will you bring one into court tomorrow morning?
A I haven't one; that is from U.O.A.M. We no longer use that name.
Q You have none left?
A No.
Q Mr. Thomas, I will show you a newspaper clipping, 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 don't remember seeing i t .
Q I will ask you if you will look these over and see if you can identify the
literature that speaks of?
A This is the time, the occasion----
MR. KEMPLEY: (Interrupting) I don't believe there are any newspaper men
present now— I don't think the newspaper men's writings are sufficiently
accurate to be received in court. This appears to be an item that appeared in some
newspaper. I object to its introduction on the ground that it is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial.
MR. ARAM: This is not offered for the purpose of
102
binding this defendant on the statement of the newspaper; 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.
MR. ARON: May we offer it for the purposes of identification.
THE COURT: Let it be marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 13 for the purpose of
identification only.
MR. ARAM: Both of the clippings, on one page.
(Plaintiffs Exhibit 13, FOR IDENTIFICATION ONLY.)
THE COURT: We will take a recess to 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
(Thereupon a recess was taken to 10 o'clock A.M., Tuesday, January 6, 1931.)
103
Tuesday, January 6, 1931; 10 o'clock a. m.
E. E. THOMAS resumed the stand.

DIRECT EXAMINATION continued
BY MR ARAM:
Q Mr Thomas, I show you this card and ask you if you know what this is.
A Yes, this is an Amorc membership card.
Q And the stamp on the front part of it, what stamp is that?
A "U O A M."
Q What organization is that?
A Universal Order of Ancient Mysteries."
Q Is that the organization you formed after you severed your connection with the
plaintiff organization?
A Yes.
Q And that membership was issued to whom?
A John L. Johnson.
Q I will ask you to look at the back of it for the month of June, and ask you if
you recognize the initials there. What are they?
A "K. B.," but before that is "Virginia O'Neill."
Q But Katherine Bentley was your treasurer?
A Yes. I am not sure that is her handwriting.
MR ARAM: I offer this card for identification.
THE COURT: It may be marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 for
104
identification purposes.
(Card in question marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 for Identification.)
Q BY MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, will you state to the court just what quarters,
what space, the plaintiff organization had in the Music Art Building?
A Well, they had the space we now occupy.
Q Just how many rooms did it consist of?
MR KEMPLEY: I don't wish to be technical, and only object to this for the
purpose of saving time. The witness has testified, and we freely admit and contend
they took the very quarters occupied by the old organization. I don't see that it
makes any difference how much space it was.
MR ARAM: Counsel can't possibly know what we are laying a foundation for.
THE COURT: If we can shorten it by stipulation, let's do it.
Q BY MR ARAM: What floor was it on?
A The fourth floor.
Q How many rooms?
A At the time the Amorc had it there were six rooms, with divisions or partitions
in one of them for offices.
Q And you had the very same quarters, did you?
A Yes.
Q Was there a lease on those quarters?
A There was.
105
Q Have you that lease with you?

A I have not.
Q Can you bring it to court?
A It is an old lease. We have a new lease since then.
Q I understand. Have you the old lease? is my question.
A No.
Q In whose name was the old lease?
A In mine.
Q Are you certain about that?
A Yes.
Q Would you say the lease was not in the name of Amorc, and that you did not
have it changed immediately when you severed your connection with Amorc?
A Most emphatically.
Q That is your statement?
A Yes.
Q Now, it is true, is it not, that the members of the plaintiff organization
progress in their work from grade to grade, do they not?
A Yes.
Q How many grades are there?
A There were nine, supposed to be nine, and later another one, a tenth degree or
grade.
Q So they progressed from grade to grade, did they not?
A Yes.
Q When you formed your organization, did your members
106
progress from grade to grade?

A Well, we have only two grades.
Q I am not speaking of now. Immediately when you severed your connection
with the plaintiff order, is what I am referring to.
A We hadn't yet organized into grades. We followed the same line for about four
to six weeks until we could reorganize.
Q Take, for instance — let us suppose a member had progressed up to the end of
the fifth grade with the plaintiff order; when you began with your new order did
they progress right on from the fifth to the sixth grade?
A Yes.
Q Just progressed right on from where they were?
A Yes.
Q As though no change had occurred?
A Yes.
Q I believe you stated that this letter of the Defense Committee which has been
offered in evidence, — you knew the contents of it?
A Yes.
Q At the time it was sent out?
A Yes.
Q Now, what was done with the members of the plaintiff order who owed their
dues to the plaintiff? Did you make any arrangements about that?
107
A I don't know just what you mean lay "arrangements.”

Q Well, take a member who perhaps owed for two months' dues to the plaintiff
order, hadn't paid for two months, say; now, when you took such a member over,
did you make any arrangements about the payment of dues?
MR KEMPLEY: I am going to enter an objection to all this. Some of these
questions, it is difficult for me to know what point you are driving at. But you
won't dispute, I take it, that an agreement was entered into, in which I think you
represented the plaintiff order and executed an agreement, and Mr Thomas
executed it, in which all questions of money one way or the other from the time of
the agreement were adjusted and each of the parties were mutually released; that
there was no money consideration. I have a copy of that agreement here, if there is
any question about it. That, of course, is not before the court, but I am making that
statement in an attempt to save time if it is possible so to do. I don't recall the exact
date of that agreement, but I think it would be subsequent to the date counsel is
talking about.
MR ARAM: I submit, whatever that agreement may be, whether or not it is in
force, doesn't go to this question. My question is merely to establish to the court
what the acts and conduct of the parties were with respect to the plaintiff order.
THE COURT: Answer the question.
A I don't know of any arrangements that have been made.
108
When someone wanted to know what dues were due, we explained that
thoroughly.
Q BY MR ARAM: What did you explain?
A That we were no longer connected with Amorc, and if they paid any dues here
it was to the new organization. That was the explanation we made to everyone who
asked what they owed; at least, that was the instruction to the treasurer, and I am
quite sure she carried it out.
Q Did you, or not, circularize the entire membership of the plaintiff order?
A We did. We didn't know their members from ours, inasmuch as most of them
stayed with us; we couldn't tell who was who.
Q You had the membership list of the plaintiff order before you severed your
connection, did you not?
A Yes.
Q And did you circularize that membership list?
A We circularized every member that was on our book.
Q Have you the first letter you sent in circularizing the membership?
A I don't think so. I don't think I have a copy of the first one.
Q Do you remember the date of the first one?
A I do not.
Q I will show you a letter and ask you if you that is your signature.
109
A Yes, that is my signature.

Q Did you send that out to the members?
A I did.
MR ARAM: This letter dated Los Angeles, California, June 11th, 1929, we offer
in evidence.
THE COURT: It may be received as Plaintiffs Exhibit 15 and so marked.
(Letter dated June 11th, 1929, received in evidence and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit
15.)
MR ARAM: I desire to read this letter to the court. This letter is headed "U O A
M, UNIVERSAL ORDER OFANCIENT MYSTERIES. (Rosicrucian); dated
"Los Angeles, Calif., June 11th, 1929."
"Beloved Member:
"We are no longer connected with the AMORC. However, we are giving the
true teachings just the same.
"All members who are in arrears will have all past dues remitted, so that they
can start in with a clean slate, if they like, and carry on the great work. Therefore,
if you desire to continue to affiliate with us, will you please let it be known by
writing to us, or by coming in for a personal interview. We will be glad to have a
chat with you and tell you just how things are. We are doing bigger and better
work than ever before.
"Hereafter, the lessons will not consist of a lot of meaningless words, but there
will be, in addition to a regu
110
lar lecture to be read, experiments and practices which tend to unfold the Within.
This will be far superior to a lot of dry reading matter that one soon forgets.
"We are sending this letter to all members, knowing full well that it will fall
into the hands of some who already know the entire situation. In that case, the
member will please disregard it, but this is the only way we have of informing
everybody of the true status of the whole matter. A personal interview will explain
much. Hours for interviews are on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays only, from
9:30 to 12 and from 2 to 5.
"With sincere best wishes.
(Signed) “E. E. Thomas
"Supreme Grand Master.
"P.S. The name chosen for our new Organization is given at the top of this
letter. The significance and power of this name will be realized, if, when taking
your deep breaths, you pronounce the vowel sounds that this name contains."
Q BY MR ARAM: Now, you wrote this letter, you say?

A Yes.
Q Now, here you state, do you not, in your circularizing to members of the
plaintiff order, that you remit all past dues?
MR KEMPLEY: We object to the question as not the best
I ll
evidence. It is introduced in evidence.

Q BY MR ARAM: Now, you say in that letter, Mr Thomas, you are giving
the true teachings just the same?
A Yes.
Q Just what did you mean by that?
A I mean, by "the true teachings," the teachings contained in all honorable
associations which give out the teachings of philosophical, scientific and so on,
generally under the head of esoteric or occult matter.
Q And you testified, if I remember correctly, yesterday, that you sent out the
lessons of the plaintiff order, did you not?
A I didn't say exactly that.
Q What was your testimony?
A That the essence of the lessons, not the exact lessons.
Q You didn't give the exact lessons?
A No; that they were revised and revamped.
MR KEMPLEY: Me have stipulated we could be enjoined from using those
lessons. This is primarily an injunction matter. I don't see the necessity of taking
the time of the court over all these matters. We object to it as incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial. We don't want to use the lessons, so, consequently, have
no objection to being enjoined from using them.
THE COURT: There is nothing before the court to object to now.
112
MR ARAM: I will read a paragraph from Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 in that connection:

(Reading:)
"We wish to answer one point to begin with, which insinuates, as was before
stated in a public lecture, that the mimeograph lectures given to the members were
not identical with the official lectures sent to Dr. Thomas by Headquarters. Dr.
Thomas took the precaution for one whole week, to hold the official lectures here
before turning them over to the other side, for the purpose of comparing the official
lectures with the mimeographed lectures. This was done by every class that we
have. Seven nights in the week this was done as the members present can testify,
and the mimeographed lectures and the official lectures were found to be identical.
Besides, what object would there be in withholding anything from the lessons?”
THE WITNESS: Yes, that refers to Amorc lessons while we were with Amorc;
not after the separation.
Q You saw this letter, did you not?
A Yes, that was dated after the separation, but we referred to what occurred
before the separation. That was one of the contentions of the plaintiff, that our
lessons we had been mimeographing while with Amorc were not identical with the
official lessons.
Q That is your explanation, is it?
A Yes.
Q This letter says "before turning the lessons over to
113
the other side.” Who is meant by "the other side”?

A The plaintiff.
Q What object would there have been, if this referred to a time prior to the
severance of your connection, to turn it over to the other aide?
A The object was, this letter is a refutation and answer to a circular letter sent
out by the plaintiff to our members.
Q Where did you make the copies?
A Copies of what?
Q It says copies were made and compared.
A Copies were made before, before the separation. We made no copies
afterwards.
Q This letter says that before turning them over, for seven nights in the week
and by every class they were compared.
A Yes.
Q By what classes were they compared?
A They were compared with a key from each class.
Q After the severance of your organization?
A After severance of the organization.
Q To what official lectures does that letter refer?
A To the official lectures we had been giving while with Amorc.
Q I will show you a page from a newspaper and ask you if you recognize the
portion in the circle of red, drawn by
114
red ink.
MR KEMPLEY: We object until counsel has an opportunity to see it. I don't
know whether this is a proper matter for the witness to be questioned about or not.
MR ARAM: Very well, you may see it. (Paper handed to counsel for defendants.)
MR KEMPLEY: We object to the question on the ground it is incompetent,
irrelevant and immaterial. The ad. has absolutely nothing in the world to do with
any issue involved in this case. If they wish to go into the question of what these
two people taught or attempted to teach — I have reams of stuff I would love to
introduce to the court and have the court spend some hours of time in perusing; but
I don't think we are interested in that. I think we are interested in the issues before
the court.
THE COURT: You may answer the question, Mr Witness.
A I recognize it.
Q BY MR ARAM: Is that a paid advertisement?
A Yes.
Q Placed by you?
A Yes.
MR ARAM: This is from the Los Angeles Examiner of Saturday January 4,
1930, and the matter referred to is on page 6 of Section 1.
Q Mr Thomas, you announce that you are to give a lecture which will disclose
some amazing secrets never given before
115
from a public platform, and disclosures of the true or real Rosicrucian Order?
A Yes.
MR ARAM: We offer this in evidence.
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: It is received for what it is worth as Plaintiffs Exhibit 16.
(Advertisement received in evidence and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 16.)
Q BY MR ARAM: Now, what secrets of the Rosicrucian Order are you
referring to where you announce you will disclose what has never been disclosed?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The
charge in this case is that the defendants are attempting to secure members by
representing or pretending that their order is the plaintiffs order by various means
and devices. The defendant Thomas is not charged here with divulging fraternal
secrets, if that is what they are driving at. I don't know what the purpose is.
MR MAYCOCK: I would like, your Honor, please, to read just briefly from our
complaint. The objection was that it was not within the issues. The purpose, of
course, of the injunction, your Honor will apprehend, is that these particular
defendants, formerly standing in a confidential re
116
lationship, are now and have been conducting themselves in such a manner as to
damage the plaintiff order, by representing that they are carrying on the work of
that order, by the unauthorized use of significant names and symbols, and by
conduct in general which, because of their former connection and confidential
relationship, is inequitable. We say this is in our complaint: "That any
unauthorized teachings of the principles of plaintiff Order, or any confusion in the
minds of, or mistake or misleading on the part of, the public at large as to the
teachings and the mode of imparting said teachings of this plaintiff with that of any
unauthorized and unsupervised Order or individual will cause great and irreparable
injury to this plaintiff by bringing its teachings and its aim and objects into
disrepute, or by such unauthorized and incorrect teachings by the use of said
lessons lectures, and class instructions of this plaintiff, lessen and destroy the
esteem of the public 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, which said esteem by the public at large of plaintiff Order, and of the value
and benefits of its teachings has been gained by this plaintiff through years and
years of carefully supervised study, research 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
117
from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff in the conduct of its order, and
from doing or causing to be done or continuing any of the acts or things herein
complained of.
It is therefore directly within the issues before us as an unauthorized act of a
former member who gained certain knowledge and secrets because of his
affiliation and then goes around saying he is going to reveal those teachings or
something of that sort, which is the gravamen of this offense and the thing we are
actually seeking to enjoin; and to foreclose us now of the opportunity to show
these things is to foreclose us from proving our complaint.
I ask that your Honor reconsider your ruling on the last question and reverse
that ruling.
THE COURT: The court has ruled. Go ahead.
Q BY MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, do you recall the meeting of the U O A M on
the evening of June 5th, 1929, on a Wednesday?
A Why, I think it is about that date, I remember we had one on Wednesday, I
think that is the date. I am not positive.
Q Do you recall stating publicly, that is, to the members, stating that lessons and
lectures would continue as before and would be identical with the lessons and
lectures of Amorc?
A I said nothing of the sort.
Q Did you or did you 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 lecture
118
of the plaintiff order would "be found on a table out in the outside room, placed
side by side, so that any member who wished to know that they were identical
could compare for themselves?
A No, I made no such statement in a public lecture.
Q I didn't say a public lecture; I said at the lodge meeting.
A At the lodge meeting, yes.
Q On that Wednesday evening?
A No Wednesday public meeting, no.
Q What meeting was it on, that meeting?
A It was every night for a week. Every person who desired to compare the
lessons we had been mimeographing while with Amorc, to compare them with the
official lessons to see that they were correct. It was insinuated or intimated we had
falsified or incorrectly mimeographed the lessons and that they were not true
copies of the lessons.
Q Is that the statement you made on that evening?
A Yes.
Q What lessons were you referring to?
A The Amorc lessons throughout, not ours.
Q Did you or did you not, after establishing your order and after you had severed
your connection with the plaintiff order, circularize the membership and send out
lessons and lectures in accordance with their progress, the lessons that would be
due to them?
119
A To all whom we thought were our members, yes.

Q Did you sell any lessons and lectures?
A We never have sold the lessons and lectures themselves. We sold the paper
and the stenciling and the ink it took to make them, just the same as we did with
the Amorc before, with the consent and knowledge of Amorc's head.
Q You haven't answered my question. Will you read the question, Mr Reporter?
(The question was read by the reporter.)
MR KEMPLEY: I think it has been answered. He said they sold the paper and
ink and so forth.
Q BY MR ARAM : Is that what you sold?
A The paper and ink and stencils; the materials making up the lessons; that was
just the cost of the materials only.
Q I show you a paper. Do you recognize this handwriting?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It looks
like brown wrapping paper with an address on it, and certainly it could have no
potency.
THE COURT: You may answer the question.
A I do not recognize the handwriting.
Q BY MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, you are wholly familiar with the lectures and
lessons of the plaintiff order, are you not?
A Well, I was at one time. I haven't seen it in so long
er At the time you were master of the lodge?
A Yes.
Q And you are acquainted with the cover?
120
A Yes.
Q Is this the cover?
A Yes, it looks pretty much like it. Yes, I guess it is.
Q Were all the lessons and lectures covered with this cover?
A Yes, or some similar cover.
Q Well, examine it and see if it is the same.
A I wouldn’t swear anything is the same.
Q Have you any lessons or lectures of the plaintiff order, with the cover that was
on it at the time you were master?
A I have not. I think our counsel has.
MR ARAM: May I have one, please?
(Counsel for defendants hands a paper to Mr Aram.)
Q BY MR ARAM: Would you say this is a cover as it was at the time?
A Yes.
Q You know this statement, do you not, and knew it then: "The contents herein
are to be used for the purpose intended, and for no other, and all rights and
privileges are retained by the Imperator.”
A Yes.
MR ARAM: I offer this in evidence.
THE COURT: It may be received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit 17.
(Document entitled Amorc Official Lecture No. 24" received in evidence and
marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 17.)
121
Q BY MR ARAM: Now, Mr Thomas, there was introduced yesterday, by your

counsel, Defendants' Exhibit A, a lecture on Arcane Philosophy. Were you
acquainted, and are you now, with the preceding lecture to this number?
A Why, I haven't looked at it in so long, no. I am not familiar with it now; but I
was at one time.
Q Have you a copy of the original of the preceding lecture?
A I don't know. Counsel may have it.
Q This is Grade A-P, No, 3, Arcane Philosophy No, 3. Now, you know, do you
not, that No. 3 lecture on Arcane Philosophy is a continuing discussion of matter
discussed in No. 2, is it not?
A I presume so.
Q Now, do you know whether or not in the matter discussed on the first part of
No. 3, which is a continuation, you say, from No. 2, —whether or not credit was
given for any matter contained there which was taken from any book?
MR KEMPLEY: We object on the ground it is not the best evidence. What
difference does it make whether he knows or not?
Q BY MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, it is true, is it not, that the lectures in Arcane
Philosophy are not part of the credit lectures of the plaintiff order, are they?
A No, they are not part of the credit, as I understand it.
122
Q They are in the nature of a sort of seminar or discussion?

A What do you mean by that word?
Q A discussion of various viewpoints of other schools of thought, and so on,
bearing on that subject, showing what other people think of it, just different
viewpoints and thoughts that have been expressed on that subject.
MR KEMPLEY: We object to the question as not the best evidence,
incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
MR ARAM: It seems to me counsel 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.
A I don't remember those quotations or credit given.
MR ARAM: Read the question, Mr Reporter.
A I don't remember it that way at all.
Q Well, how do you remember it?
A I don't.
Q You don't remember it at all?
A No.
Q Now, Mr Thomas, I show you this document and ask you if you know what
that is.
A It says here, "Lecture Twenty-three, Grade Six."
Q Of what order is that lecture?
123
A There is no name on it.

Q So you recognize it?
A It looks like a copy of the Official Lecture.
Q Of what lecture?
A Of the Amorc’s lecture.
Q Now, do you have Lectures 23 to 26 of the U O A M lectures?
A No, I don’t think so.
Q You have not?
A I don’t remember it.
Q Can you produce it?
A I don’t think so. All those things pertaining to those past lectures were
discarded and we only took the essence out of the Amorc lessons from 4 to 6.
Q That is not the question. Would you say this is or is not a U O A M lecture?
A I don’t think so, because it contains the word "Rosicrucian."
Q And for that reason you don’t think it is a U O A M lecture?
A I don’t think so. We might have made it ourselves, because we considered
ourselves as much Rosicrucian as they were. It may be.
Q It may be U O A M?
A It may be.
MR ARAM: I offer this in evidence.
124
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. I can't see

the purpose of all these lectures.
THE COURT: It has not been properly identified so far. We will mark it
Plaintiffs Exhibit 18 for identification purposes.
(Paper entitled "Lecture Twenty-three, Grade Six" was marked Plaintiffs Exhibit
18 for Identification Only.)
Q BY MR ARAM: Mr Thomas, in the last line in that lecture it says: "Close
Convocation according to Ritual,"
A Yes.
Q What ritual did that refer to?
A I don't remember that. It has been so long ago; but we formulated a ritual of
our own and then discarded all rituals afterwards. I don't know whether we used a
portion of their ritual or not at that time, if that be one of the U O A M lectures.
Q What is your best recollection as to what ritual that refers to?
A As I say, I am not sure, not positive.
Q It might be the ritual of the plaintiff order?
A No, not exactly in its entirety. We wouldn't use the ritual in its entirety.
MR ARAM: That is all.
CROSS -EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q You have testified on this examination that you held
125
a meeting within three or four days after — a meeting of your lodge or

organization within three or four days after the separation. Had there been any
difficulty between you and Lewis prior to that time?
A Yes.
immaterial and improper cross-examination. He can ask the witness this if he
swears the witness as his own, but not on cross-examination.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Had Lewis been down here to Los Angeles immediately
before this meeting you speak of?
A Yes.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that the answer be stricken out for the purpose of making
an objection.
THE COURT: Motion granted.
MR MAYCOCK: And now I make the same objection.
MR KEMPLEY: I don't see any necessity for it, except I want to state to the court
my purpose in asking these questions. The testimony brought out before by counsel
carefully 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 organization, and went on with the testimony, bringing
out those things to lead the court to believe that Thomas gathered all the members
he could into his fold and just separated from
126
the other organization. It is all one transaction. This entire thing was one
transaction, and when they inquire into that transaction on cross-examination, on
redirect examination I have a right to bring out all the phases of that transaction. It
doesn't make any particular difference to me whether I do it now or later. While it
is fresh in our minds it would be more helpful to the court and to me and to the
witness and everybody if we could bring it out at this time. It is one transaction, we
claim, and when all the transaction is known it has an entirely different aspect than
when just a portion they elicit is heard. It is all one transaction that they went into
on cross- examination.
MR ARAM: I have no objection to him 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 facts things which are not in evidence, which cannot have
any bearing on the matter and are evidentiary purely, — as to whether or not this
question is relevant or proper.
THB COURT: I think the best way to bring it out is when you put the witness on in
your defense.
MR KEMPLEY: That is all.
...Q —
127
H. B. ROBERTS, called as a witness on behalf of the

plaintiff. Being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: H. B. Roberts.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Mr Roberts, do you recall whether or not you attended a meeting on
Wednesday, June 5th, 1929, at the meeting place that had formerly been that of
Amorc?
A On a Wednesday, about that time.
Q What was your purpose in attending at that place at that time?
A The regular meeting of the lodge I belonged to, Amorc.
Q And when you got there did you find Amorc Lodge in session?
A When I went to the regular lodge room, as I remember, I was told the
meeting was downstairs, I went down to the larger hall downstairs.
Q I will ask you whether or not at that time and place Mr E. E. Thomas did
not state that a new organization was being formed, but that the lessons, your
lessons in the new organization, in comparison with those of Amorc, would
continue just the same, and that the lessons would be identical?
A To the best of my recollection that is so.
MR MAYCOCK: That is all.
128
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q That was a public meeting downstairs, wasn't it? It wasn't for lodge
members alone?
A I don't know. I went in without giving any passwords or anything. I was
under the impression it was open.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q One thing more on direct examination: At that time did you secure the next
lesson of your grade?
A I did.
Q From Doctor Thomas?
A From the desk there; somebody there at the desk.
Q Did you pay for it?
A Yes.
Q And this is the lecture you received at that time and place? (Showing paper
to the witness.)
A Yes.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that this be admitted in evidence. He has testified he
purchased it there at that time and place and paid for it.
Q BY THE COURT: Did you so testify?
A Yes.
THE COURT: It may be received in evidence as Plaintiffs
129
Exhibit 19.
(Paper entitled "Lecture Nineteen" received in evidence and marked Plaintiffs
Exhibit 19.)
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q How much did you pay for it?
A If I remember right, fifteen cents.
Q That was the price you had been paying for them regularly?
A Yes.
—0—
ANTHONY M. HERNANDEZ, called as a witness on

behalf of the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE WINESS: Anthony M. Hernandez.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Mr Hernandez, do you recall whether or not on or about June 10th, 1929,
you visited the lodge rooms that were formerly occupied by the Amorc Order?
130
A Yes, I did.
Q Were you a member of Amorc?
A Yes.
Q At that time did you know of any change having been made in the
organization?
A Not any at all.
Q Of Amorc or U O A M?
A Not any at all.
Q State what you did at that time and place there.
A I was to the lodge that evening for the purpose of paying my dues, and as I
did so I paid my dues to the secretary and treasurer or whoever was there to
received the money, and she acknowledged the receipt of the money and marked
the card dues paid, and I went away. And I also requested that my lessons would
be sent home, on account I didn't have time to attend the lodge meetings.
Q What card was it you presented for signature?
A An Amorc card.
Q And it was receipted upon that card?
A Yes.
Q Were you told it was a new order?
A Nothing at all; no explanations were made to me.
MR HAYCOCK: That is all.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q When did you say this was?
131
A On the particular night that the counsel just now mentioned.

MR MAYCOCK: June 10th, 1929, is the night I asked in my question.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: How do you know it was June 10th?
A Because that was the night.
Q How do you know? In answer to my question you just said, "The date
counsel mentioned." Are you relying on counsel’s memory or your own?
A My own. I can't recall exactly the date of the night I was there. It is so long
ago, it has escaped my memory.
Q You have no independent recollection of when you were there, then?
A I have. It is represented by the card.
Q Is there any way you fix the date?
A No, there is not. The date was put down by the person who received the
money.
Q Well, do you know of any incident, —the card or anything else, on which
the date was written at that time?
A Yes.
Q What was it?
A June 10th.
Q You didn't understand the question, Mr Hernandez. I say, do you know of
any card or paper on which the date was written at the time you were there?
132
A Yes. It is here.
Q Can you get that card or paper, if it is here?
A Yes. It is here.
Q What is it?
A It is the card.
Q What is the date; does the date appear on that card?
A Yes, sir.
MR KEMPLEY: May I see the card?
MR MAYCOCK: The date doesn’t appear; just the notation "June.” (Card
handed to Mr Kempley.)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: That is the card you refer to, is it, Mr Hernandez?
A Yes, I believe so.
Q And that card shows, all that card shows, as far as you can see, is just
"June”; it doesn’t show any date in June?
A Well, it was right around the 10th.
Q Now, you know Doctor Thomas, of course, don't you?
A Yes, I do.
Q And do you remember of having a conversation with him that night,
talking with him that night?
A Said "Hello" to him, was all.
Q Do you remember having a talk with him just before you went into the
treasurer's office?
A Not at all.
Q Didn't Mr Thomas, on the evening that you were there
133
and paid your dues, whatever evening it was, just at the door of the treasurer's
office, talk to you and tell you that the charter of the local lodge had been revoked
by Lewis, and that a new lodge had been organized, and that they were carrying on
the same work, and explained this separation to you?
A No, he didn't explain to me anything of that sort.
Q He didn't say anything to you about it at all?
A He didn't say anything to me about it at all.
Q You made a written statement that same night, didn't you of what
transpired?
A What statement is that?
Q Did you sign something in writing of what you had done that night?
A No.
Q Have you at any time signed anything setting forth what you did that night,
the payment of these dues?
A It was, I believe, some two or three weeks afterwards that I signed a
communication to headquarters at San Jose, an account of a letter I received from
Mr Thomas explaining that a new organization had been formed. I said to my
surprise Doctor Thomas had separated from Amorc, and that he had formed a new
organization, and as I did not approve of such a thing I was not willing to follow
him. That is the only communication I signed.
Q Didn't you sign some communication to Mr O'Neil?
A No. I transferred some of the lectures that were
134
sent to me by Mr Thomas's a new organization.

Q I will show you what purports to be a communication signed by E. E.
Thomas, and ask you if you recall receiving, not that particular one, I don't mean
that, but one similar to that.
A No, I never did receive any communication from Doctor Thomas.
Q You never received any communication?
A No.
Q At no time?
A At no time, except later, very, very much later than that time did I receive a
communication from him. It wasn't a communication; it was just a circular letter he
was sending, I presume, to everybody, to all the former members of the lodge.
Q And it was very much later than this?
A Yes, it was long before I paid my dues to the lodge — long after.
Q Long after, you mean?
A Long after.
Q But you are very sure you did not receive one of these?
A I am very sure.
MR KEMPLEY: I will ask that this be marked for identification.
THE COURT: It will be marked as Defendants’ Exhibit C for identification
purposes.
135
(Letter dated June 4th, 1929, marked Defendants’ Exhibit C for Identification
Only.)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Did you have any talk with Mrs Bentley on this same
evening that you paid your dues?
A Not at all.
Q Nothing was said to you at all?
A Nothing was said to me at all.
—0—
FRED SESSLER, called as a witness on behalf of the

plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follow:
THE WITNESS: Fred Sessler.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Mr Sessler, did you on or about the 8th day of July, 1929, go to the former
lodge rooms of Amorc at 235 South Broadway, Los Angeles?
A Yes, sir.
Q For what purpose?
A To join the Society.
Q To join?
A To join the brotherhood.
Q The brotherhood or Amorc?
136
A No, the brotherhood of Doctor Thomas.

Q You went there at that time to join that?
A Yes.
MR MAYCOCK: At this time I will state I am surprised at this testimony, and
ask permission now to treat him as an adverse witness and impeach him by a
former statement. When I refer to surprise, I mean legal surprise and not personal
astonishment.
MR KEMPLEY: It must he actual surprise. If a party even suspects before he
calls a witness, that he is not going to testify favorably, he can't call him 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 hearsay, incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial. And I don't think there has been any showing by this witness yet that
counsel is sufficiently actually surprised to entitle him to cross-examine or
impeach his own witness. While there is no question before the court, there is a
statement from counsel of what he expects to do.
MR MAYCOCK: Legal surprise means that. It is just counsel's unfamiliarity,
doubtless, with the distinction between astonishment and legal surprise.
THE COURT: Go ahead, proceed.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: I show you a document dated July 12, 1929,
purporting to be signed by you, and ask you if that is your signature.
137
MR KEMPLEY: We object on the ground that it is incompetent, irrelevant and

immaterial. It is purely hearsay. If it is for the purpose of impeachment, it is
impeachment of his own witness.
THE COURT: You may answer "Yes" or "No."
A I don't remember ever signing any document like that.
Q BYMRMAYCOCK: I ask you if that is your signature.
A It looks similar, yes, but not exactly.
Q What?
A It looks similar, but it is not proper.
Q Is that your signature?
A No.
MR MAYCOCK: The witness will not be excused, your Honor, please.
—0—
MISS KATIE L. WAGNER, called as a witness on behalf of the plaintiff, being

first duly sworn, testified aa follows:
THE WITNESS: Katie L. Wagner.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BYMRMAYCOCK:
Q Miss Wagner, did you or did you not, on or about the
138
13th day of July, 1929, attend a meeting of the class at 233 South Broadway,
Room 432?
A I did.
Q Were you a member of the plaintiff order, the Amorc, at that time?
A I was.
Q I show you a document entitled "Grade Eight, Lecture Ten, Page One," and
ask you if you recognize what that is.
A I do.
Q Did you or did you not purchase it at that time and place from Doctor
Thomas or certain of his assistants?
A I did.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask it be admitted in evidence.
THE COURT: It may be received as Plaintiffs Exhibit 20.
(Paper entitled "Grade Eight, Lecture Ten" received in evidence and marked
Plaintiffs Exhibit 20.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q What meeting was this you attended, Miss Wagner?
A It was a meeting held by Doctor Thomas.
Q It wasn't a meeting of Amorc?
A Well, he was supposed to be teaching Amorc.
Q That is not the question. It wasn't a meeting of Amorc, was it?
139
A No, it wasn't a meeting of Amorc.

Q You knew it?
A He had been expelled.
Q And you knew that?
A Yes.
Q You knew that before you went?
A Yes.
Q And no deception was practiced on you when you went to this meeting at
all, then?
A No, not at all.
Q You were not a member of Doctor Thomas's order?
A No, Doctor Thomas told me that he was going to teach the pure
Rosicrucian 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 you he was going to teach pure Rosicrucian?
A Yes, as taught in Amorc.
Q He said "as taught in Amorc"?
A Yes.
Q And you just went to find out?
A Yes.
Q And you purchased this lecture?
A I did.
MR KEMPLEY: That is all. No further questions.
— 0—
140
CLARA L. TREAT, called as a witness on behalf of the

plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE WITHESS: Clara L. Treat.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Doctor Treat, do you recall whether or not on or about the 1st day of June,
1929, you went to the former lodge rooms of Amorc, at No. 432 Music Art
Building, Los Angeles? Do you remember whether you went there on or about the
1st of June?
A I think I did.
Q For what purpose. Doctor?
A I went up to secure some things that were there.
Q I show you Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 7 for Identification and ask you what
that is.
A That is a membership card.
Q Did you at that time and place present that membership card with certain
dues for payment of your dues in Amorc?
A I had paid in advance; not at that time.
Q You had paid in advance?
A Yes, some time before.
Q Did you ask that your card be receipted at that time?
A No.
Q Were you told at that time and place there was any discussion or any
change between Amorc and the organization
141
that was then holding forth in those quarters?

A Yes, I knew it.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q I understand, Doctor — I didn't catch the last answer — Do I understand
you knew, before you went there and paid this card, there had been trouble and that
they had severed relations?
A I had paid this some time before the disturbance arose.
Q But you hadn't had your card receipted; was that it, or what?
A It had been receipted before. I had paid my dues several months in advance.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Do you know who wrote the words "V. O. N."?
A Virginia O'Neil.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: You didn't pay any dues to the Thomas organization
after the trouble?
A I did not. I had already paid in advance for two months.
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Did you at any time pay any dues to Clide Armstrong?
142
A It must have been early in the year.

Q You did pay certain dues?
A There was a Mrs Armstrong that was temporarily secretary.
Q When was that?
A It must have been around March or April.
Q I show you your card again, with the words "Clide Armstrong written
across on the words —on the line with the words "May” and "June," and ask you if
you paid your dues in those months to Clide Armstrong.
A I paid my dues several months ahead, but I don't remember Clide
Armstrong. I remember someone I didn't know very well that I paid some of the
dues to.
Q You don't know when?
A I don't know just when.
MR HAYCOCK: At this time I claim again legal surprise and ask to impeach
this witness by a former statement.
MR KEMPLEY: May we see the statement? (Paper submitted by Mr
Maycock.)
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: Did you thereafter, after you had paid to Clide
Armstrong, go to the new headquarters of Amorc and pay dues to Virginia O'Neil?
A I did.
Q That is a duplication of dues, is it not, Doctor?
A Yes.
MR KEMPLEY: If the court please, I insist there must be
143
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 no indication
counsel is surprised, and no indication this witness testifies in cross-examination
— We object to any cross-examination of this witness. We object to the question
as leading and suggestive, not being proper direct examination, being an attempt to
impeach or at least cross-examine his own witness.
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "That is a duplication of dues, is
it not, Doctor?")
MR KEMPLEY: It is argumentative, I might add further.
THE WITNESS: May I answer why I paid twice?
THE COURT: You may answer the question and then explain, if you desire.
A I paid twice.
MR KEMPLEY: Explain now.
A Because Amorc was in need of funds and I knew that later it would be
carried on as my dues.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: I show you a document purporting to be signed
by you July 11, 1929, and ask you if that is your signature.
MR KEMPLEY: Same objection, an attempt to impeach their
144
own witness without any grounds shown therefor; incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial.
THS COURT: You may answer the question "Yes" or "No."
A That is my signature.
MR MAYCOCK: I offer it in evidence.
MR KEMPLEY: I object to it on the ground it is an attempt at impeachment
of their own witness without any ground shown therefor; incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial and purely hearsay. It could only be competent by way of
impeachment.
MR MAYCOCK: That is what it is being offered for, exactly.
THE COURT: Let it be received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit 21.
(Letter dated July 11, 1929, signed by Clara L. Treat, received in evidence and
marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 21.)
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 7 for Identification, which
was this witness's card, be now received in evidence.
THE COURT: The card is received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit So. 7.
(Membership card of Clara L. Treat received in evidence and marked Plaintiffs
Exhibit 7.)
RECROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q I am going to ask you if you have any explanation you want to make of
this, referring to paper marked Plaintiffs
145
Exhibit 21.
A I have no explanation.
Q Who procured that from you?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground it is assuming a matter not in
evidence, that it mas procured from her by someone. It might have been a
voluntary statement by her.
MR KEMPLEY: I withdraw that question.
Q So you know whose handwriting the body of the instrument is in?
A I do not know the handwriting.
Q It is not in your handwriting, is it?
A Not in my handwriting.
Q Did someone write it in your presence?
A I do not remember.
Q Do you know who presented it to you for signature?
A I think Mr O'Neil.
Q Did you have any conversation with Mr O'Neil at the time he presented it to
you?
A We had a conversation.
Q He asked you to sign it, did he?
A I believe so.
Q Did he say why he wanted you to sign?
A We knew pretty thoroughly why.
Q The statement contained in this is not correct, though.
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground that this witness by this
impeachment is shown to be adverse to the plain-
146
tiff and that therefore it is improper for this counsel to lead this particular witness.
THE WITNESS: What is the question?
(The question was read by the reporter as follows: "The statement obtained in this
is not correct, though?”)
A This says "on or about June 1st.” It must have been the latter part of May
that I paid my dues; probably the last week in May.
Q And at the time you paid your dues there had been no severance between -
A There had been no severance.
Q And Doctor or Mr Thomas was still master of the Amorc lodge located in
Los Angeles at the time you paid your dues?
A He was still master of Amorc.
Q Consequently there was no reason for any explanation being made to you
at all at that time?
A No.
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as argumentative and asked and answered,
and I ask that the answer be stricken.
THE COURT: Objection sustained and the answer is stricken.
— 0—
147
MRS KATHLEEN E. BENTLEY, called as a

witness on behalf of the plaintiff under sec. 2055 C. C. P., being first duly sworn,
testified as follows:
THE WITNESS: Kathleen E. Bentley.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR ARAM:
Q Mrs Bentley, were you a member of Amorc?
A Yes.
Q And did you continue to be a member?
A I did until the time of the separation.
Q And did you hold or assume any office in the new order of Mr Thomas?
A I was asked to act as treasurer.
THE COURT: You call Mrs Bentley under 2055?
MR ARAM: Yes. She is a defendant.
Q And you did act as treasurer?
A Yes.
Q I will show you Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 for Identification and ask you if you
know what that is.
A Yes.
Q What is that?
A It is a card formerly an Amorc card.
Q Is that a dues card?
A Yes. And I changed it, put "U O A M” stamp on it, with the consent of the
owner, and with the understanding
148
they would use that from then on as a U O A M card.

Q Calling your attention to the notation opposite the month of June; is that
your initials?
A Yes.
Q Those are your initials?
A Yes.
MR ARAM: We offer this at this time in evidence.
THE COURT: Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 for Identification is received in evidence as
Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.
(Membership card of John L. Hernandez received in evidence and marked
Plaintiffs Exhibit 14.)
THE WITNESS: I might say here that the dues receipted for there were
received as U O A M dues.
Q BY MR ARAM: I show you Plaintiffs Exhibit 8 and ask you if you
know what that is.
A That is an Amorc dues card.
Q Look at the reverse side. Calling your attention to the notation opposite
"June," what is that?
A The initials "K. E. B."
Q Are those your initials?
A Yes.
Q Is that your notation also (indicating)?
A I can’t be sure about the pencil notation.
Q You received the dues marked by your initials?
A Yes.
Q And marked it paid?
149
A Yes. Whenever I took dues it was my policy to ask the person paying dues
if they understood the change that had occurred and understood they were paying
dues into the new organization.
Q I show you a document and ask you if that is your signature.
A It looks like it.
Q Is it?
A I would say it was.
THE COURT: It will he received in evidence as Plaintiffs Exhibit 22.
(Notice dated July 5th, 1929, signed by Kathleen K. Bentley, received in
evidence and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 22.)
MR ARAM: I will read this, Mrs Bentley. It is dated July 5th, 1929.
"Beloved Member: The 7th Grade Initiation will take place Wednesday, July 17th,
1929. We trust you will be able to be with us on this important date. With all good
wishes for Peace profound, Sincerely yours, Kathleen E. Bentley, Treasurer.”
Q Did you send a similar letter to all the members?
A I can't say as to that, because my duties were not 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
150
them?
A I don't know. I know it was the policy of notifying those who applied for
new membership; they were notified, and I believe the old members were notified,
too. But I don't remember that particular incident. Things were so confused at that
time. It was over a year and a half ago.
Q I will show you another document and ask you if that bears your signature.
A Yes.
Q And it is a similar letter, dated similarly and worded similarly as the one
before?
A Yes, it is carbon copy of the same —all the same.
THE COURT: It may be received as Plaintiffs Exhibit 23.
(Carbon copy of notice dated July 5th, 1929, signed by Kathleen E. Bentley,
received in evidence and marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 23.)
Q BY MR ARAM: Mrs Bentley, I will show you what purports to be an
envelope and ask you if you know the handwriting on it.
A No, I don't.
Q You don't know whose handwriting that is?
A No.
Q It is not your handwriting?
A Most certainly not.
Q Now, in that letter which has been offered in evidence
151
you referred to seventh grade initiation. Was that sent to members who were ready
to take the seventh grade initiation?
A I couldn't say as to that, because I was a low-grade member, didn’t know
anything about the higher grades, but I suppose it was.
Q Well, how did you know he was ready to take the seventh grade initiation
in order to send that letter?
A I was instructed.
Q Who instructed you?
A I don't know. It must have been the secretary or someone in charge. I don't
remember the incident at all; had completely forgotten such things were done,
even.
Q But you were instructed to send that letter?
A Yes.
Q Did you assist in the preparation of the U O A M lectures from the Amorc
lectures?
A No. I was too busy doing other things.
Q Who did that work?
A lam not sure, but I think it was mostly the first volunteer help. But I had
nothing to do with that work.
Q Well, did you make any comparisons yourself between the lectures?
A No.
Q Who were the ones that did the actual work of preparing the U O A M
lectures from the Amorc lectures?
152
A Well, as I just said, I am not sure. I didn’t have anything to do with that.
Q You don't recall any of them?
A No. I didn't pay any attention. I was leaving that to others.
(Thereupon a recess was taken until two of the same day.)
— 0—
153
Tuesday, January 6, 1931; 2 o’clock p. m.

MRS GEORGE B. SCHELLING, called as a witness on behalf of
the plaintiff, being first duly sworn, testified as follows:
THE CLERK: What Is your name?
THE WITNESS: Mrs George B. Schelling.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q Are you a member of the plaintiff order?
A Yes.
Q Were you a member in or during the month of June, 1929?
A Yes.
Q Do you know E. E. Thomas, the defendant?
A Yes.
Q How long have you known him?
A Ever since I entered the order; about two or three years.
Q Have you talked to him often?
A Many times.
Q Have you ever conversed with him over the telephone?
A Many times.
Q During the latter part of June, 1929, did you have a conversation with Doctor
Thomas over the phone?
A I did.
154
Q State the conversation.

A The secretary or someone called me and said Doctor Thomas wished to
speak to me. And I had previously endorsed some notes for him -
MR KEMPLEY: Of course I couldn't tell, when the question was asked, what
this conversation was. I thought perhaps some of it might be material.
THE WITNESS: I am coming to that. He said if I would get these two other
parties and come down, that he needed some more money. I said, "Mr Thomas, I
am going with Amoro; I have been with them all this time. I would not go with you
I would not miss the eighth and ninth grade teachings. I have heard you say
yourself they were so wonderful." He said, "Come down and I can give them to
you." I said, "You can give them to me?" And he said, "Why, yes." And that
terminated the conversation.
CROSS -EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q When did you say this conversation occurred?
A About June 29th, about three or four weeks after the break with Amorc.
Q You knew all about the break at that time?
A Yes.
Q And you had already gone into Amorc, had you?
155
A Yes, I was going with Amorc, and I so stated to Mr Thomas over the
phone.
Q Had they been holding lodge meetings, —Amorc?
A I had never at that time attended, but I knew where my desire and duty
was.
Q You knew that Amorc had —I won't say established, but continued their
lodge work in a local chapter?
A I knew wherever they established a new lodge I was going with them.
Q Did you know at that time they had continued their lodge here?
A I knew they were going to reestablish their lodge, yes, and continue their
work.
— 0—
MR MAYCOCK: At this time I will offer a statement dated Los Angeles,

California, July 12, 1929, the one Fred Sessler stated he did not sign, for marking
for identification.
THE COURT: It will be marked Plaintiffs Exhibit 24 for identification
purposes only.
(Statement dated July 12, 1929, signed “Fred Sessler," marked Plaintiffs
Exhibit 24 for Identification Only.)
MR MAYCOCK: Your Honor, there are two witnesses, the last two we were
going to call; they will be very short;
156
they are not present. One is a witness to the document offered for identification. It
might be we can allow the defendants to go on with their case and put them on out
of order upon their return, if that is satisfactory to counsel. All Mr O'Neil will be
asked to testify is he signed this as a witness to the signature of Mr Sessler, I
presume he will testify —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 can be
stipulated that if he were here he would so testify, we needn't call him at all.
MR KEMPLEY: What is your other witness going to cover?
MR MAYCOCK: The other witness is cumulative in character, upon the
matter of statements of the defendant Thomas as to the carrying on of the Amorc
work with the same lectures and teachings and that the work was to be identical.
MR KEMPLEY: We have no objection to proceeding. To eliminate the
testimony of O'Neil, I will stipulate that if O'Neil were on the stand and were asked
the question, he would answer as counsel indicates. I would object on the ground
that the document in question is purely hearsay and it incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial, and the only purpose it could possibly be used for would be for
impeachment, and that no proper foundation, even if they could impeach their own
witness, there is not sufficient foundation laid for impeachment. If that might help
the matter, I would stipulate that and I would make that objection if Mr O'Neil
were here and were
157
asked that question.

THE COURT: Very well.
— o—
158
DEFENSE
HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS, recalled as a witness on behalf of

the defendants under sec. 2055 C. C. P., testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMP LEY:
Q You made a trip down to Los Angeles along about the time of this trouble
at the end of May, did you not, Mr Lewis?
A 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 1st of June. I haven't
anything at the moment to refresh my memory on the date.
Q I show you a telegram dated May 31st, 1929, addressed to E. E. Thomas,
and with the name "H. Spencer Lewis, Imperator," signed to it, and ask you if you
did not send that telegram, of which that is a copy.
A Yes, I believe I sent that telegram.
MR KEMPLEY: I offer it in evidence and ask that it be marked as defendants'
exhibit.
Now, your Honor, the issue in this case is whether or not after severing connection
with the Amorc organization these defendants, formerly members and officers of
that organization, did conduct themselves in a manner which equity will not
countenance. The reasons for the
159
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 relationship, step beyond the bounds of good faith and good morals and
do acts which equity will enjoin? Therefore any question going back to a time
before the break occurred cannot have any bearing whatsoever upon the conduct of
the individuals afterwards, which is the matter in dispute. The 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. This is an injunctive action. All
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 inequitable conduct of which we now
complaint and wish enjoined for the future occurred is incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. The telegram is received
160
in evidence as Defendants' Exhibit D.

(Telegram dated May 31, 1929, received in evidence and marked Defendants'
Exhibit D .)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: I show you another paper, which purports to be
copy of a telegram addressed to Jack O'Neill, and with the name “H. Spencer
Lewis, Imperator,” signed thereto, and ask you if you did not send that telegram
addressed to Mr Jack O'Heill on the date thereof.
Jack O'Neill is not a party to this action in any way, shape, manner or form. I
further object to it on the grounds as stated before, that this telegram was a
communication 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 acts complained of in this action. It is incompetent, irrelevant and
immaterial. I object to its admission in evidence. I object also to any questions
concerning it.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Answer the question "Yes" or "No."
A I cannot tell whether that telegram was sent by me or not.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: In other words, you do not know whether you sent
this telegram or not?
A I can't say whether that is a copy of a telegram sent or not. I purports to be
a copy.
161
MR MAYCOCK: It is not the copy received, is it, Mr Kempley?

MR KEMPLEY: I didn't receive it. I ask it be marked for identification.
THE COURT: Defendants' Exhibit E for Identification.
(Copy of telegram dated May 30, 1929, marked Defendants' Exhibit E for
Identification Only.)
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Now, Mr Lewis, I asked you about coming down to
Los Angeles, with reference to the date of these telegrams. Do you know when you
came down here?
A Well, I know I came down here and was here on Sunday. Now. I can't tell
whether that was two or three days or a week after that date. It all depends on when
the first Sunday fell after that date.
Q You say it was the first Sunday following the date of this telegram?
A It probably was.
A Now, on this trip that you came down to Los Angeles, you went out to the
lodge room here, did you not?
A Which lodge room?
Q Well, the lodge room where Amorc had held forth, anyway.
A No, I did not.
Q Did you go to any other meeting place?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. I
assume he went to some place if he came down
162
here.
THE COURT: Do you mean whether he went to any other meeting place of
the lodge?
MR KEMPLEY: Yes.
THE COURT: He may answer.
A I went to a place where several hundred of our members were gathered and
where they had asked me to come and meet with them.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: And how many would you say were there?
A Two or three hundred.
Q You addressed those members on that occasion, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q And in that address you stated to these members that the charter had been
revoked and that Mr Thomas's relations with the lodge were severed, didn't you?
A Yes.
Q You addressed the members on more than one occasion that time when
you were down here, didn't you?
A I was only here on Sunday.
Q And did you make one address or did you make more than one address on
Sunday?
A Well, I met with the members collectively and then with a committee.
Q But so far as any address to a large group, there was only one occasion, as
you recall?
163
A I cannot say.
Q Now, shortly after that you 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,
noticing them of the revocation of the charter, or at least severance of relations
with Doctor Thomas?
A I probably did, some weeks later; that is, to all members we could reach.
Q And some little time later you employed —perhaps he is on regular
retainer; I don't know —but you specifically employed Mr Aram to come down to
Los Angeles and settle the differences between the plaintiff order and Mr Thomas,
didn't you?
A I engaged Mr Aram to attempt to do so.
Q You engaged Mr Aram to come down to Los Angeles with instructions to
settle the differences with Mr Thomas, didn’t you?
A As peacefully as possible.
Q And in your conversation with Mr Aram you gave him authority to do all
things necessary in order to settle the differences, didn't you?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that as a confidential communication, and we
claim the privilege.
164
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q In regard to Mr Kempley's question in regard to whether or not you
communicated with all the members, you said that you communicated with some,
as far as you could reach. Who had the membership list?
A That had been our chief problem. The membership list was in the archives
somewhere of Hermes lodge, and we didn't have a complete list.
Q In Los Angeles?
A Yes.
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 Headquarters, to save
time. And we will also stipulate it may be introduced in evidence.
MR KEMPLEY: I offer it in evidence.
THE COURT: The letter is received in evidence and marked Defendants’
Exhibit F.
165
(Amorc letter dated June 25, 1929, received in evidence and marked
Defendants’ Exhibit F.)
Q You are the supreme head of the organization, are you not?
A Yes.
Q Your authority exceeds and controls over any board of directors or other
body of the organization, does it not, under your by-laws?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground it is incompetent, irrelevant
and immaterial; on the ground it assumes a fact not in evidence; and also it is
admitted in evidence at the present time and admitted by the pleadings, and
therefore the statement could not be true as a matter of law.
A No, because we have a board of directors and a Supreme Council.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Your authority exceeds that of the Supreme
Council, does it not?
A Only in matters of doctrinal teachings.
Q Well, in all matters pertaining to the government and control of the order,
does it not?
A No.
Q Who constitutes the Supreme Council?
beyond the issues of this case.
166
MR KEMPLEY: It seems to me I am entitled to go into this question.

THE COURT: You may ask how many the board consists of; but who they
are is immaterial, is it not?
MR KEMPLEY: I hate to state the reason why I don't think it is immaterial.
Under the peculiar circumstances of this case I think it would be material, because
I believe the answer would show that the board is composed almost entirely of the
members of his own family.
That is all.
— 0 —
E. E. THOMAS, recalled as a witness on behalf of the

defendants, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR KEMPLEY:
Q Mr Thomas, when did you become a member of Amorc?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. The
question is whether or not he became a member, but the method by which he
became a member is, because of the fraternal character of this organization, a
matter which cannot be gone into in this proceeding. The court has already ruled,
when the same question was asked referring to rituals and methods of initiation,
that it could not be adduced at this trial.
MR KEMPLEY: That was on the general question how per-
167
sons became members; but in this case you have waived it, because you have
introduced in evidence his application and oath and everything else.
MR MAYCOCK: We haven't waived anything. He became a member, and
those were for the purpose of showing what his obligations were.
THE COURT: The question is indefinite. Do you mean how he happened to
become a member or how he became a member?
MR KEMPLEY: I will withdraw that question and make it more definite.
Q The application signed by you has been introduced in evidence here, Mr
Thomas. You have seen it?
A Yes.
Q Where were you residing at the time you signed that application?
A In Redding, California.
Q Was there any lodge of Amorc in Redding?
A Yes.
Q Where, if you know, was the lodge nearest to Redding?
A Tampa, Florida.
beyond the issues in this case.
A The headquarters at that time were in Tampa, Florida.
THE COURT: The question was, where was the nearest lodge
168
to Redding, where you signed that application.

A At the time that was the only one I knew.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: And did you receive any evidence of any kind that
you had been admitted to membership?
A Yes.
Q Between the time you signed this application and the receipt of this
acknowledgment that you had been admitted to membership did you attend any
lodge meetings at any place?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. It is
a matter that is admitted in the pleadings, that Doctor Thomas was a member of
Amorc. We have freely conceded it. He has not denied it; has admitted it on the
witness-stand. Now, 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 involved in this case.
THE WITNESS: What is the question?
MR KEMPLEY: Please read the question.
A I did not.
169
Q Then later, you testified, you became master of the local lodge in Los
Angeles?
A Yes.
Q You have seen a telegram that has been introduced in evidence, signed by
H. Spencer Lewis, to you, directing you to turn over the lodge charter, or whatever
it was? You have seen that telegram?
A Yes.
Q Did you see Doctor Lewis shortly after the receipt of this telegram?
A I did not.
Q Do you know whether or not he came to Los Angeles?
A I do.
Q Were there any meetings held?
MR MAYCOCK: Just a moment. I ask that the answer be stricken for the
purpose of making an objection, and object to it on the ground it is hearsay.
Q BY THE COURT: Do you know of your own knowledge, Mr Witness?
A I didn't perceive him with my own eyes, but I knew he was here.
MR KEMPLEY: We will consent that it be stricken out, if counsel insists.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Did you have any meetings or public gatherings of
persons who had been members of Amorc here in
170
Los Angeles shortly after the date of this telegram?

A Yes.
MR MAYCOCK: Kindly wait until I have an opportunity to object.
THE COURT: The answer is stricken for the purpose of making an objection.
MR MAYCOCK: I object on the ground that any action of this defendant
with any other individuals not members of this order is not binding upon this
plaintiff and, as such, are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial. Any statements
made there, of course, are hearsay.
MR KEMPLEY: 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
new organization. If those persons were told of the severance of the relations and
knew all of the facts and circumstances —I don’t mean knew all the facts and
circumstances, but if they were informed 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. And I 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.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. He may answer.
A We did.
171
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Did you address those persons in any public

meeting?
A Yes.
Q In that address was anything said —I don't mean any details you gave, but
was anything said about the severance of your relations with Amorc?
MR MAYCOCK: I object to that on the ground it is calling for a self-serving
declaration by an individual, made by himself out of the hearing and presence of an
individual; incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
MR KEMPLEY: It was a means of giving notice to these persons that there
was a severance, and consequently there was no deception practiced upon them.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A I made that very clear; that was one of the first things we mentioned, to
make it clear to all.
MR MAYCOCK: I object to the answer and ask it be stricken on the ground
that what has been asked calls for and the answer states a conclusion.
THE COURT: The answer can be "Yes" or "No.” The former answer is
stricken out.
A Yes.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Was anything said about the receipt of this
telegram by you?
A Yes.
Q Were the members at that time informed that the charter
172
under your direction had been revoked?

A Yes.
Q May I amend that question? It would perhaps he misleading in the record.
Were they informed you had received -
MR MAYCOCK: That is certainly leading and suggestive. He can direct his
attention to certain parts of the conversation. I maintain it is all self-serving, but he
can't state what he said and ask him then, as his own witness, whether or not he
said it. That is leading and suggestive.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Was anything said to the members at that time
about this telegram that has been introduced in evidence and marked Defendants'
Exhibit D?
A Yes.
Q What was said?
A That the charter had been revoked. In fact, the telegram was read and
posted on the wall, besides.
Q Aside from this, did you have any private conversations with members or
any member?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial;
conversations between this defendant and individuals, the plaintiff not being
present, are incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial, not binding upon this plaintiff,
and are self-serving.
MR KEMPLEY: They have attempted by three or four cards
173
to show people came in and paid dues without knowing anything about it. We want
to show this defendant did everything he could at least to carry information to
these people of the severance.
(Further discussion.)
MR KEMPLEY: In other words, all you claim is what you have introduced
here simply goes to prove these particular three or four persons were deceived. Is
that true?
MR MAYCOCK: That is not true. What I mean to say is, that if he is going
to take the method of negative proof, he must do so by proving all the other
individuals were told except these few. An inference can he drawn from a few that
others were deceived, but he cannot by negative testimony say, "This person was
not deceived,” or, "I told this or that person," without naming what group or
individuals, "that we were no longer connected with Amorc," and thereby refute
anything in the plaintiffs case. It is negative testimony.
THE COURT: Objection overruled. Answer "Yes" or "No."
A Yes.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Do you recall having a conversation with a man
named Hernandez?
A I do.
Q The gentleman that was on the stand this morning?
A Yes.
Q Where did that conversation occur?
174
A In the outer office, in the treasurer's door.

Q Do you remember when that was?
A Some days after the separation. I don't recall the exact date.
Q What was said in that conversation relative at least to the separation?
A He said he had just heard of the trouble and wanted to know something
about it.
Q And what did you say to him?
A I explained the whole situation to him fully.
MR MAYCOCK: I ask that be stricken.
THE COURT: It is stricken out.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: What did you say to him? Not your conclusion.
A That we had separated from Amorc; that Amorc was no longer within
those walls. The conversation was about twenty minutes or thirty minutes of
duration.
Q Did you have similar conversation with other members?
A Very, very few.
Q When did you next see Lewis, if at all?
A I didn't see him at all; not until in the court-room.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Did you see Mr Aram subsequently to this time?
175
A Yes.
Q Do you remember about when that was?
A Not 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 and ask you if that is
your signature appended thereto.
A Yes.
Q And the name written thereon "Alfred Aram," did you see anyone sign
that?
A I did not.
Q You don't know who signed it, then?
A No.
MR KEMPLEY: Will you stipulate you signed it, Mr Aram?
MR ARAM: Yes.
MR KEMPLEY: This is offered in evidence.
MR HAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
not within the issues of the case. The conduct we are complaining of was
subsequent to this, and the only bearing it would have would be whether or not he
carried out that agreement. We are not suing upon the contract, but upon equitable
grounds. The contract is immaterial.
THE COURT: We will receive it for what it is worth. Objection overruled. It
will be received as Defendants’ Exhibit G.
(Document entitled "Agreement" received in evidence and marked Defendants’
Exhibit G.)
176
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: There have been some mimeograph lectures

introduced in evidence; some, I believe, you testified were sent out prior to the
severance of your relations with Amorc. Were those sent out by the local lodge, or
sold by the local lodge?
A We were constantly sending out different kinds of correspondence that was
mimeographed and so on.
Q These lectures, were they sold by the local lodge?
A Yes.
Q And to whom?
A To the members.
Q Did the residential members of the local lodge ordinarily receive the
lectures in writing, prior to the time you started selling these, I mean?
MR KEMPLEY: You brought out upon your examination that they sold
some of these for fifteen cents, and I just wanted to bring out the fact as to how
they happened to be selling them.
A No.
Q Did you have any correspondence or conversation, with Mr Lewis relative
to your selling these lectures?
A Yes.
Ill
Q Just briefly, what was that?

MR MAYCOCK: Let's have with whom and where and when.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Well, was it by letter or personal conversation?
A Personal conversation.
Q Where?
A In our lodge room.
Q Approximately when, as near as you can give it to us?
A On the occasion of his two visits in 1928,1 believe, one of them was; I
don't remember the exact dates. I think one was in May and the other in October. I
wouldn't say exactly. He even showed the lady running the mimeograph how to
mimeograph them to better advantage.
Q And was anyone else present besides yourself and Doctor Lewis at that
time?
A Yes.
Q Who else?
A Mrs Scott and several of the office staff, the secretary and the treasurer.
Q What was said in that conversation relative to mimeographing these
lessons?
MR MAYCOCK: What lectures are you referring to now? There seem to have
been several hundred. Some of them, I believe it has been testified, were
confidential in character. Let's have what lessons you are referring to.
178
MR KEMPLEY: I am referring to all lessons that were subsequently sold.

THE COURT: Let him answer.
A We mimeographed all the private lectures for the benefit of the members.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: I am asking now for the conversation 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. I don't remember all
that was said, but he showed us some of the lessons that had been issued in San
Jose and were not clearly typed, and showed us how to use the mimeograph so it
would be clearer.
Q Was anything said about your selling them?
A Nothing whatever, except we told him we were getting fifteen cents for
them, which was the cost of the materials only.
Q Was anything said in that conversation about why you were
mimeographing these in the local lodge?
A Yes.
Q What was said?
A Because the members wanted the lessons at home to review at their leisure
and not just hear them in the lodge room; the main complaint was it would go in
one ear and out the other, so they wanted something to take home and read,
179
just like the corresponding members would.

Q Did you have a mimeograph machine?
A Yes.
Q What subsequently became of that mimeograph machine?
MR MAYCQCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial and
has nothing to do with the issues in the case.
THE COURT: You may answer.
A They made a raid on us and took the mimeograph and money and other
things during the process of that temporary injunction.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Were there other furnishings and furniture in the
lodge rooms at the time?
A Yes.
Q What became of that furniture and furnishings?
A They took nearly everything away.
Q Did you collect dues from the members after the severance?
A Not from the Amorc members —not knowingly.
Q From your members?
A Yes.
Q For how long a period did you continue to collect dues?
A Only just a few weeks.
Q Do you collect dues now?
A We do not.
Q How long is it since you have collected any dues?
180
A I think we began within probably six weeks or eight weeks after our
severance to let everything be voluntary, what the person was capable of paying,
according to what he could afford, and we charged no entrance fees or no dues of
any kind after that. Voluntary contributions.
Q What, if any, use did you make of the rituals put out by Amorc after the
severance?
A We made use of them twice, I believe it was, by excluding certain parts
and explaining other matters more in accordance with our own inclinations in that
regard, leaving out in every instance the word "Amorc" and substituting “U O A
M," and taking some of the matter entirely out and putting in other matter.
Q Did you make any use of these rituals after the two occasions you speak
of?
A No.
Q 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 between Amorc and yourself?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as calling for a purely self-serving declaration
made by the defendant to members of his own organization, not binding upon the
plaintiff; incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
A We did.
181
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Not to ask you for the contents, now, but you are
familiar with the rituals used by Amorc?
A Yes.
Q That were used at that time, at least. Are you familiar with the
"Brotherhood of Rosae Crucis,” by A. E. Waite?
A Yes.
Q What have you to say with reference to the contents of the ritual, as to
whether or not it largely appears in the "Brotherhood of Rosae Crucis," by Waite?
MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial; on
the ground that this witness is not qualified to answer; on the further ground that he
is himself, by his own conduct, estopped from claiming the ritual he received under
the terms of particular solemnity and which he swore never to divulge can now be
by him complained of as not being the ritual and the property, as such, of the
organization whose confidence he is violating.
(Discussion.)
MR MAYCOCK: I object further on the ground that it is not calling for
positive evidence. In order to prove the matter they are endeavoring to elicit by
this, they are asking this man —and I am very insistent on this point; so much so
that I will let that rest there for the moment. I make this statement: That in order to
elicit this informa
182
tion that is endeavored to be elicited by this question it would be necessary to put

in evidence the ritual of the plaintiff order, and these documents, "Brotherhood of
the Rosy Cross," by A. E. Waite, which would be the best evidence 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 secret ritual. For the purpose of this
litigation it is incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial to the issues drawn. And I am
going to ask your Honor, before ruling on that question, if it is in your Honor's
mind to overrule our objection, to grant me a continuance at this time so I can
appeal to a proper court for a writ of prohibition. We are not going to submit to
having this ritual brought out here, because it would be detrimental and damaging
to the very structure and basis of our fraternal organization.
MR KEMPLEY: That is the reason I put the question as I did. 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, to show there was nothing original in this ritual, or at least
that a large part of it was not original.
THE COURT: It is not your purpose to bring out the ritual?
MR MAYCOCK: Unless we have the ritual, it is immaterial
183
that parts of it may be taken from other sources.

(Further discussion.)
MR MAYCOCK: May I ask now for an adjournment for the purpose of
protecting my client by a wit of prohibition?
THE COURT: I will reserve ruling on the question. Go ahead and ask some
other question.
(Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
MR MAYCOCK: I am ready to await your Honor’s ruling upon this
question.
THE COURT: Probably a sufficient foundation has not yet been laid for the
question. He has just testified he is familiar with this volume about the Rosy Cross,
and I think upon this alone I don’t intend to let the Rosy Cross go into evidence.
MR MAYCOCK: What I am not going to permit, if I can help it, is to
allow the ritual to go into evidence, nor to allow a person to say that in that
particular book or something else all of it is to be found, which 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 COURT: The court will rule at this time there hasn't been sufficient
foundation to justify the witness in answering the question.
MR KEMPLEY: I will withdraw the previous question, then.

Q Have you read and are you familiar with a work entitled
184
“Brotherhood of Rosy Cross," by A. E. Waite?

not within the issues of the case.
THE COURT: That has been asked and answered.
Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Have you compared the ritual of the 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 Rosy Cross"?
an attempt to do an inequitable thing, and 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, and elicit a comparison by him,
for the obvious purpose of getting into this record, if it is a fact, and I don't know
whether it is or not, that in certain publicized work a portion or a large portion of
that which he received as a solemn secret is actually published in a recondite work.
THE COURT: You may answer the question "Yes" or "No," whether you
have or not.
A I have.
MR KEMPLEY: Now, I will state, so you may know why I am dropping the
subject, rather than cause any delay at this time, I am not going to ask the question
I think you would have particular objection to. If I do ask it, I will do it later.
185
Q There are certain other persons named with you as defendants in this
action, Mr Thomas. Do you know who those persons are?
A Yes.
Q What connection do they have with you?
A Well, they were members and signed that defense letter. However, I would
like to take my full responsibility for that letter.
Q Let me ask you this question: In any of their actions did they act simply as
employees or under your direction and guidance?
A No, as members.
Q Some of them acted as employees, did they not —Mrs Bentley?
A Yes.
MR ARAM: Objected to as leading, and I ask that the answer go out, as well
as the question.
MR KEMPLEY: I will withdraw the last part of the question and ask it this
way:
Q Was Mrs Bentley an employee of yours?
A Yes.
MR MAYCOCK: Are you going to recall the doctor again?
MR KEMPLEY: I may, I don't know.
MR MAYCOCK: If your Honor please, I am going to request, if this be the
end of the direct examination, that I may now
186
be so advised, in order that I may cross-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 KEMPLEY: I grant you it is in the discretion of the court, and perhaps it
may be imposing upon you and the court by recalling him.
THE COURT: You don't intend to recall him?
MR KEMPLEY: I don't intend to. I may want to recall him for that one
question, or I might want to recall him for something else; but for all practical
purposes I am through.
CROSS-EXAMINATION
BY MR MAYCOCK:
Q You stated, Doctor Thomas, that you took full responsibility for the so-
called Defense Committee letter. Do you mean by that that you wrote it?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as asked and answered. The doctor was on the
stand under 2055 and that was introduced in evidence and he was fully examined
about it. He acknowledged it was sent with his knowledge and authorization.
A I did not write it.
187
Q BYMRMAYCOCK: Did you direct them to write the letter?

A No.
Q What did you mean by saying you assumed full responsibility for it?
A I mean I would like to have the burden put on me and exonerate those
whose names were signed there, if it is legally possible.
Q You are willing to waive our rights against those people?
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as argumentative.
Q BY MR MAYCOCK: It is stated in this letter, Doctor, that you did not
want to do anything about a previous letter to which this is supposed to be an
answer. Is that a fact?
A Yes.
Q To whom did you state that?
A To Mr Prescott Smith, who wrote the letter.
Q He was the one who wrote the letter?
A Yes.
Q Do you know whether any of the other members of the Defense Committee
collaborated with him in its preparation?
A I do not.
Q Did he tell you he wrote the letter?
A Yes.
188
Q You stated you had a conversation with Mr Hernandez?

A Yes.
Q Where?
A In our lodge rooms.
Q When?
A A few days after the separation.
Q What was the occasion for it?
A The occasion was, Mr Hernandez was in some kind of trouble, had been
for some time, and I was trying to advise him and help him out in his trouble, get
him out of his mental anguish, all that sort of thing, along those lines, and that was
what the conversation was about, most of it.
Q Let's have the conversation, Doctor.
MR KEMPLEY: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.
THE COURT: The witness has stated the conversation lasted twenty minutes
to half an hour, and many, many things could be talked about in that time. Confine
it to the particular matter brought out on direct examination.
MR MAYCOCK: I have a right, as I understand the law, to have it all. This
is cross-examination and is not for the purpose of eliciting the truth, but is for the
purpose of eliciting untruths.
MR KEMPLEY: I think counsel is stepping beyond the bounds of counsel and
indulging in an attack and insinuations
189
against the witness's testimony on direct examination thereby.

MR MAYCOOK: 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 Hernandez'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 cross- examination 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 direct examination.
MR MAYCOCK: Is your Honor going to limit me to that portion, as to that
portion of the conversation?
THE COURT: That portion of the conversation.
MR MAYCOCK: Your Honor, please, I feel, for the purpose of the record, that
I am being curtailed in proper limits of cross-examination. At this time I wish to
dismiss this action, in order to bring another action.
MR KEMPLEY: To which we object, and ask for a judgment for the
defendant.
MR MAYCOCK: We have a right, in law, to a dismissal at any time, and not
with prejudice. We have a distinct right
190
in law. If your Honor wishes authority upon the question, I shall be glad to furnish
them.
MRKEMPLEY: With costs?
MR MAYCOCK: That includes costs.
THE COURT: You have no objection to the dismissal?
MR KEMPLEY: Not with costs.
MR MAYCOCK: That is the law, your Honor, please with costs.
THE COURT: Dismissed with costs.
— o —
191
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES. )
I, CHARLES A. BOWMAN, an Official Reporter of the Superior 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
testimony taken and proceedings had in the case of THE ANCIENT AND
MYSTICAL ORDER ROSAE CRUCIS, a corporation, Plaintiff, vs. E. E.
THOMAS, et al., Defendants, No. 283,405, in Department 40, on January 5th and
6th, 1931.
Dated this 16th day of June, 1931.
Charles A. Bowman (signature)
Official Reporter

AMORC Vs E. E. Thomas (1931) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

AMORC Vs E. E. Thomas (1931) PDF

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Department No. 40. Hon. Caryl M. Sheldon, Judge.

THE ANCIENT AND MYSTICAL ORDER

Monday, January 5, 1931; 10 o'clock a. m.

MR. MAYCOCK: This complaint is rather voluminous in its character, your

have a monopoly on and we can so arrange them as to designate our business, or

ferred to in plaintiffs complaint in any form so as to mislead the public. We are

MR KEMPLEY: May I say, —I wasn't present at the time but I understand at

HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS, called as a witness on behalf of

Q Is there a Supreme Lodge?

and work at all.

of his admission into the organization.

Amorc was severed?

organization and your order?

Q In the United States?

A Porto Rico and Central American states.

A No, I don’t know that.

“Rosicrucian” which is an Anglicized form of "Rosae Crucis," meaning “Of the

Who prepares them?

personally assist in the preparation of them?

Monday, January 5, 1931; 2 o'clock p. m.

HARVEY SPENCER LEWIS resumed the stand.

before the court.

an organization by copyright or by possession. Now, when they come to prove

THE COURT: Obj ection overruled.

A Some were in French; most of them were in English, in abbreviated or coded

ground it has been asked and answered in the former question.

A I translated the hieroglyphics.

MR MAYCOCK: Objected to as incompetent, irrelevant and immaterial.

ready asked and answered.

who is supposed to be plagiarized. The violation, if any, of that individual's rights

Q BY MR KEMPLEY: Doctor Lewis, do you have a lodge in any place in

other than in Los Angeles County?” )

than your recollection as to members outside of that territory?

Q Was your testimony as to membership in Los Angeles and vicinity based on

Q (by the Clerk:) What is your name?

Q What was your particular occupation?

for its work?

this organization was in departments, tell us what it was.

some of them had paragraphs that were copied verbatim.

announce the presence of this order in that building?

you substitute the sign?

A Yes, that is mine.

Q What was their duty?

A Yes. However, it is a rubber stamp one.

out on your order's letter-head?

Q Do you know whether this is her handwriting?

you severed your connection with that order?

A Yes, that is a letter we sent out to our different members.

A Yes, I think so.

Tuesday, January 6, 1931; 10 o'clock a. m.

E. E. THOMAS resumed the stand.

Q Have you that lease with you?

progress from grade to grade?

A I don't know just what you mean lay "arrangements.”

A Yes, that is my signature.

Q BY MR ARAM: Now, you wrote this letter, you say?

evidence. It is introduced in evidence.

MR ARAM: I will read a paragraph from Plaintiffs Exhibit 6 in that connection:

the other side.” Who is meant by "the other side”?

A To all whom we thought were our members, yes.

Q BY MR ARAM: Now, Mr Thomas, there was introduced yesterday, by your