Most Worshipful United Grand Lodge of Free & Accepted Masons of Maryland, Inc. v. Lee

Constable, J., delivered the opinion of the Court. This case is now before this Court for the second time. The first appeal is reported in 128 Md. 42 , and it was an appeal from an order overruling a demurrer filed by the appellant herein. The case, upon being remanded, was heard upon its merits, and the decree being in favor of the plaintiff, the defendants have again appealed.

The opinion filed in the first appeal fully set out the allegations of the bill and clearly announced the law applicable to them, and, therefore, it only remains for us, in order to dispose of the present appeal, to examine the record for the purpose of determining whether' or not the allegations of the bill are supported by the testimony taken. The following quotation from the opinion in the prior appeal, abundantly supported by the authorities, fully sets forth the legal rights of a member of an organiation such as the one here involved: “In matter of discipline, doctrine and internal policy of the organization the rules by which the members have agreed to be governed constitute the charter of their rights, and courts will decline to take cognizance of any matter arising under these rules. Whether the rules have been violated, or whether a member has been guilty of conduct which authorizes an investigation by the association, or the imposition of the penalty prescribed by it, is eminently fit i for the association itself to determine, and, if the investigation is in accordance with its rules, the party charged has no ground of complaint, since it is but carrying into1 effect the agreement he made when he became a member of the association. But where it is shown that the proceedings in ⁶⁸³ stituted against him have not been conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure in such cases, and that in violation of such rules, he has been given no opportunity to appear' and defend himself before the tribunal which is to hear and determine the charges preferred against him, the Court when called upon will not hesitate to interfere in his. behalf against the invasion of such rights.” That was the pronouncement of this Court in dealing with the allegations of the bill upon demurrer, but we are now dealing with the allegations of the bill in the light of the testimony.

The questions to be determined are: Has it been shown that the proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the prescribed rules of procedure in such cases, and that in violation of such rules the accused was given no opportunity to appear and defend himself ? Tt. was established by the testimony that Milton E. Lee, the appellee, was on October 21st, 1913, a member of Enterprise Lodge Ho. 3, a subordinate lodge of The Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of F. & A. Masons of Maryland, an association of bolored men; that at that time he was the master or presiding officer of the subordinate lodge. On the 22nd day of October, 1913, charges were preferred with the Grand Master of the The Most Worshipful, etc., against Lee, while presiding at a meeting on the preceding evening of Enterprise Lodge Ho. 3, with having committed a Masonic offense. Thereupon the Grand Master appointed a committee for the purpose of investigating the charges, so as to determine whether or not the charges were well founded and of such a character as to justify the proceeding, in accordance with section 2 of article 5 of the constitution.

Lee was notified of the