UNUSUAL CASE.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 50, Issue 155, 12 April 1930, Page 2

UNUSUAL CASE.

QUESTION OF MARRIAGE. PENTECOSTAL CHURCH INCIDENT (Special to the “Guardian.”) AUCKLAND, April 11. A prosecution of an unusual kind was heard in the Police Court when Jesse Charles Hawkins, an en-gine-driver, took proceedings against Louis Alfred Silson, a market gardener, under the Marriage Amendment Act, 1920. The charge alleged that Silson, on January 12, “in the East Street Hall of the Pentecostal Church of New Zealand, known as the Assemblies of God in New Zealand, did allege expressly -or/and by implication that Hawkins and his wife (being persons lawfully! married) were not truly and sufficiently married.” Mr Sullivan, counsel for Hawkins, said: “For some time past there have beent suggestions, hints’, statements and starings in the church to the effect that the devil was among them. Seven or eight months ago Silson refused to shake hands with Hawkins. The shaking of hands is evidently important in this church. Hawkins asked Silson why, and Silson* replied that Hawkins and his wife were leading an improper life.”

Hawkins, in evidence, said that Silson was a deacon, and occupied the oulpit on one occasion at a gathering of church members. Silson asked witness if his (Hawkims’s) divorced wife was still alive. Witness replied in the affirmative, and Silcon then said' " that witness was not now married in the eyes of God. Silson proceeded to read extracts from the Bible—verses 9 to 11 of 1 Corinthians, ch. 5.

Air Sullivan: Was emphasis laid on any particular features m the extract I. Corinthians, v., 9-11 P Hawkins: Yes. Silson laid stress on one word. He said I was living in sin.

Subsequently, said the witness, he received a letter from two elders of the church, informing him that he had been expelled. The Alagistrate read an extract'from the letter, which rea_d: “We have no further fellowship with Air and Airs Hawkins ini their present condition.”

Airs Alice Alary Hawkins, wife of complainant, said they had been going to the church for about six years. Air Stevens: You knew the attitude of the church regarding the re-marriage of divorced persons, did you not? Witness: No. You resent being told you can have no fellowship with these people, don’t you?—Not now. _ . But you did at the time?—l objected to the terms of the letter. AU Sullivan asked permission to cal! Silson as a witness, but the Alagistrate said that this could not be done. It was not even a quasi-crimmal * Air Sullivan then called Joseph Alexander Alansfield, an elder of the church, who was one of the authors of the letter. Counsel asked the witness directly whether Air and Airs Hawkins were married. Witness: Legally they are, but not lawfully. * , . Mr Hunt: You say they are living in sin- ? Witness: I don’t say that. Then what do you say? Does your

order say thev are not lawfully married? —They are not lawfullv married according to the belief of our church. Witness said lie asked Hawkins at the prayer meeting _ whether his divorced wife was still alive. Hawkins said she was. Witness then asked Airs Hawkins if her divorced 'husband _was still alive. She also said yes. Witness pointed out that their presence was likely to be a cause of trouble to the other members, and asked them not to remain in the church. They [ ontinued to attend until a£k?f receipt of the letter. “It is no offence for a person to say that he brieves in the Scriptures,’ cnid Air Stevens opening the' defence. The church was a considerable portion of the community. Air Hunt: Do you say these people are not legally married? Defendant: No. Air Stevens: You do not suggest that these people were not lawfully and sufficiently married?—l do not, and never did. . . Air Sullivan: In vour own opinion are these people lawfully and legally married?—The law says they are. Do you say they are?—Yes. Air Hunt: Then why use the word complained of?—I was reading from the Scriptures. Air Hunt said the case was of considerable importance. He reserved his decision.