ST. MATTHEW'S STONE CHURCH.

Auckland Star, Volume XXXII, Issue 130, 3 June 1901, Page 2

ST. MATTHEW'S STONE CHURCH.

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—As the general public appears to take considerable interest in this ques-' tion, and as the trustees of the fund have been made to appear in a very unenviable light in the matter by reiterated misrepresentation, will you kindly allow me space to explain the real cause of the friction between the vestry and the trustees, which is simply this—that the former have for years past _ been doing their utmost to get possession of the funds for other purposes than that for which the trust was constituted. Finding we were obdurate, they even went the length of taking legal advice as to an application to the Supreme Court for our removal. Mow, as t\* . management has proved by their own' auditor, the late Mr WaymoUth, to have been an unqualified success, there was no question as to the ability and. faithfulness of the trustees. No, it was simply the desire of the vestry to have sole control of thefunds. On the first occasion they wanted a thousand pounds to pay off their debts and d<\ certain repairs to the church. When we pointed out that we could not legally do it they invited us to go to the Supreme Court in a friendly suit and ask the judge to give his sanction. We said no. The judge would most likely say: You are nice men for trustees. You come here and ask the Court to sanction a misappropriation of funds committed to your care and endorse an act of malefeaaance.

Subsequently they had a nice little plan, which we were asked to agree to, viz., they wanted £2000 for a parsonage and several thousand for a school for the endowment of the parish, and other cognate purposes, and the balance for the church. We, of course, emphatically declined to carry out this programme. ■ The next move assumed the air of dictation, in 1895. We were desired that as the mortgages became due we were to call in the money ana place it in the various banks in Auckland. Now, as more than half the mortgages were overdue, it meant the loss or a lot of interest, and as a matter of fact the sum of £8000 has been earned since this "wonderful financial edict came forth. Having decided to go on with the church the vestry formed a Building Committee of about fourteen, from which committee the trustees were carefully excluded. As we considered it our, duty to see that the funds were properly expended, we, of course, objected to being quietly ignored, and as the vestry refused a very fair proposal for the constitution of the committee we were driven into the Supreme Court against our will, and this resulted in the trust fund being saddled with £360 costs. By the direction of the Court, a Building Committee was appointed, to consist of the two trustees, the vicar of the parish ex officio, two nominees of the vestry,* and Archdeacon Dudley, as permanent chairman or moderator. This worked very well, although, exclusive of the chairman, the voting of the parish' was three* to two (trustees). They now seek a further influence by making the vicar chairman, having two votes, and nominating another from the parish, which would place the trustees in a powerless position, having only two votes against five.

As to the ability and trustworthiness of the parish authorities, a retrospect of their actions shows that they Ivave maiadministered the finances of the parish for many years past. They have involved the parish in debt, and until very recently have made no effort to reduce it. And now they are eager to rash into Court and squander more money, which they expect will be charged to the stone church fund. These are the men who are so anxious to get control of a fund to which scarcely a single member of the parish has contributed sixpence.— Yours, etc, % JAMES P-URiVa