SELLING A CHURCH.

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 46, 23 February 1929, Page 11

SELLING A CHURCH.

A THAMES TRANSACTION. RATES MUST BE PAID. VICTORY FOR BOROUGH COUNCIL. The case in which the Thames Borough Council brought an action for payment of rates against the trustees of the local Congregational Church was decided today by Mr. Justice Blair, who gave judgment at the Auckland Supreme Court in favour of the council.

His Honor said the facts of the case were not in dispute, although the inferences from the facts were disputed. At Thames there was a church belonging to the defendants, and prior to a lire on February 12, 1926, it was used for church services. The services were conducted as a Union Church, composed of both Congregationalists and Baptists, the latter having a considerable majority of adherents. Prior to the fire negotiations were on foot between the two churches for the Baptists to acquire the church. On February 12 a fire partially destroyed the church and it was not usable until repaired. On April 14, 1926, the insurance company paid the defendants £160 in respect of the fire loss. Further overtures to the Baptists to take the church over were apparently made but without result. The property, still unrepaired was, in September," 1926, placed in the hands of a land agent at Thames for sale. This agent advertised it in the local papers, describing it as suitable for an auction mart or garage. The Moderator of the defendant church said that this was done to bring tlu: Baptists up to the purchasing point, and that they would never have allowed it to be sold for anything but a church. He admitted, however, that the usual authority to sell was given to the agent. Bought by the Baptists. The agent's operations ultimately had the desired result, and the Baptists bought the damaged church, taking possession on April 1, 1927. No church services were held from February 9, 192(5, until after it was repaired. The Thames Borough Council levied rates totalling £44 8/9 on the property for the year commencing April 1, 1926, and ending March 31, 1927. It is admitted that unless defendants were entitled to exemption as "lands occupied by churches and chapels or cemeteries other than cemeteries owned by private persons for pecuniary gain or profit" within section 2 of The Rating Act, 1925,' the rates were properly payable. It appeared clear, said his Honor, that defendants, after the fire, had no intention of repairing the church for the purpose of holding services there. Their members in Thames had become so few as not to justify the continuance of services. From their point of view they wanted another denomination —the Baptists—to take it off their hands, and they took steps, which ultimately proved successful, to this end. The legal position appears to me to be the same whether there had been complete or only partial destruction of the building. Not Occupied as a Church. The first question was whether the land was occupied by a "church or chapel." The land was certainly covered with a building that had been a church and used as a church. But was it a "church" in the period in question? As the judge understood the term "church it meant a building for public worship, and in many Christian denominations a church was called the Lord's house. The size of the building or the grandeur of its architecture did not make a church; many churches used buildings of the humblest description. It was the sacerdotal element in a building that made it a church. The Congregationalists after the happening of the fire had decided, that tliey would no longer hold services there, nor would they repair the building in order that another denomination could do so. The building appeared to the judge entirely to have lost its sacerdotal character, and the land and building was in the defendant's hands as a property for sale. In his opinion, therefore, the land during the rating year in question was not occupied by a "church," and the exemption did not apply. Judgment was given for plaintiff for amount claimed, with appropriate costs. Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for plaintiffs, and Mr. Glaister for defendants.