UNUSUAL APPEAL.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 243, 14 October 1935, Page 9

UNUSUAL APPEAL.

, CHATTELS WITHHELD. CHRISTIAN ENDEAVOUR CASE. DISMISSAL OF SECRETARIES, 1 The hearing of an appeal against an 1 order made by Mr. W. R. McKean, S.M., r for the return of certain chattels to T Kenneth 11. Melvin, president of the New Zealand Christian Endeavour 1 Union, was begun before Mr. Justice * Callan at the Supreme Court this morn'r ing. The appellants are Noel and Ethel ; Car less, represented by Messrs. R. Mc- , Veagh and W. G. MeArthur. The I respondent, Kenneth H. Melvin, is repre- , sented by Mr. I. J. Goldstine. The action from which the appeal , arises was heard in the Magistrate's . Court on August 22 and 27, when Melvin sought recovery from the defendants, t then joint secretaries of the union in Auckland, of' certain chattels, which 1 included books, badges, duplicator, type- ' writer, etc. Damages to theamount of J £10 wero also claimed for wrongful 1 detention of the goods. After hearing ' the evidence, Mr. McKean made an order r for the articles to be delivered to the > plaintiff and assessed damages at £2. ■ It was against this decision that the ! appeal was made, the grounds being I that the decision was wrong in fact and s law. i Mr. McVeagli said it was admitted I appellants were members of the New : Zealand Christian Endeavour Union. It [ was common ground that the appellants ; were joint secretaries of the union, and they had possession of various documents belonging to the union which they refused to deliver to the respondent. Not An Incorporate Body. ■ Mr. McVeagli submitted that the real owner of the books, etc., was the New Zealand Christian Endeavour Union. The appellants and respondents were members of the organisation, which was not an incorporate body, and counsel quoted authorities to show that no action could lio where the parties were co-owners, which lie submitted the parties were. • His Honor: What you say is that if there were ten co-owners of certain chattels, and no one owner had a better right to possession than another. A, say, with the sanction of eight others, had 110 right to bring an action which could not succced. Mr. McVeagli submitted that was the position. His Honor said it seemed there was 110 question that the appellants possessed the chattels in their official capacity of secretary-treasurer. They had been dismissed by Mr. Melvin, and this dismissal was confirmed "by the executive. The dismissal had followed the appellants failing to obey a request to resign. His Honor said that here was a body who had elected officers for a period of two years and it was not right to put them out unless for misconduct or some serious breach. Could the executive committee, or the Dominion council, or the whole Dominion body dismiss an officer unless some serious offence had been committed by the particular officer? Certain charges had .been, made, but these had been iii a sort of "sealed envelope" because it was desired to say as little as possible. Without hearing the charges it was decided to ask the appellants to resign. Mr. Goldstine, for the respondent, would probably say there was 110 charge, but if so he would have to facc the difficulty that the services of the appellants were dispensed with without the laying of a charge. Submission Not Agreed To. Mr. Goldstine said he differed from Mr. McVeaglrs submission that.no action would lie against a co-owner. Again, the chattels concerned in the action were necessary for the running of the Christian Endeavour Union. Without the chattels it would be very inconvenient. There was a clause provided "the council shall act through the executive committee." His Honor said he could quite understand that where a charge of misconduct or incompetency was shown. "But 1 confess it startles me to think that any servant elected to office for two years could be pushed out merely 011 a declaration that it was in the interests of the union ho do so," he added. ill*. Goldstine said that if any wrong had been done to the appellants they had a remedy. The appellants, he claiincd, had crnie into possession of the chattels not as members of the union, but as ccuetaries. His Honor said that the executive had fallen into the present unfortunate position in its desire to keep peace. The executive Lad the choice of two evils, and had decided to dismiss the appellants. No charge had been laid, and it was inconceivable that officers, elected for two years, should be dismissed without making any definite charge. Argument is proceeding, t