THE POPOTUNOA CASE.

Bruce Herald, Volume XI, Issue 1080, 21 January 1879, Page 3

THE POPOTUNO A CASE.

. A PETITION; Oar readers will not need to be reminded of the above case, which has occupied a good deal of attention among members of thn Church, and has been made the subject of comment in the public press. Following is a petition presented by the Rev Chas. Connor to the- 'Presbyterian Synod of Otago:— V ■;. To the Rbvbbend the Synod of the Presbyterian Chubch of Otago and Southland in the Colony op New Zealand. ■: - -•'■■ ; ■■■ "■ '• - : The Pe^.jtibn of your Petitioner Humbly Showeth— 1 That your Petitioner has, since the year 1868, up till the present time, been minister of the Popotunoa charge. 2 That your Petitioner has humbly, and in dependence on divine grace, tried to tbe best of . his ability to discharge his duty during the above period. 3 That diasentions existed in. Wuiruna. before your Petitioner was settled in Popotunoa, and that the cause or causes of these dissentics was or were such that no minieter could control them. 4 That- other 'causes,; to wit, the coming into the district of persons holding heretical views, inimical to the existence of a gospel ministry, have been conspiring, with causes aforementioned, to produce mfschief and dislike to your Petitioner. 5 That the Clutha Presbytery, at the request of some individuals in Wairuna, held a meeting ia Waituaa church on 2nd January 1878, and gave them an opportunity of stating their grievances. 5 That the Clutha Presbytery, at meetings held during last sitting of Synod, after full investigation of such grievances, declared tl»em perfectly frivolous, and exonerated your petitioner from all blame. 7 That shortly afterwards, to wit, oh the 6th February, when the Presbytery came !to Wairuna and Clinton to see about the removal of Wairuna church, and the dividing of che district with the view of lessen? ing his labours atid enabling him to work tbe district more efficiently, certain officebearers, in express violation, of their promise to your Petitioner to utand by him if on investigation it were- found that no charge was tubstantjated agaiust him, and also in express violation of the recommendation, of the Presbytery, to work harmoniously, did present a petition to the Presbytery of which the following hereunto annexed is a copy and marked with the letter A 8 That, as your Reverend Court will see by inspection, this petition is of the most vague character, and is totally incapable oi being met by any evidence whatever. 9 That the Presbytery received the petition and did not instruct the person presenting it to frame a specific charge or charges. 10 That at said meeting of T»resbytery ovidence of a most important character, tendered od behalf of your Petitioner, was rejected on account of alleged informality. 11 That the evidence was contained in an adress to your Petitioner, numerously tigned by members and adherents of the church, and is hereunto annexed and maiked with the letter B. 12. That at nexi meeting of Clutha Presbytery held on 20th March, every member of the Presbytery present advised your Petitioner to robign his charge, and ppoke in the highest terms of his character and work. 13. Ihat your Petitioner refused to resign, because he believed he would be sacrificing not only his own interests, but the interests of truth an 1 righteousness. 14. That on your Petitioner refusing to resign his charge, the Piesbytery resolved to appoint a commisfion to visit the districts " and prepare the case for the Synod." (C.) 15. That the commission delayed its visit for 6 months, thereby injuring your Petitioner's ministerial position throughout tbe district and placing him, in the discharge of his duties, at a disadvantage." 16. That the Commissioners, when they come, read throughout the district the unfounded and indefinite charge against your Petitioner contained ia eaid petition of office-bearers, and invited all and sundry to come, and state what they had to say in regard to said charge. 17. That the principal parties who attended pome of the meetings held by the commissioners were the aforesaid maicontents, few of the others being disposed to meet with them, and the result was a grievous amount of unfounded, slanderous accusations. 18. That the evidence taken at all the meetings is vitiated, because the witnesses were examined in the presence of each other. 19. That your Petitioner was excluded and denied at such meetings the opportunity of cross-examining for himself, or getting the witnesses cross-examined on his behalf. 20. That in addition to the evidence' being, as aforesaid, entirely unsifted, it was also altogether hearsay opinion and feelings, and what the witnesses heard from others being put on the same level with what they (the witnesses) themselves knew. v 21. That the Commissioners did not confiue themselves to the unfounded report given at the aforesaid meetings, but they also picked up information from all who were ready to give it in the district, no difference being made between those who did and those who did not belong to the Church. 22. That the Commissioners embodied this hearsay and unfounded testimony in a report hostile to your Petitioner, and presented the same to the which met at Balclutha on the 18th September, (Di) ■■;■-■■ "■■ '

, 23. That the Presbytery endorsed the report, and called' upon your Petitioner, bofore he had an opportunity of examining said, report, to resign his aforesaid charge. (D) 24. That your Petitioner, in being called on a BP cond time to resign his charge, declared he would not do so, on the ground ihat the character of the report precluded him from doing it, and that to resign after such a report was read to him would be tantamount to an acknowledgment that he had failed in his ministry, and that the report was a correct statement of factf, which your Petitioner denies, 25. That the report utterly misrepresents the true state of the district, as is evident from the exhibit annexed to this petition, and marked with the letter E, which shows the names of 120 persons who say they have no sympathy with the present movement, and that those persons are the principal contributors to the Sustenatidn fund.; 26. That the Presbytery might not appear'too harsh to your Petitioner, they gave him six weeks to bethink himself, and appointed the 30th October to receive his answer with certification, that if ho did not comply with their wishes the caao would be taken to the Synod. 27. That your Petitioner requested from the Presbytery Clerk a copy of the report and all other documents bearing on the caee. 29. That this recommendation was published without any qualification, thereby seriously affecting your Petitioner's character and work. 30. That your Petitioner wrote to the Presbytery Clerk, respectfully requesting that the report on which the Presbytery chiefly based their recommendation should also be published, so that all parties might judge of its truth or falsity. 31. That your Petitioner, finding that t her six weeks' grace granted him were nearly expired, and having received no documents whatever -in the case, and no reply to his letter, again wrote tq the Presbytery Clerk in terms of letter here, unto annexed, and marked with the letter F. 32. That the Presbytery which met on the 30th October for the purpose of receiving the answer of your Petitioner, came to the finding hereunto annexed and | marked with the letter G-. I 33. That your Petitioner, after a lapse of seven! weeks from the time the Commis- ! ainofers' report was first read to him, was furnished with a copy along with extract minute just referred to. i 34. That your Petitioner, with the view of enabling him to give a full exposition of the whole case as he understood it, again ashed the Clerk of Presbytery, in terms of letter hereunto annexed and marked with the letter ;H . to furnish him with copies of the documents specified in said letter. 35. That, as on former occasions, your Petitioner did not even get an acknowledgment of said letter. 36. That in consequence of his neglect ycur Petitioner was damaged in his answer and greatly distui bed in mind, which though a small thing to the Ciutha Presbytery, was everything to him. 37. That your Petitioner, at the meeting of Presbytery held 18th December, 1878, was denied the right at saying more than yea or nay to the Presbytery's recommendation, and was only Allowed «* gratia to make a statement. 38. That your Petitioner, feeling convinced that the Presbytery were entirely misled in the matter, refused to resign his charge, wherefore it was resolved by the Presbytery to refer the case to the Senod. 39. That believing that a reference to the Synod in the circumstances, was calculated effectually to destroy all hope of peace in the district", and to encourage mal-contenta by reason of the fact that the Presbytery, who had already prejudged the case, would be likely to hold to the views which they had expressed, your Petitioner protested and sought leave to appeal from the said resolution of Presbytery, and wished to read the reasons hereunto annexed, and marked with the letter I, for protesting and appealing against said reference. " 40. That the Presbytery refused to grant your Petitioner leave to appeal, and refused to receive the reasons thereof (K). 41. That your Petitioner believes the Presbytery have acted throughout this matter in a high-banded and tyrannical manner, and in a way totally at variance with the letter and spiriir of Presbyteian polity ; and they have acted in gross viola ion of the mostelementary principles of the rules of evidence, that they hare pursued a course eminently fitted to heap indignity upon a minister of the Church, of Christ, and to hurt the the cause of religion in the aforesaid district : that tbey have referred the case in a state eminently fitted to mislead the Synod and to embarrass and to prejudice your Petitioner: and have left your Petitioner no means of obtaining justice, save by approaching this venerable Court as a Petitioner. Therefore your Petitioner humbly prays — Ist. That your venerable Court may entertain this Petition and dismiss the aforesaid reference. 2nd. That a deliverance may be given a« to the rights of your Petitioner to have the charges made against him definitely , stated, inasmuch as the result of them may be such as to effect him for Ufe, and possibly drive him from the ministry. 3rd. And, generally, that your venerable Court may take the premises into consideration and grant your Petitioner such other and farther relief as the justness of the ca«e requires And y oar Petitioner will ever pray, &c. . Chables Cojrjrn. [The exhibit* we do not append as they take up too much iuum.—El>. B.H.J