Former Vicar’s Charges Of Conspiracy Denied

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30179, 10 July 1963, Page 16

Former Vicar’s Charges Of Conspiracy Denied

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 9. Every allegation of conspiracy made in a claim for £44,000 damages brought against the Primate of New Zealand, Archbishop Norman Alfred Lesser, and four others was “utterly denied,” said Mr H. W. Dowling, counsel for the second defendants in the case, in the Supreme Court today.

The claim is being made by William Arthur Westley, former vicar of the Otane parochial district, who alleges conspiracy and defamatory statements by the defendants.

Named as second defendants are Charles Athol Williams, a farmer, of Pukehou, James Nelson MacLean, a farm manager, of Pukehou, lan Campbell MacPhail, a farmer, of Otane, and Grenville Williams Warren, a retired farmer, of Havelock North.

The case was first heard in the Supreme Court. Napier, last March, and adjourned by Mr Justice McGregor for the hearing of several motions in connexion with the case. Mr G. P. Barton, with him Mr A. A. Fordham, appeared for Westley today and Mr N. A, Morrison, with him Mr G. G. Doole, for the Primate. With Mr Dowling for the second defendants was Mr A. K. Monagan. Mr Barton said the position was one of considerable anxiety to counsel and solicitor, who felt they must relinouish their retainer.

Westley had accepted that, and Mr Barton said he had no instructions to continue to appear, and asked leave to withdraw from the case. His Honour said it was a matter entirely for counsel and solicitor. Under the circumstances, his Honour said, he did not think that leave of the Court to withdraw was necessary.

Mr Dowling asked that the matter be adjourned for an hour to enable Westley's former solicitor to communicate with him. His Honour said he was prepared to adopt that course, and either Westley must be present in person, or have some representative in Oourt, so that the matter could be dealt with. Mr Barton said that in view of the physical condition of Westley, who was either on crutches, or in a wheelchair, he could not get to the Court within an hour. His former solicitor would get in touch with him urgently. His Honour then adjourned the case until this afternoon.

When the hearing reopened at 2.15 p.m., Westley told the court he wished to oppose the defendant’ applications him-

There were then nine monona before the court. They included Westley’s application for trial of the action before a jury, a motion to strike out part of the statement of claim, the primate’s application to strike out a new damages daim, and the second defendant's motion asking for further particulars of one of the alleged conspiracies.

Reviewing the case against rhe defendants. Mr Dowling said it was alleged Williams entered into a conspiracy with his Bishop—as a member of the board of nominations —to force the resignation of Westley Westley had been appointed vicar by the Bishop on the reocwnmendaition of the board in February, 1958, when Williams was a member of the board. Westley had applied from England for the position of vicar in the Diocese of Waiapu. “I hope to show your Honour that the whole of the correspondence relevant to that application was signed by Mrs Wes’iey, though purporting to be signed in ths name of her husband.” said Mr Dowling “Westley alleges that through pressure brought to bear upon him by reason of the acts and conduct set out in the statement of claim, he was obliged to tender his resignation ” It was submitted on behalf of the second defendants that insufficient particulars of the matters on which the allegations were based had been given. The object of the motion in question was to oblige Westley to give further perticulars. "Some Dissension”

"It is clear there has been during Westley's term of office at least, some dissension,” said Mr Dowling. "That dissension is alleged to have been due solely to the action of all the defendants, and in particular to the action of the four defendants whom I represent. "It is interesting to note that where it is alleged tiiat one or other of the defendants, at some meeting or other, has allegedly made a statement that could be defamatory against the plaintiff, there is a general claim—and, it will be my submission, without any foundation —that each of them were on all occasions, whether they were together or separately,

self and to support bis own motions.

acting in concert and were each the agent of the other in making these statements either orally or in writing.” Mr Dowling said every allegation relating to conspiracy and/or attempt to harm Westley was “utterly denied.” Mr Dowling then referred to diaries which had been kept by Westley’s wife and whether they could be inspected by the second defendants. It had been contended, said Mr Dowling, that the documents were free from discovery because of normal privilege attaching to documents prepared for the purpose of obtaining legal advice. Another contention was that they were in the handwriting of Mrs Westley and were protected as being communications from the wife of her husband.

Mr Dowling said both a letter of resignation and a letter to the Bishop were signed “W. Arthur Westley.”

He asked the Court to accept that two affidavits supporting the allegation that Westley’s wife had acted merely as the agent of her husband had been established in the absence of any proof to the contrary. Nerves Bsd

Westley: For some time, particularly since 1957, my nerves have been very bad. I can type, and I type all my letters, or nearly all of them. My wife, frequently and almost always, signs my letters for me. I do not think that is a criminal offence. His Honour (to Mr Dowling): You have established that certain correspondence and documents were written by the plaintiff’s wife as his agent and on his behalf. I presume you are asking me to draw a similar inference in regard to those diaries? Mr Dowling: Yes. Westley said the diaries could be construed as being a record of the joint lives of his wife and himself. He had had no hand in the formulation.

"My wife has kept a diary, so far as I know, ever since we have been married. I didn't make any contributions to it,” he said. Told by his Honour later in the hearing there was authority that where an injunction was sought an action had to be heard before a Judge alone, Westley said he was prepared to waive the injunction claimed in respect of the alleged conspiracy allegation. His Honour: The second point Is this: that In your second claim, which is a claim against the Bishop of the diocese, you claim that the Bishop—l take it in the capacity of his office—was legally bound to perform certain acts. I take it that these were what I might call episcopal duties and that might be to a very large extent a matter of ecclesiastical law. I am having difficulty in seeing at the moment how a Judge could direct a jury sufficently on canon law.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.