CONVENT LAND

Dominion, Volume 20, Issue 8, 5 October 1926, Page 7

CONVENT LAND

SHOULD IT BE RATED?

OBJECTS OF ORDER TO BE DECIDED APPEAL AGAINST MAGISTRATE’S DECISION An appeal against a decision by Mr. Wyvern Wilson, S.M., was heal'd in the Court of Appeal yesterday before His Honour the Chief Justice and Their Honours Mr. Justice Sim, Mr. Justice Stringer and Mr. Justice MacGregor. Tho parties were the Order of the Sisters of the Mission, Cambridge, appellants, for whom Mr. A. Gray, K.C., and Mr. J. P. Kavanagh appeared, and the Cambridge Borough Council, tor whom Mr. N. S. Johnson rppeared. The question in issue between the parties was whether certain land occupied by the order came within the txemption provided by subsection (g) of section 2 of the Rating Act, 1925, as “lands and buildings used for a school not carried on exclusively for pecuniary gum or profit/' Mr. Wyvern Wilson had given judgment against the order for .£3l 15s. 7d. rates, on the ground that the lands and buildings in respect of which the rates were claimed were not “used exclusively for tho school” and that the other use (the sanctification of souls) could not in any sense be said to be trifling and consequently immaterial. It was against this decision that the appeal was lodged. Outlining tlie case for the appellants, Mr. Gray said that the property concerned was vested in three members of the Sisters of the Alission. Tlie principal object of the order was the teaching of children and tho performance of works of charity and benevolence. All property of the order was held in common, and all funds were devoted to its objects—the erection of convents, schools and other educational establishments, and their development and equipment to the satisfaction of tho Euucn. tion Department’s inspectors. The convent, continued counsel, was held by trustees on behalf of the order, while an adjoining section, upon which had been erected a Catholic primary school, was vested in the Roman Catholic Bishop of Auckland. He contended that the decision of Mr. Wyvern Wilson was erroneous in point of law in that the purposes for which the lands and buildings were used were not such as to bring them within the exemption created by subsection (g) of section 2 of tho Rating Act, 1925, as “lands end buildings usbd for a school not carried on exclusively for pecuniary gain or profit”; that the lands and buildings were established for the purposes of the order, meaning thereby that the lands and buildings were not "used for a school” within the meaning of the Act; that the lands and, buildings were used only partially for a school; that the principal object or end of the institute was the more perfect sanctification of its members by tho observance of their vows; that it was a secondary duty of the order of the institute to extend the Kingdom of God in souls by instruction and education of children and women; that the spiritual exercises of the institute and the mode of life therein with the recreation and silences to be observed rendered the convent much more than merely a teachers’ residence; that the convent had been established for the purposes of the order; that the location of the convent did not affect the primary purpose of the order of the convent; and that the educational uses of the convent were outside the ordinary use of the convent building. "The Magistrate,” said Mr. Grny, "seems to have overlooked the fact that the convent is much more than merely a teachers’ residence. Very little of the school work is carried on in that building." His Honour the Chief Justice: Of course, it is quite a proper thing that a religious order should have for its primary object the sanctification of souls. Mr. Justice Stringer: Some lavwers might even say that the primary object of their work is the sanctification of ‘'heir souls, although their activities might take them in another direction. (Laughter.) Mr.. Johnson contended that the lands occupied by the convent building were not "used for a school” or "occupied by and for the purposes of a school" within the meaning of the Act; that the lands and buildings were occupied for the purposes of the Order of the Sisters of the Mission and that teaching was not the only or chief purpose of the order; that occupation of lands and buildings thereon by those engaged in teaching did not bring those lands within the exemption; that the lands in question were vested in the order, whilst the lands occupied by the school buildings were vested in the bishop, who had no Jurisdiction over them; that the chief object of the order was to "labour more perfectly for their own sanctification by the faithful observance of the three vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience and, also of their constitutions,” and that educational instruction of the. children was merely an incident of a higher and more important object; that the lands were occupied ns a residence for those not exclusively engaged in teaching, as the sisters performed other additional and important duties to the parishioners; and that before exemption could be claimed under the section of the Act there must be a regular curriculum of education carried on on the lands for which exemption was sought. The Court reserved its decision.