RECHABITE DISPUTE

Dominion, Volume 30, Issue 142, 12 March 1937, Page 15

RECHABITE DISPUTE

Removal of Head Office to Christchurch SUPREME COURT CASE What one counsel described as "a wrangle between factions” of the Rechabite Order was discussed in the Supreme Court at Wellington yesterday before Mr. Justice Reed. Alfred Martin, a brassfounder, of Christchurch, suing ou behalf of himself and others of the New Zealand District In- ■ dependent Order of Rechabites, proceeded against Mrs. Agnes Gain, Dunedin, Franc Davis, Wellington, retired, Joseph Jobson, Wellington, public servant, William Carpenter, Wellington, secretary, Matthew Jeffery, Wellington, gasfitter, Frederick Clark, Wanganui, traveller, A. Gain, Dunedin, manager, George Skipworth, Invercargill, insurance officer, and Charles Bascand, Christchurch, manager, district officers of the Rechabite Order, asking for a direction of. the court to enforce a decision of a district conference of the order to move the head office from Wellington to Christchurch. Defendants contended that the district council had no power to make such a decision. The case occupied the whole day, ami will be resumed to-day. Mr. R. Hardie Boys (Wellington), with Mr. H. P. Smith (Christchurch), appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. W. D. Goodwin (Wellington) for defendants. An application for a stay of proceedings was made for defendants on the ground that the general triennial meeting of the district council, the governing body of the society, was to be held at Easter. It was claimed that the council could deal with and settle the question advanced In the proceedings. His Honour asked if it. was true, as asserted by plaintiff, that some of the voting power which would be exercised at a meeting of the general council was vested in people who did not have a right to it. Mr. Goodwin said tßte council was elected according to the rules. The objection of plaintiff to allowing the matter to be decided by the district council was that certain members promised •to vacate their offices on the removal of the head office to Christchurch.

His Honour: How long ago did all this happen? Mr. Goodwin: About three years ago, sir. His Honour: And it’s been simmering all that time? Mr. Goodwin: Yes. It would be a different matter if these proceedings had been taken two or three years ago. His Honour: If the whole question is the shifting of tho head office, could yoti not settle that by a referendum of all the members? How many are there? Mr. Boys: There are about 5000 members and we represent about 3500 of them.

Mr. Goodwin: If the majority favours this change, plaintiff has nothing to fear from having the subject discussed at the next, council meeting at Easter.

Mr. Goodwin also contended that plaintiff was not. entitled as an individual to take proceedings, which should be launched by the society. Half the members or half the tents of the order could call a special meeting to authorise proceedings iu the name of the society. His Honour: Or settle the question altogether. His Honour said be could not adjourn the case and would have to' hear the evidence. Two Issues. Mr. Boys, outlining the case for plaintiff, said that the two issues were: Had the district council overriding authority over the district officers 'it elected and was the office of the society properly removed to Christchurch at the conference in 1934? He said the case involved the control of assets worth over £lOO,OOO and concerned 5300

members, 3400 being in Canterbury, Otago and Southland. At the conference of the order in 1934 it was decided by 23 votes to 22 to remove the head office to Christchurch, and some of the officers agreed to resign their positions when the head office was shifted to Christchurch. The district council decided to move the head office, but provided that if it was necessary to wait till the change in the rules was registered the moving of the office was to be carried out by the district officers. However, nothing had been done since. The district council voting on the matter was always four in favour aud four against with the chairman giving his casting vote against. On every occasion that the subject hud been before the council the votes of two men who undertook to resign had been against removal of the office from Wellington. His Honour asked if the officers who voted in that way had considered the Interests of the society before their personal feelings. Mr. Boys said It was suggested that the men concerned were not considering only the interests of the society. The Wellington officers were voting to keep the head office in Wellington. His Honour asked for the reason for the change from Wellington to Christchurch. It was stated that it was desired to have younger and more energetic officers than could be found in the North Island, and the strongest centre of the order was Christchurch.

Lengthy evidence for plaintiff was given by A. Gain, one of the district officers of the society, who explained how the decision to move the head office was made at tho conference three years ago and the efforts to have it given effect to since. Charles Henry Bascand, another district officer, gave similar evidence.

Plaintiff gave evidence that the change of headquarters was desired by the majority of members iu the South Island. Mrs. Gladys Bunt and George Bunt gave evidence of the correctness of the minutes of the 1934 conference.