BAPTIST MINISTER

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 56, 4 September 1934, Page 11

BAPTIST MINISTER

SUPREME COURT ACTION

CLAIM FOR WRIT

i\AME OX KEGISTEE

According to the principles of natural justice will the claim of Oswald MacHattLo, of Auckland, formerly of j Napier, Baptist minister, be heard in the Supreme Court? Nearly two hours were spent by the Court this morning j when Mr. Justice Blair attempted to find the facts of the case upon which MacHattic seeks a writ of mandamus commanding the defendant, the Baptist Union of New Zealand, a body corporate, to reinstate plaintiff's name in the- official list of accredited ministerial members of the union. "I have got no right to prejudge on half-facts; I'm too experienced for that," declared his Honour to Mr. R. A. Singer, of Auckland, who, with Mr. 0. H. Arndt, appeared for the plaintiff, shortly before adjourning the hearing sine die to enable the full facts of the matters in dispute- to bo placed before the Court. The action as set out in the pleadings concerns the removal of the plaintiff from the Baptist Union about April, 1932. The plaintiff alleges that the removal of his name was illegal, irregular, and void and done without right. The removal was subject to the right of appeal to the assembly. The plaintiff alleged that he had lodged an appeal, but that it had not been heard or properly dealt with. The defence, for which Mr.. E. P. Hay appeared, was a general denial of the allegations and an assertion that the appeal was properly heard and that the plaintiff's removal was confirmed. "I want to find out how you become a minister and how you get rid of a minister," said his Honour at the outset of the case in order to ascertain the scope of the issues. "I searched the rule book two or three times last night and could find nothing about that." Mr. Hay said there were no rules. JUDGE'S INQUIRIES. "It is- a most extraordinary bit of draughtsmanship," declared his Honour, referring to the Baptist Union Incorporation Act, of 1923. "I spent a lot of time trying to interpret it, and I could not make head or tail of it. I ask you [Mr. Hay] how one becomes a Baptist minister, and you don't even know that." . Mr. Hay explained that there was a Baptist Theological College,' and that upon a member of the church proving that he possessed sufficient education and spiritual learning lie could be appointed as a minister. The plaintiff's namo had been removed from tho list of ministerial members, but one chief point was that- such action did not prevent him acting still as minister of a church. Baptist churches were not subject to the full control of the union as in the case of somo other churches such as the Presbyterian Church. His Honour said he believed that tho removal of the plaintiff's name from the list of the union's ministerial members would be a serious thing for the plaintiff. "As a matter of fact he is taken off the list of officiating ministers." Mr. Hay: That is because he is no longer pastor of the Napier Church. His Honour:' Every- officiating minister (under the marriage act) has not got a church. Some of them are retired. How did he get : 0ff.»,.. Mr. Hay suggested' tiint the union informed tho registrar of tho list of ministers. His Honour: That's what I would think. .. . These rules need refraining. Mr. Hay said that they had sincebeen refrained. His Honour: Don't you deny plaintiff is a minister? Mr. Hay: Not"to any extent, your Honour. He is a minister. Mr. Singer said he did not agree that there were no rules applicable. There were statutory rules. It did not matter what the union said, it was bound, and the Court was bound, by tho statutory rules. Mr. Hay said that if the plaintiff was still pastor of the Napier Church he would be an officiating minister whether he was a member of the union or not. That was the pith of the matter. Mr. Singer: Is it conceivable that any church would appoint as minister anyone not appointed under section 8? NO CHURCH RULES? His Honour: I thought it was a case to try according to church tulos, now I find there are no "rules and the matter must be considered according to the principles of natural justice. "I don't know what he's complaining about," remarked his Honour to Mr. Singer after perusing tho papers. "I haven't the faintest idea. If you

say it is contrary to natural justice, why not say so. I don't say it is or is not."

Mr. Singer said that a commission of inquiry had been set up following complaint's. The commission had not framed charges as requested by the plaintiff. The plaintiff had refused to recognise the inquiry. Then in his appeal an attempt had been made to limit the plaintiff's case on appeal to one hour.

His Honour said that lie wanted to know what had happened —what the inquiry had .done. Sufficient facts had not been given, 'either in affidavits of Mr. Singer's or of Mr. Hay's clients. "I'm concerned, " continued his Honour, "as to whether there was ground of complaint and whether the action taken was according to natural justice. The removal of Mr. MacHattie from the list is far more important than the expulsion of a bookmaker from a working man's club or a women's club." Mr. Singer: Rightiy or wrongly, the plaintiff refused to go before the commission. He wanted to have the matter considered by the Napier Church congregation. His Honour: Then I think he was wrongly advised. Mr. Singer .said he was not then advising MacHattie. The washing of dirty linen in public was deprecated by his Honour. A man would be a first-class idiot who did. not recognise such a commission of inquiry. Mr. Singer: He didn't have any charges made against him; that's what he complained about. He was asked to attend the commission but refused, as did a large number of the Napier Church congregation. Mr. Singer: We were limited to one hour,.on appeal before the assembly! "BATHER A GOOD IDEA." j His Honour: That's what they do in America. It's rather a good idea. I'm thinking it could be done more. (Laughter.) Mr. Singer: It Blight be done by Judges in their judgments. His Honour: I wouldn't mind. 111 give no reasons if you like. Continuing, his Honour said there were not enough facts in the affidavits. Mr. Hay was not to blame so much as Mr! Singer. What happened at the commission of inquiry had to be considered in deciding what was natural justice.' The only thing to be done was to put the proceedings in a form wherein the facts could be understood. Mr. Singer suggested that the Court call evidence viva voce. His Honour: I spent three or possibly four hours trying to understand your complaint, but I don't know what it Mr- Singer put. some hypothetical questions to his Honour illustrative of his submissions. His Honour: I have got no right to prejudge on half facts, Mr. Singer, and you have no right to cross-examine mo. I'm too experienced to accept half facts. Mr. Hay said .that he would like to produce a copy of the report of the commission. j His Honour said that he felt he could not admit the report at that stage. He indicated what facts he would require to be covered by affidavits and suggested that it would take four or five days to complete the matter. He wanted details of the Napier commission, the nature of the charges, and also details of what matters were raised on appeal. Possibly the report of tho inquiry might contain matters saving time in taking affidavits.