MEDIUM'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXX, Issue 137, 6 December 1935, Page 11

MEDIUM'S CLAIM

SPIRITUALIST CASE

A CANCELLED LICENCE

SUPREME COURT ACTION

A woman medium is the plaintiff in an action against the Spiritualist Church of New Zealand, which is being heard in the Supreme Court today before the Chief Justice (Sir Michael Myers). The plaintiff, Ethel May Craigie, a married woman living in Wellington, is claiming £300 damages from the church, its president, Samuel E. Williams, herbalist, of Christchurch, its secretary, Ernest C. Gray, storekeeper, of Christchurch, and its treasurer, Alfred Henry Heather, clerk, also of Christchurch. She bases her claim on the allegation that the defendants, wrongfully terminated an engagement she had. with them to act as a speaker and medium of the church. She also alleges that the defendants wrongfully' cancelled her speaker's licence and her permit to act as a medium. In addition to her claim for damages, Mrs. Craigie is seeking declaration that the termination of her engagement is of no effect, and that the licence and permit issued to her are still in full force, and an injunction against any interference with her status and privileges.

It is alleged by the plaintiff that her licence was cancelled and she was dismissed without .any charge being specified, and without any chance of being heard. It is contended that the purported termination of the agreement is ultra vires as being contrary to the rules of natural justice.

The defence denies the existence of a contract.

Mr. A. B. Sievwright, with him Mr. I R. E. Tripe, appears for the plaintiff, Mr. C. A. L. Treadwell for the Spiritualist Church, and Mr. H. J. V. James for the defendants, Williams, Gray, and Heather. FIRST APPOINTMENT. In-opening the case for the plaintiff, Mr.' Sievwright said that the defendant church was incorporated by an Act of Parliament. The other defendants were appointed to their positions in the church at the annual conference of the church, which was held in Christchurch last April. Reviewing the history of the relationships of Mrs. Craigie and the defendants, which commenced in May, 1934, Mr. Sievwright said that the first move came as a result of an inquiry by way of letter from the plaintiff, who was. then living in New South Wales, to the then secretary of the Spiritualist Church of New Zealand, Mr. Anderson. On May 31, 1934, continued Mr. Sievwright, Mr. Anderson wrote offering to accept her services as a probationary speaker and medium, and stated that if she proved satisfactory she would be given a licence to continue under a regular engagement. Mrs. Craigie left Australia towards the end of August. She served her probationary period, and it was then arranged that she should continue her work for a period of three months with the Wellington branch of the Spiritualist Church. During that period there was a conversation between Mrs. Craigie and Mr. Anderson relating to a definite engagement. She was asked if she would be prepared to accept a twelve months' engagement, which would be arranged at the 1935 conference of the church in Christchurch. In the meantime she was given a fvxrther engagement for a period of three months. When the annual conference took place in Christchurch there was a change of" officers, and the defendants, Williams, Gray, and Heather, were appointed to their present positions on the national executive committee. Mr. Anderson, the ex-secretary of the church, and a Mrs. Bowen were also members of the committee. ALLEGED AGREEMENT. This committee, continued Mr. Sievwright, met in Christchurch, on April 21, and evidence would be called to show that it was agreed that Mrs. Craigie should receive an engagement up till March 31, 1936. Mr. Sievwright said that he had seen the minute book, but his instructions were that this had not .been written up at the time of the meeting. On April 23 the plaintiff saw Mrs. Bowen, who told her that she had been engaged by the national executive committee until March 31, 193G, and that her permit and licence would be issued to her. On the same day the plaintiff saw Mr. Anderson, and he confirmed what Mrs. Bowen had said. Following that, it was competent for the Wellington branch of the church to make arrangements with Mrs. Craigie. At a meeting of the Wellington executive committee it was arranged that Mrs. Craigie should be engaged with the Wellington church for a period of six months. On Sunday, May 5, the new president of the Spiritualist Church of New Zealand was in Wellington. He was present at the church that night, and from the platform confirmed what Mrs. Craigie already knew from Mr. Anderson and Mrs. Bowen, namely, that the national executive committee had engaged her for a period up to March 31, 1936. He handed her her speaker's licence and medium's permit. ENGAGEMENT TERMINATED. Mrs. Craigie continued her work in Wellington and then visited the Napier branch of the church. On her return to Wellington she received a letter signed by the defendant Gray which read: "You are hereby notified that your engagement with the Spiritualist Church of New Zealand is now terminated and both speaker's licence and special permit which were issued to you have been cancelled by the executive committee' of the church."

Following receipt of that letter a meeting ■of the Wellington branch of the church was held. Mr. Anderson said that he knew nothing about the termination of the agreement. Mrs. Bowen also knew nothing about it.

A meeting was arranged to be held in Wellington in September in order that Mrs. Craigie could be heard. The meeting, however, lapsed through want of a quorum.

Mrs. Craigie was then called to give ' evidence. She said that she was a speaker and demonstrator, or to put it plainer, she gave addresses andthen demonstrated by clairvoyance. She had carried on that work in Australia for fifteen years, and before that she had worked privately in Gisborne for a number of years in the interests of the Spiritualist movement. In Sydney, she said, she had had a church of her own.

Witness said that she did not receive a salary from the church, but received 50 per cent, of the gross takings—collections—of the church. In addition to that she was entitled to carry on private meetings during the week.

His Honour: What does that mean —Spiritualist meetings?

Witness: Oh, yes, sir, Spiritualist meetings and Spiritualist teachings. Mr. Sievwright: My client will inform the Court that that was the lucrative side of her engagement.

Mrs. Craigie then proceeded to give evidence on the lines indicated by Mr Sievwright.

Continuing her evidence Mrs. Craigie said that she knew of no justification for the church's action.

Mr. Sievwright then proceeded to examine the witness on an interview she had had with Mr. Hastings, vicepresident of the Spiritualist Church of New Zealand.

Mr. James contended that this evidence was not relevant. He said that if there was a contract between the plaintiff arid the church, the church admitted it had dismissed her. There was no plea of justification.

In reply to Mr. Sievwright, witness estimated that her loss, as a result of the church's action, would be about £10 per week.

"With regard to the church services," said Mr. Sievwright, "can you say the same standard as regards members has been maintained since your licence was cancelled?"

j "No, sir,'1 replied witness. "The [number has been considerably reduced owing to the stigma cast upon me."

Cross-examined by Mr. Treadwell. witness said that she did not keep accounts. She would not deny that the amount she had received from the Wellington branch of the church from October 4. 1934, to August 11, 1935, was £35 15s sd.

Mr. Treadwell: Has anybody got any record of what you earned in your private readings?

Witness: No, sir.

(Proceeding.)