VICAR ACCUSES CURATE

Evening Star, Issue 22573, 15 February 1937, Page 3

VICAR ACCUSES CURATE

FRAILTY OF HUMAN NATURE Remarking that the case was “ a rather sad commentary on the frailty of human nature,” Deputy-judge Tudor Rees, at Willesden County Court, nonsuited a curate who was suing his former vicar. The Rev. J. R. S. Beck, Broadstairs, claimed £45 from the Rev. T. D. Lloyd, vicar of St. Michael’s, Cricklewood. . The case was a sequel to an' action before a Consistory Court at Fulham Palace on October 27, when Mr Beck claimed £l2O from Mr Lloyd as stipend in lieu of notice and payment for extra duty. The Chancellor to the Bishop of Loudon entered judgment for Mr Beck for £75 as stipend in lieu of notice, but held that the court had no jurisdiction over the other part of the claim. It was in respect of this sum that the action was brought. Mr V. W. Hancock Nunn, for Mr Beck, said Mr Beck accepted a curacy under Mr Lloyd in 1932, and his stipend was £l5O per annum. Mr Beck’s case was that Mr Lloyd, who acted as chaplain to a hospital, said: “I will increase your salary when my salary is increased for the hospital.” In February, 1933, the salary Mr Lloyd received at the hospital was increased by £9O, but the money was not paid and the curacy was terminated. Mr Beck, giving evidence, said that when be asked the vicar about his promised increase the vicar _ became aggressive and spoke of dispensing with him. Mr Beck: He told me to get out and indicated to me that if I did not get out very quickly I would be assisted out. Mr Beck, referring to another occasion said: “The vicar was extremely unpleasant to the point of assaulting me. He pushed me up against the pulpit, as a matter of fact.” Mr Lloyd, in the witness box, described as “ totally untrue ” the statement of Mr Beck regarding the verbal agreement. Deputy-judge Rees: It strikes me as being a most painful and amazing situation that a vicar should say—it may be truthfully—that a curat© should on oath swear lies. Mr Lloyd added: “ I bear no malice for anything.” Deputy-judge Rees said it was a rather sad commentary on the frailty of human nature that two gentlemen in the position of Mr Beck and Mr Lloyd should find themselves involved in a 1 controversy of that sort. Between two men occupying sacred offices he refrained from saying that one side was telling the truth and the other speaking falsehoods, although in the last analysis it would come to that. All he would say was that the making of that alleged agreement had not been proved. He had decided not to enter judgment for Mr Beck, nor to find for Mr Lloyd, but to non-suit Mr Beck, and if there became available evidence which justified him starting fresh proceedings he could do so. Mr Hubert Hull, for Mr Lloyd, asked for costs, and these were granted.