MINISTER v. UNION

Greymouth Evening Star, 5 September 1934, Page 12

MINISTER v. UNION

A JUDGE PUZZLED [PKB PRESS ASSOCIATION.) WELLINGTON, September 4. An application for a writ of . mandamus commanding the defendant, the Baptist Union of New Zealand to reinstate plaintiff’s name in the official list of accredited ministerial members of the Union, was made by Oswald Mac Hattie, of Auckland, formerly of Napier, in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Blair. Mr R. A. Singer, with him Mr C. Arndt, appeared for the plaintiff. Mr E. P. Hay appeared for the defendant. The action concerns the removal of plaintiff from Baptist Union about April, 1932. Plaintiff alleges that the removal of his name was illegal irregular. void, and done without right. Plaintiff alleged that he had lodged an appeal, but it had not been heard or properly dealt with. The defence was a. general denial of the allegations and an assertion that the appeal was properly heard, and that plaintiff’s removal was confirmed. “It is a most extraordinary bit of draughtsmanship,’’ declared his Honor, referring to the Baptist Union Incorporation Act of 1923. “I spent a lot of time trying to interpret, it, and 1 could not make head or trail of it.” Mr Hay explained there was a Baptist Theological College and that upon a member of the Church proving he possessed sufficient education and spiritual learning, he could be appointed as a minister. Plaintiff’s name had been removed from the list of ministerial members, but one chief point was that such action did not prevent him acting still as a minister of the Church. Baptist churches were not subject to full control of the Union, as in the case of some other churches, such as the Presbyterian Church. His Honor said he believed that the removal of plaintiff’s name from the list of unions of ministerial members would be a serious thing for plaintiff. “As a matter of fact, he is taken off the list of officiating ministers.”

Mr Hay: That is because he is no longer a pastor of Napier Church. His Honor: Every officiating minister (under the Marriage Act) has not got a church. Some of them are retired. How did he get off?

Mr Hay suggested that the Union informed the Registrar of the list of ministers. His Honor: That’s what I would think. These rules need reframing. Mr Hay said they had since been refrained. His Honor: Don’t you deny plaintiff is a minister? Mr Hay: Not to any extent your Honor. 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 statutory rules. Mr Hay said that if plaintiff was still pastor of 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?

His Honor: I thought it was a case to try according to church rules. Now I find there are no rules and the matter must he considered according to principles of natural justice. “I don’t know what he is complaining about,” remarked his Honor to Mr Singer, after perusing the 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 complaints. The commission had not framed the charges as requested by plaintiff. Plaintiff had refused to recognise the inquiry; then in his appeal, an attempt had been made to limit, plaintiff’s case on appeal to one hour.

■ • ■ NATURAL JUSTICE. z His Honor said he wanted to know what had happened, and what the inquiry nad done. Sufficient facts had not been given. “I’m concerned,’’ continued His Honor, “as to whether there was ground of complaint, and whether the action taken was according to natural justice. The removal of Mac Hattie from the list is far more important than the expulsion of a bookmaker from a working man’s club.’’ Mr Singer: Rightly oi* wrongly plaintiff refused to go before the commission. He wanted to have the matter considered by the Napier church congregation. His Honor: Then I think he was wrongly advised. Mr Singer said he was not then advising Mac Hattie. Washing of dirty linen in public was deprecated by His Honor, who said that a man would be a first-class idiot who did not recognise such 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. He was limited to one hour on appeal before the Assembly. His Honor: 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 might be done by Judges in their judgments. His Honor: I wouldn’t mind. I’ll give no reason if you like. Continuing, His Honor said there were not enough facts in the affidavits. 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 the form wherein the facts could be understood. Mr Singer suggested that the Court call evidence viva voce. His Honor: I spent three, or possibly four hours trying to understand your complaint, but I don’t know what it is.

Mr Singer put some hypothetical questions to his Honor, illustrative of his submissions. His Honor: I have got no right to prejudice on half the facts and you have no right to cross-examine me. 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. His Honor 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 charges, and also details of what matters were raised on appeal.

Possibly the report of the inquiry might contain matters saving time in taking affidavits. The case was adjourned sine die to enable the full facts to be placed before the Court.