CHURCH QUARREL

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume XXIV, Issue 62, 23 February 1934, Page 5

CHURCH QUARREL

BAPTIST COURT CASE Pastor Sues His Successor NON-SUIT ENTERED BY JUDGE Mr Justice Heed was engaged at the Supreme Court at Napier to-day hearing a case arising out of a recent division among lite members of the Baptist Church, Napier, Oswald MacHattie, late pastor, proceeding against G. W. Duncumb, pastor, claiming an injunction restraining him from officiating as minister and for possession of church property. Plaintiff conducted his own case, while defendant was represented by Mr A. K. North, of Hawera. Plaintiff was nonsuited at the conclusion of his case, his Honour remarking that it was a pity that he did not first consult a solicitor before taking the matter to Court.

“Isn’t there someone in whom the parties could have had confidence to settle a matter like thia? Surely it is a scandal to have to bring a case of this sort before the Court,” remarked his Honour before the hearing commenced.

“No, there is no person in the Church who could settle it,’’ said the plaintiff. “What has happened has been an outrage on the principals of Baptism.” PLAINTIFF’S STATEMENT. The plaintiff in his statement said that the Napier Baptist Church was an unincorporated body with liberty to govern its own affairs irrespective of the provisions of the Act. On or about August 9, 1933, a resolution was voted on and carried by the defendant and other persons whose names were not upon the membership roll to sell the Napier South land and to further increase the mortgage or other properties of the church held in trust. At a meeting of church members whose names were inscribed on the membership roll, held on January 8 last, it was unanimously resolved “that any engagement in the name of the Church of defendant as the stated minister of the church be terminated and that he be paid the sum of £lOO in lieu of three months’ notice and that the membership roll for the time being of the church and in force on January 4, 1934, be adopted and declared to be the membership roll for the time being, and that until these matters have been finalised by the Court, no further deletions or additions be made to the roll.” INJUNCTION ASKED FOR. Plaintiff held that the resolutions of the meetings of August 9 and January 16 were null and void and ; sked for an injunction restraining the defendant from officiating as minister of the church and for possession of the church manse.

The defendant, in his statement of defence, denied that any resolution purporting to have been passed at the meeting on January 8 had any legal effect or that they were resolutions of the church. He admitted that he refused to vacate his office c.s minister of the church and also refused to vacate the manse in that he ignored the notice sent to him by the plaintiff, and he added that he had no notice from the ehurch terminating his engagement as minister. He denied that the plaintiff was entitled to institute the proceedings on behalf of the church members. Further, at a duly constituted meeting on August 7 of members of the church, held in the manner prescribed by the Baptist Union, it was resolved that the Nelson Orescent section be sold and that an additional sum of £5OO be raised by loan. The resolutions then passed were, submitted to the Baptist Union and confirmed.

STRAINED FEELINGS. In opening his case, plaintiff dealt at length with the strained feelings that bad existed among the members of the Church, and submitted that since he had tendered his resignation various actions by those who had carried on the Church work had been irregular. He said that 30 people had voted themselves on to the roll of the Church when they had no power to do so. In reply His Honour regarding membership, plaintiff said that a person who was a communicant was not necessarily a member. The persons who had put themselves on the roll had been attending the church. “I am lighting for the principles that ten million Baptists hold dear,” said plaintiff. “He is quite a crusader,” your Hon. our,” remarked Mr North.

His Honour pointed out that under an order of the Court it had been held that the names struck off the Church roll had been wrongfully removed, and even if they had not since been re-en-tered on the roll those persons were still members. Replying to a question by His Honour, plaintiff said he was confident that, if he was given judgment, the Church would be re-united and re-consolidated under his ministry. He submitted that the membership consisted only of names on the roll. His Honour: I am definitely of the opinion that those names ordered by the Court to be put on the roll are on the roll. Whether they have been written in again or not does not matter at all. CHURCH’S ASSETS. Plaintiff said the attempt to terminate his membership was without his knowledge and without any previous notification being made to him. In August last the defendant and others resolved in a very irregular manner to remove the Napier South Church and to sell ihe land there tnd raise a fur-

ther £5OO by way of loan. The assets of the Church totalled from £lO,OOO to £12,000, including a bequest valued now at £5OOO, for the purpose of building a new church where-ever it might be decided upon. Plaintiff stated that he objected to the building being removed and to the land being sold. Cross-examined, plaintiff said that th* names removed from the roll were removed by the Church and not simply by a small number whom he had influ-

enced. He was also appointed the eecretary of the Church. Plaintiff then referred to an alleged intrigue to turn him out of his church. He wished to deny that he had some ugly secret in his life that he wished to hide; he wanted that damaging matter cleared up. A commission of five members of the Baptist Union sat at Napier when enquiries were made into

the affairs of the church. He submitted that the findings were untruhtful, having been based on th* evidence of false witnesses. His name was eventually struck off the roll of the ministry of the Church and in an appeal he brought forward he was not able to be heard. He admitted that in July, 1932, he tendered his resignation as minister, stating that it appeared that hie ministry with the people was at an end. He contended, however, that the order of the Court, in which it held that the names had been wrongfully removed from the roll, also cancelled hi« resignation. He admitted sending out notices in the following October for a meeting of the Church, signing himself as pastor. LETTER TO ELDER.

He further admitted writing a letter to a Mr Rice, an elder of the Church, asking for forgiveness for any hard feelings caused and expressed the hope that any differences in the Church would soon be happily healed. He maintained that his letter did not, however, contain a word of concession on his part. His sole object in writing it was to see the Church united. He denied he ever gave an undertaking to stay away from a certain church meeting which he subsequently attended. He admitted that ho convened a meeting of the Church during th* absence of the pastor on holiday. Evidence was given by Edward Graham Hendry, who stated that following a Sunday evening service he was present wheir a Mr Milner, who was an officer of the church, apologised to plaintiff for having called him a “hireling.” Witness was present w-hen a peace pact was decided upon, but thi* was really broken by those opposing the plaintiff before it w , as made. Plain! iff was lhen nonsuited a- stated above.