SCENE IN A SYDNEY CHURCH.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 11712, 23 July 1901, Page 3

SCENE IN A SYDNEY CHURCH.

A PREACHER INTERRUPTED, CHARGE AGAINST WILLIAM ■; RICHARDSON. William Richardson, : a , well-known temperance advocate, ; who was a candidate fori Petersham at the recent Parliamentary election in New South Wales, appeared at the Central Police Court, Sydney, on July 12, \ before Mr. P. W. Edwards, S.M., to answer a charge of disturbing the congregation of the Pitt-street Congregational Church, on June 30. -.-■'■■.•■ • : v.y-: - ~ The Rev. E. Tremayne Dunstan, tlio ; officiating minister, said that he heard tne ■ defendant say something during the sermon, ,| He then remarked: " I want you to hear me, > I and not to interrupt. You are a candidate for Parliament; but this is not an election ; i meeting—it is a church." At-the conclusion ■; i of the sermon he intimated that there had ! been an interruption which "he could not I allow, for the' sake of those who wished to | worship peacefully. If the gentleman who I had done it would come to the vestry and : apologise he would be glad to receive it. If i not, would be compelled to take the mat- I ■ ter before the authorities. The defendant I i then shouted out, " My name is Richardson. | j You can show your Christian charity by summoning me." There were about 800 or 900 i persons present. The congregation was dis- j turbed by the defendant's action. j Mr. Dunsten was subjected to a lengthy j cross-examination by the defendant, who con- ij ducted his own case. He would regard ! "Praise the Lord," "Amen,", or "GloryHallelujah" as interruptions if they were said j continuously, and would have them stopped. ! Defendant: Do you practise what you ! preach? Did you say in the course of your sermon that hotels should be made respect-, able? To the Bench: Your Worship, he is teaching the abominable doctrine tiiat Christians can make hotels respectable! It , is; blasnhemy! ■"" -Mr. Edwards, S.M.: You could have left; the church. S Defendant: I did better service by re- < maining and protesting against such a doctrine. •• '■:■■'. _ .'■ . '* '. '. The witness, continuing his evidence, said ! there was- some reference to defendant in a religious publication, the Watchman. He had no bias of any kind against the defendant. ■ ■ ;;, . ■ '." _''' ] Samuel G. Hutton, an engineer and draughtsman, and a teacher of drawing, and ! John White, a deacon of the church, also 'gave evidence. Both gentlemen were sub- ; jected to a lengthy and exhaustive cross-ex-amination by the defendant. Many of hw questions, which dealt with the practice o? Christian charity and forgiveness, were objected to and disallowed by the Bench, which caused the defendant to exclaim that he wa.) being blocked. Mr. White said he told Richardson that if he did snot agree with any, portion of the service ho should have left tha. building, ■ and he said he would not. That conversation took place at tho close of the service. The phrase, "You can't do it," was. used by defendant when Mr. Dunstan. had invited him to apologise, else ho would take legal proceedings. . ..;,,. ~ William Richardson, a commission agent, residing at Albert-street, Petersham (the defendant), said he attended the church on Juno 30. He was thero incidentally because of a shower of rain that fell. He took the first seat at the back of tho building upstairs, intending to leave in a few minutes. Mr. Dunstan was delivering a sort of semi-politi-cal 6ermon, in which he was making a distinct attack on the Inspector-General of Police, , was , excusing ' publicans in employing-., | barmaids,/ and .recommending Christian folk I to turn their chief attention to ward off the | evils of the liquor traffic by making public- | houses more respectable. To "this he inter- ' jected, "You can't do it." From that out ! until the congregation was about to be dismissed at the conclusion of tho service, and I when challenged by Mr. Dunstan to attend in the vestry and make an apology, he took no further action of any sort. When Mr. . Dunstan demanded an apology he rose to his feot and stepped to the barrier, and said, "My name is William Richardson. I reside at 29, Albert-street, Petersham. Send along the summons and show the rarity of your Christian charity and brotherly love. When you have had as many relatives involved in the toils of' the liquor traffic, you will not be nearly so tolerant." This was done as the congregation was dispersing. The only interjection he made during the service was, "You can't do it," referring to making public-houses respectable. He had no intention of disturbing tho congregation, never had disturbed one in his life, and in making the interjection did it purely in tho public interest, and not with the least bias of sectarianism or political bias. The congregation showed no evidence of being disturbed, nor did he think anyone was disturbed, but Mr. Dunstan, who,, in defendant's opinion, was preaching unsound doctrine on that point. He had heard applause in the.church on previous occasions, and no remonstrance made or apology demanded, and he thought that a congregation which permitted the ono could not object to the other if done in a proper manner, which he did. '5 The defendant was committed for trial to the Criminal Court on July 22. Bail was allowed, self in £50 and two sureties in £25, or one in £50.