VALUABLE CHURCH ACRE.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18964, 11 March 1925, Page 7

VALUABLE CHURCH ACRE.

Sir,—l liave no \visli to drag our friend* Mr. Hudson, into any controversy, buf his letter of the 4th instant conveys th® impression that, at an official meeting, a plain question was officially put, and that the answer justified the remarks oi Archdeacon Cowie, as recently reported in your journal. Mr. Hudson is under a delusion, for ho was not officially or even unofficially present at the meeting which took place at the time he mentions. The meeting was over, and, if J remember rightly, the archdeacon himself had left, when some of us stayed behind to draw up the necessary petii tion to His Lordship the Bishop. It was then that, knowing of Mr. Hudson's presence in Hamilton, we rang him ug to ask him, to come down, so that ha could advise us as to whether oi- no we had omitted any particular in the peti. tion, and ask him to present and support our petition at the meeting of the stand, ing committee the following day. Th« gathering by that time was quite informal, and when Mr. Hudson put the question he mentions, there was certainly no reason why two out of the four Frankton representatives remaining behind should disclose to him their intentions upon q matter not under discussion at the meet, ing proper. Mr. Hudson gavo jis verj valuable advice and assistance quite unofficially, and we are grateful. As to whether we were right or wrong in not mentioning that matter is a m&tter upoq which there may bp differences of opm, ion, but the fact remains that it was not mentioned. And may I point out to Mr. Hudson that if a partnership is dissolved, and one of the partners fails al the time to mention assets in which h< has a legal share, he is not therefore da< prived of his legal rights. J. E. Hiiebeet, Vicar's Warden. S. George's, Frankton.