WAIKATO ANGLICANS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20171, 4 February 1929, Page 11

WAIKATO ANGLICANS.

ACTION BY DEAN BARNETT.

lINJU NOTION AGAINST BISHOP.

SUPREME COURT PROCEEDINGS.

COMMISSION NOT ALLOWED. [nv TELEGRAPH.—OWN CORRESPONDENT.] HAMILTON, Saturday. The strained relations between Bishop C. A. Chcrrington, Bishop of Waikato, and Dean G. It. Barnett, Dean of Hamilton, entered a new phase to-day when the dean secured an injunction from Mr. Justice Blair which will prevent tho bishop from proceeding with the commission which was to sit this week to consider tho allegations of unfitness and -disloyalty. The motion came before the Hamilton Supremo Court, Mr. Julius Hogben, of Auckland, and Mr. Noel S. Johnson, of Hamilton, appearing for plaintiff, defendants being Bishop Cherrington and the nominees for the commission, the Rev. H. R. B. Gillespie, of Okato, and Messrs. K. 8. Caldwell, of Huntly, and C. R. Stead, of Waitara, solicitors. Defendants wcro not represented, the proceedings being ex parte. live grounds were advanced in support «f plaintiff's action. It was submitted the bishop's procedure in connection with the commission was contrary to tho canon Jaw of the church, and that the appointment of the commission was not a bonafide exercise of his powers. Further, it was contended the setting up of the commission and the bishop's actions were contrary to the rules of natural justice, and that tho dean was deprived of his rights. It was also stated tho appointment of the three commissioners was invalid, and that irreparable injury would result unless defendants were prevented from proceeding yitli the commission. 11 Defying My Episcopal Authority." It was set out that on January 17 last fie bishop wrote to plaintiff as follows: " As you have not answered my request in my confidential letter of the 3rd or 4th inst., I now formally ask you to iorward me your resignation within seven days, the resignation to take effect three months from to-day. I have an affadavit_ affirming that in the presence of two people you made this statement in all good faith: <* If ever the bishop found that I was not the man, for the job I am quite prepared to get out.' " The bishop's letter continued:—" I rely *tn you as a man of honour to do as I request. My reasons, among others, are ; —(1) That you are disloyal to myself. (2) That you apparently consider that you are within your rights in defying my episcopal authority. (3) That you are incompetent to carry on the arduous task of dean and vicar of St. Peter's Parish, and that the work of the Church in this town will never progress under your ministrations." Letter to Cathedral Wardens. The next move detailed in plaintiff's statement was on January 17, when Bishop Cherrington wrote in the following terms to the wardens of St. Peter's Cathedral: —"As soon as you can assure 3iio that the finances will allow of it, 1 am reaiy to licence a a clergyman to a conventional district in the parish of St. Peter's, such district being assigned by the chapter for my confirmation at the next meeting of the standing committee, it being understood that such clergyman fchall work entirely independently of the •vicar of St. Peter's. After recent occurrences I refuse to licence any clergyman to work in the parish under any other conditions so long as the Rev. G. R. Barnett remains as incumbent.

" I would inform you that I have, on -t he grounds of unsuitability and incapacity for the important work of dean of my cathedral and vicar of the cathedral parisii, asked for Mr. Barnett s lesigna--lion. If he fails to give it, me in spite of a solemn promise made to mo in writing on the eve of his appointment, a promise of which the then vestry were made aware at the time when his name ■was submitted for approval, I shall take such steps as I think fit and necessaiy iri order that his tenure of his important office shall cease by March 31, 1929. I consider that Mr. Barnett has been most disloyal to me and that he has biokcn faith, not onlv with myself, but also with the people's warden of St. Peter s Cathedral, who has worked so hard to bring about such a sta'.e of things as ought to exist." Appointment of Commission. On January 19 Dean Barnett s solicitors replied to the bishop to the effect that a resignation, would not be tendered. Plaintiff's claim set out that on January 25 a letter was received from the diocesan registrar. Mr. A. B. Whyte, giving notice that the bishop had appointed a commission to inquire irito the dean s fitness to hold office. The nominees were Archdeacon Evans, of New Plymouth, and Messrs. K. S. Caldwell and F. Harris, of Hunt Iv. This letter gave the dean until noon next day to exercise his right to object to the constitution of tho commission.

A reply was sent by plaintiff's solicitors objecting to tho short notice, asking the bishop's reasons for holding secret meetings, and requesting details of the charges and the names of the persons whom the bishop claimed had asked for a commission.

The diocesan registrar replied on January 26, extending the time for lodging objection until the 31st, and refusing to namo tho requisionists. Tho letter enumerated the grounds for tho comniisfcion as follows:—

(1) The dean's weakness and vacillation, as instanced by his chairmanship at various meetings. (2) His lack of loyalty to Church authority and to the bishop. (3) His/failure to keep a promise given by hirri to the bishop at the time of his appointment and his failure to keep undertakings moro recently given in tho presence of the two wardens of the parish to work with tho bishop. His Jack of control of his subordinates and his inability to work with them. 15) His failure to rise to tho position of dean of tho cathedral and to cope with Jo large a parish as St. Peter's. Archdeacon Evans' Position. The registrar's letter added: "The commission will, of course, inquire into the matter of unfitness generally, and the grounds en umerated above must not be Inken as limiting the scope of inquiry. Out of courtesy to your client, however, -T have to inform you that evidence will he led along the lines indicated, and tho commission will, no doubt, consider what other relevant evidence as may bo forthcoming as to fitness or unfitness. The bishop has not convened secret meetings, "here is no provision in the canon for counsel to be present at the inquiry. Tha commission will, no doubt, decide whether J t will allow counsel for tho parties to appear."

' We should like to say lliat we regard t}iß appointment of -Archdeacon Evans as invalid, as fhis gentleman lias preconceived views on the matter in issue, ®nd it will be impossible to expect him

to approach the inquiry with an unbiassed mind," stated the letter sent to the registrar on January 28 by Dean Barndtt's solicitors. "We do not suggest this in any offensive manner, but in view of the great controversy which has existed in matters affecting the parish of St. Peter's, and thereby the diocese, and of Archdeacon Evans' public pronouncements in the press and otherwise, it is manifest that his attitude of mind would not be altered by any evidence entered on behalf of the clean—evidence, coming as it would in a large part from those whom the archdeacon has criticised publicly, and his decision sitting as a commissioner must be in favour of the views already expressed by the bishop in correspondence and at meetings." On January 30 the registrar acknowledged plaintiff's letter, refuting the charges of bias against Archdeacon Evans and giving the names of the requisitionists. The same day plaintiff's solicitors again entered a complaint against the inclusion of Archdeacon Evans, and Mr. Harris and informed the registrar that the right to prevent the sitting of the commission by injunction was reserved. The , personnel of the commission was then changed, the registrar advising Dean Barnett last Thursday, January 31, that the members would be tho Rev. Mr. Gillespie and Messrs. Caldwell and SteadAn affidavit by Dean Barnett placed before His Honor by Mr. Hogben contained the following: *' Since July, 1928, defendant has by his actions and words shown himself to be personally hostile to me, and has on several occasions asked mo or hinted that I should resign. Toward the end of August, 1928, defendant asked me to resign, and on my refusing stated to me that if I refused to go: ' there were ways of getting rid even of a dean.' "

His Honor granted the injunction pending the trial of the action or the further order of the Court preventing the bishop from setting up a commission, or the commissioners from acting in any way as a commission.