ECCLESIASTICAL COURT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20800, 20 August 1929, Page 16

ECCLESIASTICAL COURT.

LANDOWNER SENT TO PRISON; A STRANGE CASE. (From Our Owit Cobresposdekt.) ' LONDON, July 12. For refusing to effect repairs to the chancel of Hauxton Church, in the diocese of Ely, Mr J. M. Stevens, a Cambridgeshire county councillor and land owner, was lodged in prison last week. There he had to remain to purge his contempt of court. . ■ Mr Stevens' 13 years ago was a prosperous dairy farmer, owning many acres of land. To expand his business he purchased 17 acres of land at Hauxton, near the parish church, which dates back to a.d. The title d§eds were old. One of them contained a forgotten clause to the effect that the owner of these 17 acres was responible for the upkeep of the chancel of the church. For years the clause had been allowed to lapse, and the last incumbent also took this view. Mr Stevens was never troubled about the parish church chancel. A, new vicar came to Hauxton, and, finding that the chancel needed repair’, investigated the matter, and called on Mr Stevens to carry it out. Mr Stevens refused to do so, and was cited before the Consistory Court of the diocese of Ely. There were four hearings in all. Three took place at the cathedral and one at the Church of Great St. Mary, Cambridge, Mr. Stevens > was officially told that he was liable for ’ the repairs, but was still adamant in his refusal. The Consistory Court, finding that the work was not put in hand after their decision, decided that Mr Stevens was guilty of contempt of court, and was also “ contumacious.” The. next step in the whole amazing affair was the issue of a warrant by the Lord Chancellor ! ordering the arrest of Mr Stevens. The warrant was carried to the high cheriff of the County of Cambridgeshire and handed personally to. him. It ordered him to effect the arrest within a stated period of time if Mr Stevens maintained his attitude. The arrest of Mr Stevens took place at his home in Cambridge. The high sheriff’s officer carried out the order after discussing the matter with Mr Stevens. The place and time was arranged between them. Before he left for Bedford Gaol, Mr Stevens declared that he did not recognise the authority of the Ecclesiastical Court. He said that he would have gladly done the repair's if he had been ordered to do so by a secular court. THE OLD PENALTY OF ‘ EXCOMMUNICATION. In the Middle Ages the penalty would have been excommunication. Under an Act of William IV the Chancellor, filed .in the Chancery Division of the '« High Court what is known as a sighificavit, and after the statutory period had elapsed the Lord' Chancellor issued a warrant for the arrest'of Mr Stevens “to purge his contempt.” Mr G. A. Wootton, solicitor to Mr Stevens, said in an interview: “ The process that will have to be gone through before Mr Stevens regains his freedom is a lengthy one. The • repairs will have to be done to the satisfaction of the chancellor of the diocese pf Ely, and they will have to be passed by the surveyor of the diocese. Mr Stevens will also have to apologise. ' The chancellor will then put in a special affidavit to the High Court stating that Mr Stevens has purged his contempt, and the High Court will make an order for his release. . “ Men are now working night" and day to finish the repairs which have been ordered. Their cost is only a matter of some -£4O. We hope to have them done to-morrow. “I have never heard of a case of’this Rind before. In fact, I believe that the Consistory Courts powers under the Act of William IV have not been. exercised during the last century. Mr Stevens may or may not take legal action when he is released. It depends on the result of the inquiries which are now being made.” There is also to he a sequel to the case in Parliament. Mr E. Hopkin Morris, M.P., announced his intention of introducing a Bill under the 10-minute rule to repeal the provisions of the statute under which Mr. Stevens was committed to prison. He said: . “The case raises an important constitutional issue. If a man is to be deprived of his liberty it can only properly be done after he has been charged in a civil court. Therefore, I propose to introduce a Bill to do away with the powers of ecclesiastical courts in so far as the recovery of debt, and the commital of defaulters are concerned.” THE RELEASE. The release of Mr Stevens from Bedford Prison came on Saturday evening after a consistory court in Ely Cathedral had decided he had purged his contempt and was properly penitent. The court measured the penitence of the defendant in terms of Bank of England notes. A deposit of £SO was handed to the court on behalf of Mr Stevens to cover the repairs to the charicel of Hauxton Parish Church—for which he is responsible in law" —and of £303 Os 2d in taxed costs of the action against him up to May' last. Other costs have still to be met by Mr _ Stevens, and, altogether, his fight against the church "will involve him in an expenditure of considerably more than £4OO. That amount Mr Stevens must find out. of his private pocket. ' If he had repaired Hauxton Church when the first call was made on him, the bill would have' been less than £2O, It was not until the whole of Mr Stevens’s indebtedness was guaranteed before the consistory court that the chancellor of the diocese would make his order, to end the imprisonment. Note by note, in £5 and £lO, the money was counted over to the registrar of the court, sitting at the receipt of custom in the Norman south transept of Ely Cathedral. Then, and. not until then, was the solicitor acting for Mr Stevens free to set about the business of bringing bis client out of Bedford Prison. Dr F. H. L. Errington (for the Church Council) said he W’as unwilling to interfere with anybody’s “halo,” but, in justice to his clients, he must say that this was not a case of a heroic figure defying the thunders of a mediaeval church and languishing in its dungeons. Reduced to its proper proportions, it w p as a case of a men, apparently well to do, who had tried to pass on to the parishioners of a small country parish a liabilit.f' which he took over with Ids eves open. The case was, in one respect, a test case, and the decision was that if a man took the profits of a rectory he w-ould also have to bear the burdens that had been in existence from time immemorial.