DISAGREEMENT IN CHALMERS CHURCH.

Otago Witness, Issue 3117, 10 December 1913, Page 74

DISAGREEMENT IN CHALMERS CHURCH.

JUDICIAL OPINION ON ARGUMENT. His Honor Mr Justice Williams had before him, on November 21, an action as to religious observance in Chalmers Church, and on .FriAiy morning gave his decision as far as the legal aspect of the existing condition of matters was concerned. Mr W. L. Moore and Mr J. B. Callan, jun., appeared for the plaintiff in the action (John Jamison) and Mr Wm. C. MacGrcgor ,for the church. His Honor's judgment stated inter alia: — This was an argumenL of questions of .'aw before trial under rule 154. The questions arise upon the construction of a deed of conveyance dated the 25th June, 1889, whereby a parcel of land with a church building upon it was conveyed to the Deacons' Court of Chalmers Church upon the' trusts therein set forth. A statement of facts has been admitted for the purposes of argument only. From that statement it appears that at the time the deed was entered into the form, practice, or mode of worship in ust) in the congregation referred to in the said deed consisted, inter alia, of the following:—(a) The congregation stood while prayer was being offered, (b) The congregation remained seated during the service of praise. It appears also that a few years ago a majority of the congregation during a period of some three years ago adopted tho practice of sitting while prayer was being offered, and the practice of standing during the service of praise. The questions of law for argument are the following: Do the words "or otherwise" where they occur in paragraph 5 of tho said deed include the practice of sitting while prayer was being offered and the practiceof standing during the service of praise? Do the words, " the said congregation," when they occur after the words, "in the event of," in paragraph 6 of the said deed, exclude those who while still attending the church adopted the practices above mentioned? His Honor, after a critical analysis, said the a;,o\ver to tho question must be in the affirmative. As to the second question, paragraph 5 provides that if innovations be introduced the trust is for the sole use and benefit of those members of the congregation who are opposed to the innovations and to their adherents. All other members of the congregation are to cease to have an estate or interest in the premises. If innovations have been introduced those who adopt the practice of them, though they may still attend the church, are thus deprived of all rights under tho deed. The words "the said congregation" when they occur after the words in the event of " in paragraph 6 must necessarily exclude such persons, as they have been deprived by paragraph 5 of any right or interest in the premises, and consequently of the right to maintain the ordinances of religion there or to insist >on their being maintained. I have not taken into consideration the affidavits filed, but have based my conclusions solely on tho frame of tho deed and on the fac l s admitted for the purpose of the argument. Mr Mooro suggested th.it the question of costs might be reserved until the cpso itself wis heard. He did not know whether his Honor would be able to hear tho case this yenr or not. His Honor said he did not think he would, be able to hear the case thi» year. Ten guineas costs were mentioned by his Honor, but apparently the costs are still a debatable matter. *»