Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

REFUSING THE OATH.

Per Press Association, Qhtistcbnrch, Febrnar? 23 Several batches of y cut-bo been betoie the Magistrate's Court lately charged with failure to the oa*h nndot t'r?e Dafesce Ant. Iq the case of Tboeiss Nnttall to-day r>fandaat raised tno poins that be "Kd a religions objection ac,<> vvas conseanectly exempted. He was a B&ptiufc. The eviitetice of Kev. A. Agar and Ms O E. N Msckie. a deaooc of the Baptist Church, was that the cburoh allowed private interpretation of she Blew Taet-uiantu and it tested with the indivi-inal whether bis permitted i&iJifcarv nesvioe or not *la another ores defendant was a nieiabar of the Spiritualist Obaroli. jEdgraenc was reserved in both cases Fisss were laapoEsd in moss cases, to b* reduced If defendants complied with 6bs law within a week.

This article text was automatically generated and may include errors. View the full page to see article in its original form.
Permanent link to this item

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/RAMA19120223.2.44

Bibliographic details

Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10301, 23 February 1912, Page 5

Word Count
132

REFUSING THE OATH. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10301, 23 February 1912, Page 5

REFUSING THE OATH. Rangitikei Advocate and Manawatu Argus, Volume XXXVI, Issue 10301, 23 February 1912, Page 5