WAKEFORD CASE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 16895, 21 November 1922, Page 6

WAKEFORD CASE.

ARCHDEACON STILL DISSATISFIED. | SLANDER ACTION STARTED. i | By Telegraph—Press Association—Copyright 5 j Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. | (Received November 21, 9.5 a.m.) LONDON, November 20. : Archdeacon Wakeford is again seek- ; ing to re-establish ins innocence, and is : instituting a slander action against 1 the clerk and solicitors to the Arck- ! bishop of Canterbury. The Master of • the High Court refused to allow the ■ action to proceed, and the judge upArchdeacou V. akeiieid has been ; granted leave to appeal. j Arckdeamon John Wakefield, wha 1 was Canon and Preoeiuor of Lincoln ! Oiibhetirai, Archdeacon, cf - Stow, and Vicar of Kirkstead- was tried by the ■ Consistory Chart of the Diocese of Lin- | coin on a charge oi immoral conduct • and was found guilty. The charge •! against the Archdeacon was that he : stayed at the Bull Hotel, Peterbori ough, on March 14 and 15, and on . Good Friday. April 2, 1920, with a. I woman who was not his wife. T v hf i Archdeacon appealed against the judg- ( mem- of the Consistory Court to the : Privy Oounvil in April last, hut his : appeal was dismissed by the Lord Chon- ; cellor. Lord Buckmaster, Lord Dune- : din and Lord Shaw, with whom the ; Bishops of Loudon, Gloucester, Rochj ester and Ely sat as his assesors. tfne ! of the main points for the prosecution j was an entry in the hotel book. J. j Wake ford and wife, which was alleged I to be in the Archdeacon’s handwriti in &- i In the judgement of tire Judicial | Committee of Privy Council, the evidj eno for tho prosecution was described | as “ a mosaic of statements made by j a great number of persons, each of ! whom can only speak of particular I moments and of particular instances.” j The defence way that of conspiracy and mistake. The Archdeacon asserted that he had incurred the enmity of two clergymen, one of them his broth-er-in-law. and his case was largely that they had resolved to hound him. out of the church. To support, this theory it was necessary to show not only that the manager of the hotel and his wife, and the servants were implicated. but that many witnesses also, who could not have been interested one way or the other. The Judicial J Committee of the Privy Council found that there was no evidence of curruption to maintain the defence of conspiracy. Later the Secretary of State for Home Affairs decided that Archdeacon Wakeford’s petition did not justify the reopening of his case.