BISHOP MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO COURT.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17836, 3 May 1926, Page 10

BISHOP MIGHT BE BROUGHT TO COURT.

LIABILITY UNDER THE COMPENSATION ACT.

It would be an interesting case were a clergyman the plaintiff and his bishop the defendant. The “Church News” in the latest issue points, out that the Bishop is liable personally under the Workers’ Compensation Act for compensation to clergymen injured in the course of their duties. “The ‘Envoy’ recently states that a bombshell was exploded by a member of the local Synod, when he pointed out that the Bishop was personally liable under the Workers’ Compensation Act for compensation to any clergyman injured in the pursuit of his duty!” (states the ‘‘Church News”). “The standing committee was authorised to take steps to protect the Bishop. This opens up an intriguing possibility that some day the Rev Athanase Ignotus may drag the Bishop to the Supreme Court to extort a recompense for a wrist broken while cranking Henry on a cold morning. The Bishop in his defence would urge that the rev plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence in that (a) he had the spark too far advanced, (b) letting his battery run down, and (c) using cheap petrol, and (d) general ‘cussedness.’ Farthing damages. “Seriously, though the electoral board nominates, as the Bishop appoints, there may be a theoretical case, but the real employer is the parish. If ever a ‘contumacious priest’ brought such a case to trial, there would be some pretty argument. Church wardens may groan, but it would be a gracious consideration for' country vestries at least to insure their clergy against accident.”