Booth Gets Injunction.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18674, 31 January 1929, Page 11

Booth Gets Injunction.

COUNCIL MADE INNOCENT MISTAKE, JUDGE BELIEVES.

.Cnited Press Assn.—By Electric Telegraph.—Copyright.)

(Received January 31, 10.30 a.m.) LONDON'. January 30. General Booth's application for an injunction was granted. A high-placed Army officer savS that the injunction renders void the whole of the council’s prior proceedings, but does not prevent it reassembling and passing a similar resolution. The council will probably take that course during the next few days. It is certain that no one will change his views on the question of General Boqth’s unfitness, but may be joined by one or two who opposed the resolution before.

Mr Greene. K.C., resumed his speech on behalf of General Booth. lie said that it was impossible to say that the General's health was not a matter for adjudication. There had not teen proper adjudication and the High Council was not entitled in deciding the question of fitness to take into consideration allegations and charges calculated to influence the mind of the tribunal, without giving the General an opportunity of meeting them. Mr Simmonds, on behalf of the High Council, said that the deed of 1904 was the only safeguard the Army possessed against an evil autocracy, which might become a despotism, and against a General who no longer had the strength to wield his power. He begged the General to think again before challenging this deed. “The General's writ and the challenge it issues shocked every man in the Army,” he said. “Everyone who supports the Army from outside thinks that it is pitiable that this action should have been brought.” The suggestion that the General had been adjudicated unfit without being heard was preposterous. The General in his own letters confessed that he was unfit. Mr Justice Eve, in granting an injunction, said that the case was argued solely on the ground that General Booth should be heard in his own defence. The primary question of the validity of the 1904 deed would only be solved at a trial action. The council certainly was empowered to adjudicate anyone as unfit. When General Booth desired time to consider the position the High Council passed a resolution which must have suggested to General Booth that his physical weakness was the only ground advanced for his retirement. Further, the council’s letter showed feelings of the greatest respect and affection for him. The real question was whether the council ought to come to a conclusion without General Booth, personally or by deputy, supporting the view that he was still fitted for the post. “I cannot help thinking that an innocent mistake has been made in not giving General Booth an opportunity to be represented by agents.’’ said Mr Justice Eve. “Therefore the resolution cannot stand. The council has not yet broken up. and it is not a matter calling for a long delay. In the circumstances the injunction must be limited so as not to prevent the council at once rectifying its mistake and ultimately adjudicating on the matter after plaintiff has been heard.” Replying to Mr Greene. Mr Justice -Eve said: “It is a bad resolution.” Mr Simmonds intimated that the only fact to be advanced against General Booth would be his physical unfitness—Australian Press Association— United Service.

COUNCIL TO MEET AT THE EARLIEST.

(Received January 31. 12.5 p.m.) LONDON, January 30. On behalf of the Army’s High Council it is officially stated that it would be incorrect to say that Mr Justice Eve’s judgment voids the proceedings taken hitherto. The Council meets at the earliest to consider the next step, which presumably will be to appoint a date to hear General Booth's representatives. The General has not indicated his course of action. He will first consult his solicitors.—Australian Press AssociationUnited Service.

COUNCIL TO FIX DATE OF HEARING.

(Received January 31, 1.30 p.m.) LONDON, January 30. The High Council is expected to meet; to-morrow to fix the date of the hearing of General Booth’s representative.

A member of the High Council, in a statement, said that the change of procedure would strengthen the council’s position, as it will be impossible to say that it had not treated the General fairly previously. He thought that it was unnecessary to hear the General’s representative, because his wife, two daughters and a sistv were members of the council, but Mr Justice Eve pointed out that they also were adjudicators.—Australian Press Association.