ALLEGED LOAN.

Waikato Times, Volume 111, Issue 18652, 2 June 1932, Page 7

ALLEGED LOAN.

FOR ERECTION OF CHURCH. SUPREME COURT ACTION. FOR REPAYMENT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. The repayment of an alleged loan of £3500 for the erection of a Roman Catholic Church at Whangarei, together with over £751 for interest, was sought in the Supreme Court to-day by Thomas Campbell from Dr. Liston, as Bishop of the Auckland Diocese. The statement of claim is that defendant's son, the parish priest at Whangarei, having the consent of the then Bishop of Auckland, Dr. Cleary, to erect a new church, arranged a loan from his father and was advanced the money at dates in 192 b and 1927 at 5i per cent., repayable on demand. The demand for the repayment had been refused. The defence denies that the parish priest requested a loan for the purpose of erecting a church; that the parish priest was acting as the agent or with the authority of the then Bishop of Auckland; that the plaintiff agreed to lend or the Bishop agreed to borrow from plaintiff any sum upon the terms suggested in the statement of claim; further, that any amount mentioned or sums that might have been paid to the parish priest were advanced in pursuance of the agreement alleged in the statement of claim, or that they, or any part of them, were applied for or towards the election of a parish church. Evidence by Plaintiff. Evidence was given by plaintiff, Thomas Campbell, who said he was 78 years of age. He said he had made the demand to the priest who had succeeded his son at Whangarei for repayment, and had received a reply to the effect that Father Campbell admitted a loan of £ISOO, but had made no mention of the £2OOO referred to in plaintiff’s letter. Father Herring, of Whangarei, had said that he had referred the matter to Bishop Cleary, who had replied that he had not authorised a loan of £ISOO. If the bishop had not authorised a loan of £ISOO, Father Herring had stated, it was scarcely likely that he had authorised a loan of £2OOO. Later he had received a curt letter from Father Herring stating “ I must refer you to Father 'Campbell as to what he has done with your money.” Dalton 'Henry Campbell, priest in holy orders and a member of the Marist Order and son of plaintiff, said members of the Marist Order were under the control of the bishop of the diocese. The parish priest paid outgoings from his personal account. There was no duly constituted lay body in a parish and the only person to be accountable to was the bishop. Witness said lie was appointed assistant priest at Whangarei in 1924, and was appointed parish priest about the beginning of 1926. About that year the question of the erection of a new church at Whangarei was discussed with and approved by the Bishop of Auckland, who signed documents in connection with the purchase of a section. The bishop also inspected and approved architectural plans. The parish had not the necessary money in hand to build a new church, and it was proposed to sell the old church site. The bishop asked: “Can you finance the scheme? If you can, go ahead.” Father Campbell said he did not discuss the financial scheme in any detail, but said that guarantors could be- obtained for an overdraft, if required. Tenders were called for the erection of the church, and these were submitted to Bishop Cleary, who advised that the lowest tender should be accepted. Witness signed the contract with the verbal authority of the bishop. Borrowed from Father. Witness said the total cost was about £13,500. At the opening of the new church they had about £4500 with which to meet the liability of £13,500, and had an overdraft of £4500 at the bank. His father advanced at different times £3500. He agreed witli his father that tnese were loans to the church. He expected the church would be ablo to repay his father from the proceeds of bazaars, which realised about £IOOO a year. He paid the cheques he received from his father into the parish accounts at Whangarei. Cross-examined by counsel for defendant, Father Campbell said both the £SOO and £IOOO had been borrowed from his father before tenders were accepted and before he bad obtained permission from Bishop Cleary to increase the overdraft. He did not tell his parishioners or the bishop that he had borrowed the money from his father. Answering inquiries by His Honour counsel for defendant said, ‘‘ We are not sure, Your Honour, whether this money did go into the church. There was a good deal of money collected which we cannot trace. I do not wish to charge Father Campbell, but I have asked him to explain some glaring inaccuracies and lie seems unable to do so. If the parish could be satisfied as to where the money has gone some attempt would be made to pay it back. Bishop Liston would be the last person to take advantage of a technicality." Conference Unsuccessful. The parties adopted His Honour’s suggestion that a conference should be held, and the case was adjourned to permit of a conference. Upon resuming counsel for plaintiff said lie was sorry that defendant had not been prepared to make an offer of any kind. Uc-examined by counsel for plaintiff Father Campbell repudiated an insinuation that he had at any time misapplied funds of the parish. No action of any kind had ever been taken against him by the -Church or any order in the Church. The late Bishop Cleary had never made any complaint to witness regarding his control of tiie parish of Whangarei. The total cost of the land for Hie new church was £4BOO and it would have been impossible for him to have started building operations without obtaining the loans Horn li is father. The whole of the money which had come from his father had been expended in either buying hum or building tiie new church. The case will lie resumed at 10.30 to-nmmiw morning, when evidence of the Bishop of Auckland and Hie parish priest of Whangarei will bo heard.