BAPTIST CHURCH.

Waikato Times, Volume 116, Issue 19353, 5 September 1934, Page 7

BAPTIST CHURCH.

REINSTATEMENT DESIRED. WRIT OF MANDAMUS SOUGHT. ACTION IN SUPREME COURT. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Tuesday. An ■ application for a writ of mandamus commanding the Baptist Union of New Zealand to reinstate his name in the official list of accredited ministerial members of the Union, was made by Oswald Machattie, of Auckland, formerly of Napier, in the Supreme Court to-day, before Mr Justice Blair. Mr R. A. Singer, with him Mr C. Arndt, appeared for plaintiff, and Mr E. P. Hay for the defendant union. The action concerned the removal of plaintiff from the Baptist Union about April, 1932. Plaintiff alleged that the removal of his name was illegal, irregular, void and done without right. He alleged he had lodged an appeal, but that it had not been heard or properly dealt with. The defence was a general denial of the allegations and the assertion that the appeal was properly heard and that plaintiff’s removal was confirmed. , “ it is a most extraordinary bit of draughtsmanship,” declared His Honour, referring to the Baptist Union Incorporation Act of 1923. “ I spent a lot of time trying to interpret it and I could not make head or tail of it.’ Air Hay explained that there was a Baptist Theological College and that upon a member proving be possessed sufficient education and spiritual learning lie could be appointed as a minister. Plaintiff’s name had been removed from the list of. ministerial members, but one chief point was that such action did not prevent him acting still as a minister of the Church. Baptist churches were not subject to the full control of the union as In the case of some other Churches, such as the Presbyterian Church. A Serious Thing. Ilis Honour said he believed the removal of plaintiff’s name from the list of the union’s ministerial members would be a serious thing for plaintiff. “As a matter of fact,” the Judge added, “he is taken off the list of officiating ministers.” Mr Hay: That is because he is no longer pastor of the Napier church. His Honour: Every officiating minister (under the Marriage Act) has not got a church. Some of them are retired. How did he get off? Mr Hay suggested that the union Informed the registrar of the list of ministers. His Honour remarked that, ne thought the rules needed reframing. Mr Hay said they had since been reframed. His Honour: Don’t you deny plaintiff is a minister? Air Hay: Not to any extent, A our Honour. He is a minister. Mr Singer said he did not agree that there were no rules applicable. There were statutory rules. It did not matter what the union said, it was bound and the Court was bound by tlie statutory rules. Mr Hay said that if plaintiff was still pastor of the Napier church he would be an officiating minister, whether he was a member of the union or not. That was the pith of the matter. Mr Singer: Is it conceivable that any church would appoint as a minister anyone not appointed under section 8?" No Church Rules. His Honour: I thought it was a case to try according to the Church rules. Now I find there are no rules and the matter must be considered according to the principles of natural justice. “ I don’t know what he’s complaining about," remarked His Honour to Air Singer, after perusing the papers. “ I haven’t Hie faintest idea. If you say it is contrary to natural justice why not say so.” Air Singer said thai a commission of inquiry set up following complaints had not framed charges as requested by plaintiff. Plaintiff had refused to recognise the inquiry. Then in his appeal an attempt had been made to limit plaintiff’s case on appeal to one hour. Later Air Singer said that plaintiff did not have any charges made against him. That was what he complained about. He was asked to attend the commission, but refused, as did a large number of the Napier, church congregation. He was limited to one hour on appeal before the Assembly. His Honour: That's what they do in America. It’s rather a good idea. I’m thinking it could be done more. (Laughter.) His Honour said there were not enough facts in the affidavits. What happened at the commission of inquiry had to be considered in deciding what was natural justice. The only thing lo he done was lo put the proceedings in a form wherein the facts could he understood.