A BISHOP’S POWERS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume V, Issue 1439, 23 December 1886, Page 3

A BISHOP’S POWERS.

Wellington, December 22. In the Supr.me Court, the case Do<!w--ll v the Bishop of Weldngton was heard in which ths plaiuti'T complained of the revoca'ion and cancellation of his license as pastor of the parochial districts of F.'Xton and Bulls Plaintiff alleged the p.-wer of revocation had been improperly exercised, and called upon the Court to examine into the allegation. He does n< t necessarily complain of the revocation in itself The Judge said as the license directly sfLcted spiritual matters, only so must its revocation. His complaint la that indirectly and incidentally »n improper revocation deprived him of his stipend and temporal advantages. Plaintiff further alleged that the Bishop h«B denial him the right of being fried by a Church Court, to which h 9 I»J» he wa« entitled

under danse 15 of the Church Connflt.-M->n. Rli Honor the Chic - .!'*• ' ha Bishop's right to revoke Is cat confined m i. e css of an offence <m»„. i u y the licensee, hut according to the plain t riL“ of the i a:ruraocr, extends to .Vl occasions on which there m.ty appear to the Bishop to be just come for the ex-rcisa of his poweis In order to jnst'ty revocatii n It is not necessary that the licensee should have committ-rd an or ov-'n should he in fm!t. Bimp'e inoompetency or considerations of expediency would warrant the exercise of the p>weif, the Biaho < hinitelf being the sole judge of the suffi ;b ncy of the oceviou. Plant tiff also allowed tl ft defer,dint did break sn'o and enter tie church at Bui's then lawfully in possession of the p'alntff »« pastor, hut his honor h -Id that as the license cf plaint ff had been revoked prior to the alleged breaking sni entsrinar, it was impossible that plaintiff could have been lawfully in possession, and judgment therefore was given that the facts showed no cause of action.