Thank you for correcting the text in this article. Your corrections improve Papers Past searches for everyone. See the latest corrections.

This article contains searchable text which was automatically generated and may contain errors. Join the community and correct any errors you spot to help us improve Papers Past.

Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image
Article image

Trial by Libel Demanded,

Subsequently, ho continued, according to the Bobk of Order, ho demanded a trial by libel, and his request was ignored. Tho ruling of the l J resbvtery was that his application for a trial was toolate, io spite of tho fact that his application was made at tho. right timo-'und as soon as ho was cited. All ho now asked was British justice, and that lie be tried according to tho laws of the Church, lie asked for nothing more. In conclusion ho strongly urged tho Assembly to obtain legal advice as to its standing in the matter. He himself had consulted two eminent counsel, aAd they haci advised him that lie was quite justified m lus action and that tho action of the Auckland Presbytery was, in effect, ultra vires.

The Presbytery's Views. The" Rev. I. Jolly, replying on behalf of the Auckland Presbytery, said that Mr. Murray's speech had nothing whatever to do with tho petition. Certain statements in the petition were, lie said, incorrect. Tho matter was not hold m private, but merely in committee. TJio Presbytory had also undertaken to givo Mr Murray and his elders full opportunity for discussion when the committee sta'e was passed, and tho Court moved ill "open meeting. Jlr. Murray had bounced out of the room before ho could take advantago of this otter, but his elder remained and delivered a lengthy speech. Tho public wero also presont, and tho Press, too, the latter reporting the proceedings. The Presbytery had held its hand in order to give Mr. Murray an opportunity of doing the right thing and resigning They wanted to have a licai l-to-heart talk with him in private, biu bo would not give them a chance. Mr. Murray bad openly coiiiesscd that he did not hold with tho Church's doctrine of baptism; he had denied tho validity of infant baptism; he had refused any longer to baptise children, and had contended that children who had been, baptised should be rebaptised by immersion. lor a whole year no baptisms had been conducted, by Air Murray at St. Andrew's. In view of tho foregoing facts where m the name of common sense, asked Mr. Jolly, was the necessity to go through tho formalit) °The tr RoV. b f.'Budd (Auckland) endorse,] Mr. Jolly's remarks, and stated that the Presbytery's invitation to Mr. Murray to meet them and discuss tho trouble had been treated with contempt. In going into committee on the matter the Presbyterv was notuatcd solely by a dcsiro to have a full, free, and frank discussion without being embarrassed by tho presence of the Press:

Petition Dismissed. 1 After further discussion the following resolution was adopted, on the motion of the Rev. Dr. Uibb:— ■ Inasmuch as it isWvitliin tlie constitutional right of a Presbytery to determine whether it shall nt any time or for any issue, go into committee, and whereas going into committee dotrf not in fact "exclude publicity," the Assembly therefore dis misses Mr. Murray's petition. A further appeal by the Rev. Mr. Murray relative to tlio omission of certain subject matter bearing on the enso from the minutes of the Auckland Presbytery was also dismissed. 'Some time was then occupied in consideration of an appeal lodged on s[r. Murray's belmlf by Mr. A. W. Campbell, an elder of St. Andrew's, who emphasised that Mr. ■ Murray's congregation wero behind him in the' matter. In moving that Assembly dUJliiss t!:e appeal and sustain the finding of the Auckland Presbytery, Dr. Clilib sa»d thai Mr. Murray seemed to bo almost courting mnrtvnlom. Both the, Assembly iffid tlio presbytery had exorcised great', patience in tlio case, but Mr. Murrav's refusal to comply with tlie spirit or I lie i'lli'iiHnu Of 111" ehiiroll's doctrine on infant baptism, gave therii no option but to sus£jnd him from, the ministry, ij 0

appealed to Mr. Murray to seßign his post even at tlio eleventh hour, nnd thus save ,the Assembly from endorsing his suspension, n step lyhioh tlioy were taking witli great relficUinco. Mr. Murray did not reply to this suggestion, and the motion, on. being tlio Assembly, was carneit by an 'overwhelming majority.

Permanent link to this item
Hononga pūmau ki tēnei tūemi

https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/DOM19201120.2.96

Bibliographic details
Ngā taipitopito pukapuka

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

Word count
Tapeke kupu
694

Trial by Libel Demanded, Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

Trial by Libel Demanded, Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 48, 20 November 1920, Page 10

Help

Log in or create a Papers Past website account

Use your Papers Past website account to correct newspaper text.

By creating and using this account you agree to our terms of use.

Log in with RealMe®

If you’ve used a RealMe login somewhere else, you can use it here too. If you don’t already have a username and password, just click Log in and you can choose to create one.


Log in again to continue your work

Your session has expired.

Log in again with RealMe®


Alert