SALVATION ARMY

Evening Post, Volume CVII, Issue 25, 30 January 1929, Page 11

SALVATION ARMY

GENERAL V. COUNCIL

CASE IN HIGH COURT

LEGAL ARGUMENT

United Press Associate—By Electric Telegraph—Copyrlcht. (Received 30th January, 1 p.m.) LONDON, 29th January. At tho resumption of tho hearing before the High Court of his application for an injunction on behalf of General Bramwell Booth against the Salvation Army High Council, Mr. W. A. Greene, K.C., regretted that tho parties had failed to reach an amicable solution of tho position. It was certain that the members of the Army desired to effect a radical change in the constitution, which General Booth felt should be defended, thinking it an attack on what the founder laid down.

Mr. Simmonds, for the Council, protested that there was nothing in the evidence to support such a suggestion. Mr. Greene replied that the General had raised points which must sooner or later bo decided. The first was as to the position of the 1904 deed poll, under which the General might be deprived of office. Secondly, there was the procedure under the deed; for example, whether the Council should not formulate charges and allow General Booth to be heard. That was the privilege General Booth desired to be given.

Mr. Greene asked that tho status quo be preserved till matters in dispute were determined.

Mr. Vaisey, for General Booth, said that it was contended that the Council adjudicated unfitness in the terms of the modified deed of 1904, under which tho General could be expelled, if found a lunatic or of four-fifths of the Commissioners were satisfied that he was permanently incapacitated for his duties by mental or physical infirmity. In that event the vacating General's right of appointing his successor became void, but a vital clause provided that once a General was elected the election could not be invalidated by any flaw in the summoning, the constitution or proceedings of tho High Council or any other

Mr. Vaisey read a medical certificate to show that there was no question of mental incapaeitation.

Mr. Simmonds read Dr. Hurren's affidavit that not till now was the validity of iJie 1904 poll questioned. Further, General Booth since May of last year hail been unable to carry out a tenth of his duties. An affidavit on behalf of the Council stated that even if General Booth fulfilled the doctors' expectations, he would be unable to carry the strain of Generalship. Mr. Vaisey read countervailing certificates that he would be fit for duties in six months.

Mr. Greene emphasised tho Council's omission to state the grounds of General Booth's unfitness.

The case was adjourned.