CHURCH FUNDS

Hokitika Guardian, 2 June 1932, Page 5

CHURCH FUNDS

LOAN REPAYMENT

QUESTION OF “RESPONSIBILITY

(By Telegraph—Per Pres Association )

. ' WELLINGTON, June 1. In the ./Whangarei; Catholic Clsurch loan claim, case, the plaintiff in his evidence, said that he had made .a demand for repayment to his son’s succession at,; Whangarei) Rev. Father •Herring, who stated that the late Bishop , Cleary -had not authorised the money. “I must refer you to Father Campbell as to what I'm has done with

your money,” Father Herring wrote. Dalton Henry Campbell, Priei't in Holy Orders, the son of the -plaintiff, said that the Parish Priest paid all of til© outgoings. Ithe. Bishop was the only authority that he was accountable to.' About the time that he was ’ appointed Parish Priest at Whangarei the erection.of .a. new dhureh was being discus'ed. The Bishop signed documents for the purchase of a section, and approved of pirns. It was proposed to sell the old church site. The Bishop said: “If you can finance tile fjcheme go ahead, ’’ Cehtihuing Pel her Campbell said that ho did not discuss finance in any detail with Tib,hop CHeary, but had said that guarantors' could be obtained. The total cnsli. of the scheme wa« £13,500. Money was found by the sale of the o'd site, two bazaars, and a special collection. At the opening of the new church, they had about £1,500 to meet the liability and had ,an overdraft of £4,500. ‘ln 1927, he went to Wellington to attend his mother’s funeral. He ■suggested that his father advance '£3,500 for financing the church. He expected the church to be. able to repay, from the proceeds of the bazaars, which realised about/ £IOOO a year.

Cross examined, Father Campbell said that both £SOO and £IOOO had been advanced before t-b e tenders were called. He did not tell, the Bishop or the parishioners that he was borrowing the' money from his father. Answering inquiries by Hi- Honour counsel for th ft defendant said: “We are not sure whether this money did go into the church. There was a good Heal of money collected which wo cannot trace. I do not-wish to charge Father Campbell, but I have asked him to explain some glaring inaccuracies, and h® seems unable to do -so. If the patish could ho 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. There are, however, several matters which shriek of an improper handling of funds. The Whangarei parishioners. Were astounded wheli they heard that there had been a loan of £ISOO, and they were simply dumbfounded when it w{W subsequently learned that thsir late Parish Priest had borrowed £Bs<iO from his father for the new church. ,r His Honor suggested again that the case -should be settled out of Court, and the case was -adjourned to allow a conference.

Om resuming, counsel for the plaintiff ssid that he regretted that they had been unable to agree. Father Campbell repudiated any insinuation that he Ihnd misapplied funds. The late Bishop Cleary had never made a complaint about his management. The case was adjourned until tomorrow.