SALE OF CHURCH.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXX, Issue 5392, 25 February 1929, Page 2

SALE OF CHURCH.

QUESTION OF RATES.

THAMES BOROUGH WINS;

The case in which the Thames Borough Council brought an action for payment of rates against the trustees of the local Congregational Church was decided on Saturday by Mr* Justice Blair, who gave judgment at the Auckland Supreme Court in favour of the council.

His Honour said the fac.ts of the case were not in dispute, although the inferences from the facts were disputed. At Thames there was a church belonging to the defendants, and prior to a fire on February 12, 1926, it was used for church services. The ser,vic.es were conducted as a Union Churph, composed of both Congregationalists and Baptists, the latter having a considerable majority of adherents. Prior to the fire negotiations were on foot between the two churches fc4’ the Baptists to acquire the church.

lOn February 12 a* fire partially destroyed the c.hurch and it. was not usable until repaired. On April ll 1 . 1926, the insurance company Paid' the defendants £l6O in rcsoecit of the fire loss. Further overtures to the Baptists to take the church over were apparently made but without r.esult. The property, still unrepaired, was in e September, 1926, placed in the hands of a land agent at Thames for sale. This agent advertised: it in the local papers, describing it as suitable for, an auction mart or garage. The Moderator of the defendant church said that this was done to bring the Baptists up to the purchasing point, and that they would never have allowed it to be sold for anything but a church. He admitted, however, that the usual authority to sell was given ■to the agent. BOUGHT BY THE BAPTISTS. The agent’s operations ultimately had the desired result, and the Baptists , bought the damaged church, taking possession on April 1, ,1927. No churc.h services were held from February 9, 1926, until after it. was repaired. The Thames Borough Council levied rates totalling £44 8s 9d> on the property for the year Commencing April 1, 1926, and ending March 31, 1927. It Was admitted that unless defendants were entitled to exemption as “lands occupied by churches and chapels or cemeteries other than cemeteries owned by private persons for pecuniary gain or profit” .within section 2 of The Rating Ac.t, 1925, the rates were properly payable. It. appeared clear, said his that defendants, after the fire, had no intention of repairing the church for the purpose of holding services there. Their members in Thames had become so few as not to justify the continuance of services. From their point of view they wanted another denomination—the Baptists—to take it off their hands, and they took steps, which ultimately proved successful, to this end. The legal position appears to me to be the saipe whether there had been complete or only partial destruction of. the build*ing. NOT OCCUPIED AS A CHURCH. The first question was whether the land was occupied by a “church or chapel.” The land was certainly covered ,with a building that had been a church and used as a church- But was it a “church” in the period in question ? As the judge undterstood the term “church” it meant a building for public, worship, a nd in many Christian denominations a church was called the Lord’s house. The size of the building or the grandeur- of its architecture did not make a c,hurch; many churches used buildings of the humblest description. It was the sac,redotaj element in a building that made it a church. The Congregationalists after the happening of the fire had decided that, they would! no longer hold services there, nor would they repair the building in order that another denomination c.ould do so. The building appeared to the judge entirely to have lost its sacerdotal character, and the land and building was in the defendant’s handfe as a property for sale. In his opinoin, therefore, the land during the rating year in question was not occupied by a “church,” and the exemption did net apply. Judgment was given for plaintiff for the amount claimed, with appropriate costs. Mr A. H. Johnstone appeared for plaintiffs and Mr Glaister for defendants.