Check-Mate for Bishop

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 579, 4 February 1929, Page 1

Check-Mate for Bishop

dean secures injunction

No Waikato Commission

ACTION IN SUPREME COURT THE long-standing dissension in the Waikato Anglican diocese reached a further stage on Saturday when Dean G. R. Barnett obtained an injunction from Mr. Justice Blahrestraining Bishop C. A. Cherrington from proceeding with the commission which was to consider the suitability of the dean to retain his office.

fTHE motion asking- for an injunction J- came before the Hamilton Supreme Court. Mr. Julius Hogben, of Auckland, and Mr. Noel S. Johnson, of Hamilton, appearing for plaintiff, defendants being Bishop Cherrington and the nominees for the commission, the Rev. H. R. B. Gillespie, of Okato, and Messrs. K. S. Caldwell, of Huntly, and C. R. Stead, of Waitara, solicitors. Defendants were not represented, the proceedings being ex parte. Five grounds were advanced in support of plaintiff’s action. It was submitted the bishop’s procedure in connection with the commission was contrary to the canon law of the Church, and that the appointment of the commission was not a bona ride exercise of his powers. Further, it was contended the setting up of the commission and the bishop’s actions were contrary to the rules of natural justice, and that the dean was deprived of his rights. It was also stated the appointment of the three commissioners was invalid, and that Irreparable Injury would result unless defendants were prevented from proceeding with the commission.

“RESiGN WITHIN SEVEN DAYS'' It was set out that on January 17 last the bishop wrote to plaintiff as follows: “As you have not answered my request in my confidential letter of the 3rd or 4th inst., I now formally ask you to forward me your resignation within seven days, the resignation to take effect three months fiom to-day. I have an affadavit affirming that in the presence of two people you made this statement in all good faith: ‘lf ever the bishop found that I was not the man for the job I am quite prepared to get out.’ ”

The bishop’s letter continued: “1 rely on you as a man .of honour to do as I request. My reasons, among others, are: (1) That you are disloyal to my(2) That you apparently consider that you are within your rights in defying my episcopal authority. f 3) That you are incompetent to carry on the arduous task of dean and vicar of St. Peter’s Parish, and that the work of the Church in this town will never progress under your miniotra-

According to plaintiffs statement, on January 17 Bishop Cherrington wrote in the following terms to the wardens of St. Peter's Cathedral: “As soon as yo “ C ?. n assure me that the finances will allow of it, I am ready to licence . rsy u un to a conventional disVAfni? k ? parish of st - Peter’s, such district being assigned by the chapter lor my confirmation at the next meeting of the standing committee, it beiriLunderstood that such clergyman shall Tir.r ( ; n l\ rely independently of the •Wear of St. Peter’s. After recent occuirences I refuse to licence any »lj ery !£ an to work in the parish under Rev o h< R S. or,c,ltlons so long as the bem. ‘ ' Barnett remains as meum„„L'vould inform you that I have car.i t !.o^ r °, UndS , 0f “"suitability and indean f ° r the important work of r' y rat ! ledra l and vicar of the cathedral parish, asked for Mr. Barnetts resignation. If he fails to give in spite of a solemn promsie i m .° ln writ ‘ns on the eve of a P po lntment, a promise of which cne then vestry were made aware at ne time when his name was submitted r fv.? P , Pr « Val 1 shall take such steps as i think fit and necessary in order that his tenure of his important office shall cease by March 31, 1929. I consider , at Mr. Barnett has been most disto m© and that he has broken with myself, but also with the people’s warden of St. Peter’s cathedral, who has worked so hard to bring about such a state of things as ought to exist.’’ RESIGNATION REFUSED

On January 19 Dean Barnett’s solicitors replied to the bishop to the effect coat a resignation would not be tendered. Plaintiff’s claim set out that on January 23 a letter was received from the diocesan registrar. Mr. A. B. Whyte, giving notice that the bishop had appointed a commission to inquire into the dean’s fitness to hold office. The nominees were Archdeacon Evans, of New Plymouth, and Messrs. K. S. Caldwell and F. Harris, of Huntly. This letter gave the dean until noon next ♦k ' to exercise his right to object to the constitution of the commission. A reply was sent by plaintiff’s solicitors objecting to the short notice, ask-

ing the bishop’s reasons for holding secret, meetings, and requesting details of the charges and the names of the persons whom the bishop claimed had asked for a commission. GROUNDS FOR COMMISSION The diocesan registrar replied on January 26, extending the time for lodging objection until the 31st, and refusing to name the requisionists. The letter enumerated the grounds for the commission as follow: (1) The dean’s weakness and vacillation, as instanced by his chairmanship at various meetings. (2) His lack of loyalty to Church authority and to the bishop. (3) His failure to keep a promise given by him to the bishop at the time of his appointment and his failure to keep undertakings more recently given in- the presence of the two wardens of the parish to work with the bishop. (4) His lack of control of his subordinates and his inability to work with them. (5) His failure to rise to the position of dean of the cathedral ahd to cope with so large a parish as St. Peter’s. The registrar’s letter added:—“The commission will, of course, inquire into the matter of unfitness, generally, and the grounds enumerated above must not be taken as limiting the scope of inquiry. Out of courtesy to your client however, I have to inform you that evidence will be led along the lines indicated, and the commission will, no doubt, consider what other relevant evidence as may be forthcoming as to fitness or unfitness. The bishop has not convened secret meetings. There is no provision in the canon for counsel to be present at the inquiry. The CC l m l l i iSSl ? n no doubt, decide whether it will allow counsel for the parties to appear.”

OBJECTION TO APPOINTMENT “We should like to say that we regard the appointment of Archdeacon Evans as invalid, as this gentleman has preconceived views on the matter in issue, and it will be impossible to expect him to approacli the inquiry with an unbiassed mind,” stated the letter sent to the registrar on January 28 by Dean Barnett’s solicitors. “We do not suggest this in any offensive manner, but in view of the great controversy which has existed in matters affecting the parish of St. Peter’s, and thereby the diocese, and of Archdeacon Evans's public pronouncement in the Press and otherwise, it is manifest that his attitude of mind would not be altered by any evidence entered on behalf of the dean—evidence, coming as it would in a large part from those whom the archdeacon has criticised publicly, and his decision sitting as a commissioner must be in favour of the views already expressed by the bishop in correspondence and meetings ” BIAS CHARGE REFUTED On January 30 the registrar acknowledged plaintiff’s letter, refuting the charges of bias against Archdeacon Evans and giving the names of the requisitionists. The same day plaintiffs solicitors again entered a complaint against the inclusion of Archdeacon Evans, and Mr. Harris and informed the registrar that the right to prevent the sitting of the commission bv injunction was reserved. The personnel of the commission was then changed, the registrar advising Dean Barnett last Thursday, January Jl. Sat the members would be the Rev Mr. Gillespie and Messrs. Caldwell and St An d affldavit by Doan Barnett placed before his Honour by Mr. Hogben contained the following:— Since July. 1928 defendant has by his actions and words shown himself to be personally hostile to me. and has on sgveral occasions asked me or hinted that 1 should resign. Toward the end of August 1928. defendant asked me to resign ’and on my refusing stated to me that if I refused to go: ‘there were wavs of getting rid even of a dean. His Honour granted the injunction pending the trial of the action or the further order of the court preventing the bishop from setting up a commission or the commissioners mom acting in any way as a commission.