Baptists Try To Keep Old Church Undefiled

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 596, 23 February 1929, Page 1

Baptists Try To Keep Old Church Undefiled

Congregationalists Quit Fire-Damaged Building “SUITABLE AS GARAGE” How members of the Thames Congregational Church, desiring to dispose of their church building, worked what is described as a piece of bluff in order to persuade the neighbouring Baptists to buy the structure, was the subject of comment in a judgment delivered in the Supreme Court this morning by Mr. Justice Blair.

The judgment was on an action argued on Wednesday, in which the Thames Borough Council claimed from the Congregational Church Trustees £44 8s 9d as rates on the building for the year ending March 31, 1927. On February 12, 1926, fire so damaged a portion of the church as to render it unfit for divine service. Before the fire, services were conducted as a “Union” Church of both Congregationalists and Baptists, the latter having a majority of adherents.

At this time negotiations were in train for the Baptists to acquire the church. After the fire further overtures to the Baptists were fruitless and the building lay disused. A year passed and the Congregationalists advertised the church for sale as “suitable for an auction mart or garage.” This, in the words of the moderator of the defendant church, was done to bring the Baptists up to the purchasing point. The Congregationalists, however, would never have allowed it to be sold for anything but a church. The bluff had the desired result; the church was repaired and Baptist services were held in it. The point the judge was asked to decide was: Is a disused church exempt from rating as are all ‘live” churches? Mr. A. H. Johnstone appeared for plaintiff and Mr. W. D. Glaister for the church. Giving judgment, his Honour said: “It appears clear 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. “To my mind, whether the offer to sell for a non-religious purpose was genuine or not, the fact remains that from defendant’s point of view it was no longer to be used by them as a church, however desirable it was that its character as a church should not be lost.”

After traversing legal argument, the Court decided the building was not a church in its damaged state and entered judgment for the plaintiff council with appropriate costs.