|
Counsel next mentioned that in
September a complaint was made against the conduct of Mr.
Meyers, it being asserted that he had been cruel to a little
girl. While he was fully prepared to investigate the character
of Mr. Meyers, it would be idle to go into this if the Court had
no jurisdiction. A strong and influential petition, he might
mention, asking for the reinstatement of plaintiff as
headmaster, even if he was proved to have been legally
dismissed, had been presented to the Kent County Council, and
the Council was holding that petition over until this action had
been decided. If he presented evidence on this charge the Court
would probably not exclude it, but he (counsel) thought he could
rely on his position as to the irregularity of the dismissal,
which would make the question of misconduct quite immaterial.
Mr. Thomas then at considerable length cited cases
bearing on the legal points raised, including the necessity of
the declaration that the appointed Manager was a bona-fide
member of the Church of England before he could act; that the
Churchwarden must be a resident householder; and that only rate
payers could vote at a vestry meeting.
Mr. Clayton explained that Mr Green rented property
on the border of the Parishes of Stansted and Ash, and that
although his house was in Stansted; it was much nearer Ash
church, and the occupier was regarded as being in Ash for all
ecclesiastical purposes.
Evidence was then called.
The plaintiff, Mr. Meyers, stated that he obtained
his certificate in 1879, and was at Bermondsey previous to
going, with his wife, in 1881, to Ash, |
|
where they had remained ever since. He
had been assistant overseer, parish clerk and organist. He was
present at the adjourned Easter vestry meeting of May 1st, 1911,
and corroborated the statement made by counsel as to the
proceedings. Messrs. Green, Fisher and Meadway, he said,
supported Mr. Holmes, and Messrs. Petherbridge, Fletcher and
Taldot favoured Mr. Wild. Mr. Petherbridge objected to Mr.
Meadway taking any part in the election, as he was only a lodger
in the village, and said, "Our man is in." The Rector,
without mentioning any names, declared that one of the votes
given for Mr. Wild was bads, and adding that he should give his
casting vote for Mr. Holmes, declared that gentleman duly
elected. Mr. Petherbridge remarked, "well, you are
chairman: you can do as you please." As to Mr. Green, Mr.
Petherbridge objected on the ground that, not being a resident
householder, he was not qualified for the position of
churchwarden, but the Rector had stated that he had taken some
proper advice on the matter.
Cross-examined: He believed the missing argument,
giving the terms under which he was appointed after the
Education Act, 1902, came into force, stated that there should
be three months’ notice on either side to terminate the
engagement. At the Easter vestry in 1911 Mr. Wild was present,
and there was a little bit of a quarrel, because he said he got
the money and someone else spent it. He did not remember Mr.
Wild refusing to act again, but he wished the meeting adjourned,
and this was done. When they met on May 1st there were twelve
persons present, and the vestry |