|
ASH SCHOOL CASE.
Judgment.
THE COUNTY COUNCIL
AND THE PETITION.
REVELATIONS OF THE
ENQUIRY.
After three days’ hearing, this concluded in the Chancery
Division of the High Court, before Mr. Justice Eve, on Friday
last.
Mr. P. Ogden Lawrence, K.C., and Mr. A.A.N. Thomas
(instructed by Messrs. Baker and Nairne) appeared for the
plaintiff, on behalf of the National Union of Teachers; and Mr.
Edward Clayton, K.C., and Mr. Edward Jones (instructed by Mr.
George Thatcher) represented the defendants.
Two witnesses remained to be called before counsel
finally addressed the Judge. They were Henry Roffey Meadway, of
Ash, and Mr. Crook, secretary to the Kent Education Committee.
Mr. Meadway said that at the Vestry meeting last
year the Rector declared Mr. Holmes elected before the
name of Mr. Wild was submitted to the vestry.
Mr. Jones: You are in inhabitant occupier in the
parish? – I am on the register as the only Ash lodger.
His Lordship: That is a
distinction (laughter).
Witness went on to say that he often acted for his
father-in-law, Mr. Glover, who was very anxious to attend the
May vestry meeting but was unable to do so. Mr. Glover was
desirous of voting for Mr. Holmes, and, suggesting that witness
might act for him, gave him a letter authorising him to do so if
the meeting would permit it. When Mr. Petherbridge protested
against his vote for Mr. Holmes, witness |
|
produced the letter and Mr. Petherbridge then
said he only protested formally.
Mr. Francis W. Crook, on behalf of the Kent
Education Committee; stated that he was quite unaware of
anything being wrong in regard to the declaration until that
action was commenced. Plaintiff received a salary of £125 per
annum, less £15 deducted for the dwelling house.
His Lordship: That does not seem an
extraordinary large salary. I should be sorry to teach for £9
per month if I was compelled to do it (laughter).
This concluded the evidence.
His Lordship intimated that the only point on which
he desired to hear counsel was the non-signing of the
declaration, seeing that any informalities concerning the
appointment of the churchwardens and the Foundation Managers
appeared to be covered by the Education Act.
Mr. Jones maintained that the omission to sign was
as pure a technicality as could be suggested. No one could say
anything against the Foundation Managers, who had done their
duty as such thoroughly, and now this technicality had been
remedied. If the objection were upheld, it affected the
expenditure of ten millions of public money.
His Lordship: Is that the amount of money spent in
Ash? (laughter.)
Mr. Jones: No, but 10,000 of these final orders
have been issued. Counsel went on to point out the seriousness
of the question to local education authorities, and contended
that anyone might act as a Manager until his title was called in
question, and perfume the duties required in order to obtain a
Parliamentary grant for the school. |