|
Mr. Lawrence, in asking that the injunction
might be granted, said the one object of the action was to
prevent the life and prospects of plaintiff and his wife being
ruined at the age of fifty by a resolution passed in an
irregular manner. If defendants could carry their resolution in
a proper way they were entitled to it, but he asked if the
functions of the Court might be strained, if need be, in order
to say that this important matter may be done with due
formality. The greatest irregularity was concerning the
declaration. Counsel had suggested that Mr. Thomas, who attended
the enquiry, should have mentioned this matter, but the omission
was not within their knowledge. Besides that enquiry was by the
Kent Education Committee, and the plaintiff had never had any
opportunity of placing his case before the Managers. At the
meeting when it was decided to dismiss him, Mr. Meyers was not
allowed to attend before the Managers, and the notice of
discharge, which stated that he was leaving because of
"unsatisfactory work as a teacher and misconduct,"
would absolutely prevent him from again obtaining a position in
the educational world.
Mr. Jones: It was merely a formal notice on a
printed form.
Mr. Lawrence: My friend is perfectly right, but he
does not appreciate the position when application is made for a
new post.
Mr. Jones: There was a series of printed questions
we had to fill up, and this is the only one which can be applied
to this case.
Mr. Lawrence: That is the shabbiness of it all.
Counsel also contended that the Foundation Managers
were not entitled to act until the declaration that they
were bona-fide members |
|
of the Church of England had been signed, and
said that this was an expressed prohibition against their acting
until it was done.
Passing to another point, both his Lordship and Mr.
Lawrence said they did not follow the argument of Mr. Jones that
anybody could carry out the duties of Manager until objection
was raised, and his Lordship asked: If three Nonconformists were
appointed, or men who were not bone-fide members of the Church
of England, do you mean that under the Act they can act as
Managers?
Mr. Jones: Yes, until objection is taken by
someone.
In the course of further discussion his Lordship
pointed out that the effect of this argument was that the
Managers could do everything under the Act to get the
parliamentary grant, and it did not matter a brass farthing what
the trust deeds said as to the religious persuasion or otherwise
of the Managers. He asked for authority for the contention, and,
consulting a textbook, remarked that it appeared to agree with
the contention of Mr. Jones, but upon examining the title page
he found that that learned counsel and Mr. Owen, assistant
secretary of the Board of Education, were editors.
Mr. Lawrence having further commented on this
contention, also submitted that it was wrong to contend that the
Managers were right in their actions because a majority of the
whole supported a particular proposition. If a single absent
member had been present, he might have impressed his colleagues
by his remarks so that they would not have voted in the same
way. He again submitted that the Rector was wrong |