|
to have accepted Mr. Meadway’s vote, and
that the Managers were not entitled to act until they had had
signed the declaration. It might be, he said, that Messrs
Meadway and Holmes influenced the meeting in the dismissal,
whereas Mr. Antrum, who was still a Manager, was never summoned
nor had any opportunity of attending.
Mr. Justice Eve, in giving judgment, said the
arguments in this case had ranged over a wide area, and if he
had felt it incumbent on him to deal with all of them he would
have taken time to consider his judgment; but in the view which
he took that was not necessary, especially as the parties
desired an early determination of the questions in dispute
between them. The plaintiff was head teacher at the school at
Ash, and the defendants, acting as de facto and de juro Managers
of the school, gave the plaintiff notice to terminate his
engagement. The plaintiff, for the purpose of this action, but
for that purpose only, admitted that the notice so given was in
accordance with the agreement. But he contended that it was
inoperative because the Managers were not properly constituted
Managers, and were, therefore, incompetent to dismiss him, and
he claimed a declaration that he had not been lawfully dismissed
and an injunction to restrain the defendants from dismissing
him. There were three grounds on which the plaintiff’s claim
was based. First that non of the Managers had signed a
declaration that they were members of the Church of England;
secondly, that the nominated Managers, Messrs. Green and Holmes,
were not properly appointed because they were not validly
elected as churchwardens; and thirdly that the co-optative
Manager was not properly appointed because the
persons appointing him were not qualified. |
|
With regard to the two latter grounds, a
number of subsidiary questions had been raised. At the Easter
vestry of 1911 two of the defendants, Messrs. Green and Holmes,
were appointed respectively Rector’s warden and people’s
warden, and they were subsequently admitted by the Ordinary. But
it was said that Green was not a resident householder in the
Parish and had no place of business there, and that Holmes was
never really elected, the majority of votes at the vestry being
given to another, and therefore that neither of them was
properly elected. Further it was contended that the ministerial
act of the Ordinary could not cure the defects in their
election, and that on the authority of Bray v. Somer and Lane v.
Norman the outgoing churchwardens still remained in office. As
to Green’s qualification, that is, weather residence in the
Parish was necessary, his Lordship thought that the result of
the numerous authorities was that, though no residence was
absolutely necessary, a non-resident could not be compelled to
take office. On the balance of the evidence, his Lordship
continued, there was some doubt whether Mr. Holmes, the
people’s warden, had been validly elected, but no poll had
been demanded and no proceedings had been taken to question it,
and his Lordship did not think the validity of his election
could be (imprasired?) in this action.
All these subsidiary questions, however, were
disposed of by the Education Act, 1902. Schedule I.,B (3), which
was expressly directed to precluding any question as to managers
not being properly appointed. Any other view of the Act would
lead to lamentable and disastrous results. The contest here |