|
had raged around the status of the
churchwardens, and if want of title were a valid objection to
the acts of the managers, it would be open to anyone having
dealings with them, even tradesmen, to raise the same question.
His Lordship, therefore, thought that the plaintiff’s claim so
far as it was based on the invalidity of the appointment of the
three defendants in question, failed.
That left open the first objection – namely, that
none of the managers had signed a declaration that they were
members of the Church of England. The final order provided that
there should be four foundation managers, one ex-officio
manager, two nominated managers, and one co-optative manager.
The order further stated that the nominated managers and the co-optative
manager should be qualified persons and should be members of the
Church of England. It was not contended that they were not
members of the Church of England. But the order also provided
that no person should be entitled to act as a foundation manager
until he had signed a declaration that he was a member of the
Church of England. The plaintiff said that that meant that a manager
could not act until he had signed a declaration. On the other
hand it was contended on behalf of the defendant, that to so
read the order would be to disregard the words, "be
entitled to," and furthermore that some effect ought to be
given to the word "foundation."
His Lordship agreed that some effect ought be
given to both these expressions. He thought that the words
"be entitled to" did not amount to an absolute
prohibition. With regard to the word "foundation," he
would leave that point open, as in the view that he took |
|
of the first expression he did not
think it necessary to decide it. On these grounds, therefore,
the action failed, and would be dismissed with costs.
His Lordship added that he fully appreciated how
serious a matter this would be to plaintiff, and as far as he
could he sympathised with him in what had occurred after his
long service. The action failed, and if defendants asked for
costs, he must grant them.
Mr. Clayton was understood to apply for costs,
intimating that some arrangement could possibly be made.
Seeing the seriousness of the issue Mr. Lawrence
enquired whether plaintiff’s appointment could continue in
order that he might have an opportunity in considering what
course he would adopt, provided notice was served within a
reasonable time.
His Lordship replied that he could make no order.
When the action was before the Court some time ago, at his
suggestion, the Kent Education Committee came forward and made
an arrangement.
Mr. Lawrence: Perhaps they will consent.
Decision of the County Council.
The case came before the County Council on Wednesday, but
the result was again unfavourable to the schoolmaster.
The petition which the parish of Ash presented
through Mr. Hulkes was first read by the Clerk (Mr. W.B.
Prosser) as follows:-
"We, the undersigned ratepayers, parents
and residents in the parish of Ash (and it’s neighbourhood),
near Wrotham, in the county of |