PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE
།
Reference →→→
C.O.885
3 PUBLIC RECORD OFFICE, LONDON |
ALLY WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE
BE REPRODUCED PHOTOGRAPHIC- COPYRIGHT PHOTOGRAPH-NOT TO |
38
against either the moral character or the religious opinions entertained by the Plaintitl
Of course it would be foolish in me were to pretend ignorance of what has been at the root of the proceedings against the Plaintiff in Cape Town, and of the refusal of the Defendants to pay to the Plaintiff the income attached to the bishopric of Natal, but judicially in this cuse, where I am bound to proceed secundum allegata et probata, I am bound to ignore this matter altogether. Whether, if the case had been raised, I should have suspended my judgment on it until proceedings had been taken by scire facias in the Courts of common law, or until recourse had been had by Petition to the Sovereign, whom the members of the Church of England in Natal might, as I apprehend, have petitioned on this șubject, it is unnecessary for me now to speculate. This I hold certain, that if no other Court could have been found to try the question, I should have been bound to do so; and, consequently, all that it
is necessary for me to state on the present occasion is, that this question might have been raised, that if raised I must have entertained it, and might have been compelled to decide upon it, but that in the manner m which this case has been presented to me, it is fit that I should repeat once more that I have been compelled to consider it on the assumption that the Plaintiff is in every respect perfectly fit and proper 1- fill the office of Bishop, and to dispense his pastoral care and protection over the flock of members of the Church of England residing within the diocese of Natal.
I must, therefore, pronounce a Decree in the terms of the prayer of the Plaintiff's bill. It follows that the Defendants, the trustees, must pay the Plaintiff's costs. I do not blame then for the course they have pursued. Considering the pressure put on them by or on behalf of the persons who contributed the funds, and who would scarcely have been satisfied if the trustees had acted without the decision of a Court of law, it was probably impos- sible for them to have acted otherwise than they have done. This, however, though it may be a very good reason for holding that they ought to be allowed the expenses to which they will have been put out of the fund which they administer, is no reason for denying the Plaintiff his costs, who, so far as this
39
suit is concerned, has, in my opinion, been in the right throughout.
Ile must pay the Attorney-General his costs of this suit, and add them to his own costs, which be must recover against the Defendants, the trustees.
There has been no separate answer, or, as I suppose, any extra expense occasioned to either side by the
appearance of the Primates, and I say nothing, therefore, with regard to their costs. If there be any such extra costs, I can neither give them any,
nor require them to pay any.
Solicitors for the Plaintiff: Messrs. Shaen and Roscoe.
Solicitors for the Defendants: Messrs. Pemberton and Co., the Solicitor for the Treasury.
า
A
J