The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1890-11-11

ldNOA VI Jul COLotA 4CblOu VI ldAo oOS
ton of the charter, which has great
force to our minds; and this is the
construction which the Diocesan
Synod, which is termed by the re-
spondent the Legislative body of the
corporation, has adopted, as it ap-
pears to us, in their % Instructions to
Trustees" adopted in 1889, (which We
find in the proceedings of the first
session of the Third Diocesan Synod
of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.
The Z" instruction we refer to is as
follows: Whereas, it is laid down IN
the charter that no conveyance or
lease of real estate shall be made ex-
cept at meeting specially called for
the purpose of celebrating upon the
advisability of such sale or lease: 1t
be our instructions to the trustees
that such q special meeting be called
by the president, and that a full
week be allowed to intervene between
the serving of the notice of such
meeting upon all members of the
board resident in the diocese, and the
day appointed for the holding of
said meeting" This resolution GER
tainly recognizes in the trustees the
power of calling special meeting
through the president, and requests
them that special meeting be so
called.
The respondent contends as a
second ground why a peremptory
writ should not issue that although
the charter may authorize third of
the corporation to oblige their presi-
dent to call a meeting, it does not
give them the right to oblige him to
call a meeting for a particular pur
pose, as in this case.
We have only to say on this point
that regular meetings of corporations
are generally established by the by
laws, which are sufficient. notice to
all concerned of the time of holding
them; the meetings referred to in
the section of the charter under con-
sideration belong to that class of cor
poration meetings generally known
as special meetings, and it is recog-
nized rule in the law of corporations
that the notice calling special meet
ings, shall specify the object of the
meeting.
The respondent offers a further
ground against the issuing of
q peremptory writ which is sub
stantially the reason given by
him why he did not accede to the
request to call a special meeting, as
set forth in the complaint and ad-
nitted by him in the answer, i.e.,
that the purpose for which the |
was desired did not fall |
within the functions of" the corpor-
ation. He has made an elaborate
and learned argument upon this
point, claiming, among other things. |
hat the provision of the charter,
which empowers the corporation to
lold property, and directs that such
shall be faithfully applied
o the purpose and use of establish
ng and maintaining the Church of
he Anglican Communion within the
of the Hawaiian Islands
according to the doctrines of the
church of England" etc., requires
hat the business of the corporation
elating to its property shall be con-
lucted according to the rules and
principles of the Church of England
elating to such matters of business,
including within the meaning of the
7ord doctrines" " the entire body
f principles by which the society
5 governed, as well with regard to
be administration of its temporal |
oncerns, as to its articles of belief,
IS ministry, its ordinances, or its
arms of communion" The respond
Mt further contends in support of
his point, that the proposed action
; inconsistent with the regulations
by the Synod, to which
he trustees are subject.
Happily the law applicable to
be case makes it unnecessary
Or Us to consider these points.
The decisive question in this con-
sntion is whether this official act of
alling meeting upon the written (
equest of third of the
is or. is not a mat
sr of discretion with the presi-
ent OF the corporation. We must
nd the answer to this question in
ne words themselves. 1T shall be
ne duty of the said President to call
meeting on receiving a written re-
uest to do so from one-third of the
hole body" These words are i'm
erative; there are no other words to 5
often or modify them. We find no !
nactment of the Synod or rule of
ne Church of England which gives
i'm such power as would qualify this !
nactment of the charter. The case
Boyd VS.. Phillpots, 1 L. r. Adm.
Eccl. 297, appears to deny to a
ishop in England the extended
overs claimed by the respondent. {
Ve see no room for argument against
1r view on this point. The words
eed no construction, for they ex-
lain themselves beyond a doubt.
he act, therefore, of calling meet /