The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1890-10-29
THE ANGLICAN BISHOP.
Petition for a Writ of Mandamus
Granted.
The Respondent VIII Have to Call a
Meeting of the Trustees Forth
with, and Pay the Costs of
the Proceedings.

A decision was filed yesterday in
the Supreme Court, in the matter of
the application of Messrs. T. May, |
Mark p Robinson, III. w. Mist, |
George S. Harris and T. r. Walker, |
members of corporation entitled
The Trustees Of the Anglican
Church in Hawaii" petition for
writ of mandamus against the Right
Rev. Alfred Willis, Bishop of the
Anglican Church.
The petitioners complain that the
Bishop has refused their written re-
quest that he would call a meeting
Of the corporation in order that said
corporation might consider, and if it
should be deemed desirable and pro
per, decide upon the ACCESSIBILITY of
removing building on said
premises (the Cathedral grounds
near Emma street in Honolulu), at
present in close proximity to the
church building in course of con-
struction for the Chinese congrega-
! tion," giving as his reason for de-
| Ginning such request, " that the pur-
pose for which the meeting was
desired did not fall within the func-
tions of said body" The complaint
further alleges that the Bishops
refusal is without warrant of law
and wrongfully deprives the COM
plainants to perform the duties en-
trusted to them
The bishop filed an answer deny
ing that he as Bishop of Honolulu is
authorized and required by the char
ter to call a meeting of said corpora
ton upon receiving a written request
to do so from one third of the whole
body, and denies also that said re-
fusal is without warrant of law and
wrongfully deprives compliments as
members of said corporation of the
opportunity to perform the duties
entrusted to them.
The Court then considers the char
ter of incorporation and reviews the
respondents answer, after which the
decision concludes as follows:
The decisive question in this con-
tention is whether this official act of
calling meeting upon the written
request Of third of the
corporation is or is not a mat
ter of discretion with the presi-
dent of the corporation. We must
find the answer to this question in
the words themselves. 1T shall be
the duty of the said President to call
meeting on receiving written re-
quest to do so from one third of the
whole body" These words are i'm
perative; there are no other words to
soften or modify them. We find nc
enactment of the Synod or rule of
the Church of England which gives
} him such power as would qualify this
? enactment of the charter. The case
t of Boyd VS.. Phillpots, 4 l.. r. Adm
: & Eccl. 297, appears to deny to 6
l bishop in England the extended
l powers claimed by the respondent
4 We see no room for argument against
S our view on this point. The words
need no construction, for they ex
K plain themselves beyond doubt
The act, therefore, of calling meet
e ing under the circumstances is min
# isterial or executive act, and is in nc
degree a judicial one; the officer ha
no discretion in the matter, but mus
call meeting upon receiving lega
request so to do.
This being the case it was not fol
the respondent to look to the objec
of the proposed meeting,and becaus
he considered it illegal to refuse t.
call it; the charter places no sucl
: responsibility upon him, and give
him no such discretion in the matter
The act of calling a meeting unde
such circumstances being purely
ministerial act, the President in call
ing it could not be regarded as hay
: ing committed himself to any par
ticular views relating to the objec
of the meeting, but would be as fire
at such meeting as any one else t
combat or support any resolution
offered.
Neither is it for the Court to cor
ic slider the object of the propose
meeting, for having decided that tn
ID act in question is ministerial one
all questions relating to the propose
r business are foreign to the issue be
fore this Court, which is withou
10 jurisdiction in the private affairs c
the corporation until its remedis
: interference is applied for from tn
standpoint of legal rights or oblig'
tions, to compel or prevent acts NJ
cessary or injurious to such leg;
rights and obligations.
7 The respondent, in a second brit
- filed after the trial, raises point {
law in the nature of demurrer
- the petition to the effect that 50 if til
corporation has been debarred {
any inherent right or privilege,
would rest with the corporation
= complain" and not the petitioner
q who are small part of the corpor
W ton. This point is raised rattle
- late in the case, and the petitioner
have had no opportunity to meet j
We notice in this connection that
- is not the corporation, but the pet
NJ TONERS who, as third of the co
poration, have been debarred of
right which is affirmatively given
them by the charter.
A peremptory writ of mandamr
OF may issue to the respondent, cor
n handing him to call meeting
Al the trustees of the Anglican ChurC
- in Hawaii, a corporation Forthwith
ne for the consideration of the advis
be bility of removing the building
A. the cathedral precincts of the sa
n corporation, at present in close pro
Of unity to the church building
wv n0nrsa Of construction for the CT