The Hawaiian gazette., 1890-11-11

| loNOA Va Jul SOACNA oNtAOA VI VI - ~
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 1883, which We
find in the proceedings of the first
session of the Third Diocesan Synod
of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.
The 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 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 a special meeting
through the president, and requests
them that special meeting be so
called.
The respondent contends as a
second ground why 9 peremptory
writ should not ethat 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 obHge him to
call meeting for 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
asspecial 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
8 peremptory writ which is sub
stsntislly 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-
mitted by him in the answer, i.e.,
g that the purpose for which the |
was desired did not fall |
within the functions of" the corpor-
alton. He has made an elaborate
and learned argument upon this
point, claiming, among other things. !
that the provision of the charter,
which empowers the corporation to
hold property, and directs that such
property " shall be faithfully applied
10 the purpose and use of establish
ing and maintaining the Church of
the Anglican Communion within the
Kingdom of the Hawaiian Islands
according to the doctrines of the
Church of England" ETC., requires
hat the business of the corporation
relating to its property shall be con-
iucted according to the rules and
principles of the Church of England
relating to such matters of business,
within the meaning of the
word " doctrines" "the entire body
If principles by which the society
S governed, as well with regard to
he administration of its temporal |
concerns, as to its articles of belief,
Is ministry, its ordinances, or its
erms of communion The respond
mt further contends in support of
his point, that the proposed action
5 inconsistent with the regulations
by the Synod, to which
he trustees are subject.
Happily the law applicable to
he case makes it unnecessary
or Us to consider these points.
The decisive question in this con-
ention Is whether this official act of
alling meeting upon the written (
equest of q third of the
is or. is not a mat
er of discretion with the presi-
lent OF the corporation. We must
ind the answer to this question in
he words themselves. 1T shall be
he duty of the said President to call
meeting on receiving a written re-
.uest to do so from onethird of the
ThOle BODY These words are i'm
'erstive; there are no other words to ;
often or modify them. We find no !
nactment of the Synod or rule of
he Church of England which gives
am such power as would qualify this l
nactment of the charter. The case
( Boyd VS.. Philpots, 4 l. r. Adm.
Eccl 297, appears to deny to q
ishop in England the extended
overs claimed by the respondent. {
We see no room for argument against
Or view on this point The words
eed no construction, for they ex-
lain themselves beyond q doubt.
he act, therefore, of calling a meet /
1g under the circumstances is min {
- - i