The Defence Opened
Mr Schafer's Testimony
The action in which the Rev. A Morris is claiming £1,000 damages from the Rev. C. E. Schafer for alleged slander was continued at the Civil Court, before Mr Justice Gordon and a jury on Friday.
Nr F. Villeneuve Smith appeared, with Mr. F. Kelly, for the plaintiff; and Mr F. F. Cleland, K.C., with Mr. R. H. Lathlean, for the defendant,
Charles Ernest Schafer, the defendant, said he had been a Methodist minister for 27 years, and was superintendent of the Hindmarsh circuit, where he had five churches under him. Because of his ap-pointment, he was responsible for discipline in the circuit, according to the Methodist law. On September 21 Donnell and Ward called on him and he told them that he wished to bring before them a matter con-fidentially and officially. The witness said – "I am not satisfied with the amounts of money returned for marriages celebrated by Mr Morris. It seems to be in-sufficient for the many weddings he has had." The witness said he had not been to the public office to inspect the registers. He heard of marriages celebrated as he moved about the circuit. He also said to the stewards: - "There are rumours that Bro. Morris is a Jesuit," and added – "Several people mentioned the same to me." The Rev. E. Ingamells had said to the witness – "Is there anything in these rumours that Mr. Morris is a Jesuit?" Some time ago he met Mr Leo Coombe, who said to the witness, "I have heard every sermon Mr. Morris has preached, and if he is not a Roman Catholic I never met one." The witness said to the stewards, "Mind you, there is no proof of this." He considered it to be his duty to tell the stewards all he had heard. Referring to the evidence by Mr. Horace Senior, the witness said he told the stewards that he would ask Morris to visit a relative at Senior's house. He had done so. Later on, Morris told him not to worry about the old relative, because he had seen him half a dozen times. Afterwards Senior said Morris had not seen the old man. Then the witness said, "If what you say is true, Morris is a liar."
Until the strike, Leo Coombe was organist at the Brompton Church.
His Honour – What strike is this?
The Witness – There is a strike on now at the Brompton Church. (Laughter.)
His Honour – You mean until these differences are settled up?
The Witness – Yes. The stewards afterwards waited on him and told him that they had decided to invite Morris and not the witness for another year. The stewards added – "We have enquired into your statements and find there is no foundation for them in fact."
Mr Lathlean – Did you think there had been any misappropriation of funds?"
His Honour – That is a question for the jury to decide.
The witness stated that at the Methodist Conference of 1918 he did not say in the course of debate, "The Romanists are out to capture the political machine" or "The Jesuits are out to get into the Protestant ministry and into Orange lodges in order to cause dissention." They were not the words used. He did not hear Morris interject, "You may as well say you mean Morris."
Mr Lathean – Did you refer to plaintiff in any way? – No.
His Honour – That is a matter for the jury.
The witness said that at a quarterly meeting on April 4 Morris asked him, "Did you say to the circuit stewards that I have misappropriated circuit funds?" He replied, "I did not put it that way." Later on the witness offered to withdraw unreservedly anything he had said, and the plaintiff said, "You stuck a knife into my back, and now you want gradually to draw it out. I could land you in gaol."
There was trouble afterwards over filling the Brompton pulpit. When the plaintiff's solicitors wrote to the defendant complaining of statements and demanding an apology, the witness stated, in reply, "Whilst absolutely denying using the words complained of, for your information I state that conversations on church management with the two stewards are held in my parsonage, and not without it being first stated that they are strictly confidential, I emphatically decline to apologise and will defend any action you advise your client to take." The witness explained that the marriage fee in the Hindmarsh circuit was usually £3, of which the minister kept 10/, the balance going to the circuit funds. The witness denied certain statements given in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff, in regard to the meeting at which he was invited to remain at Hindmarsh for another year. The motion in favour of his remaining there was carried by 35 votes to 5. On one oc- cassion Morris was announced by placard to preach at Brompton on "Fiddlers" and "Defeat", subjects barred by the President of the Conference
Mr Lathlean enquired what was the subject matter of the proposed sermon, and the witness replied, "The most popular subject of the hour – prohibition." (Laughter)
On March 1 last he wrote to Messrs. Booker and Gould, circuit stewards at Hindmarsh, as follows – "I regret the necessity of advising you that I cannot undertake the responsibility of the position of super-intendent of the Hindmarsh circuit if the Rev. A. Morris is appointed as second minister for the circuit."
Cross-examined by Mr. Smith, the witness said the relationship between him and the plaintiff had been friendly.
Mr Smith – You still love him as a Christian?– Yes. (Laughter)
You mean you really do entertain a high degree of friendship and affection for him? – If I could do him a turn I would.
It would depend on the kind of turn. (laughter)
Do you entertain any degree of Christian affection for Morris? -
Yes; the same as
I would have for any other brother.
And you have never been angry with Morris? -
Not angry.
Have you ever felt like chastening him? -
I have been righteously indignant. (Laughter.)
Did you admire him? – There are certain things in him that I admired.
In your observation was Morris a zealous and pious Methodist Church-man? – Yes; I have no reason to believe other-wise.
Do you still regard him in that light? – He's a splendid minister. (Laughter.)
Do you still regard him as a zealous and pious Methodist? – I would qualify that by saying he is mistaken.
The witness said that on special occasions Morris attracted large congregations. He, like the witness, was popular in parts of the circuit and unpopular in others.
Mr. Smith – Do you wish to adopt Mr. Cleland's suggestion that his popularity at Hindmarsh was attributable to his attitude on con-scription? – Yes.
Do you attribute it to that and nothing else?- Yes, at the present time.
Then, how would you explain his popularity at Kadina before the war? –Because of the sens-ational topics on which he spoke.
Have you any acquaintance with the topics on which he preached at Kadina? – Not directly.
Do you believe Morris to be a truthful man? – No.
His Honour- Did you at any time disbelieve in Morris' truthfulness?
Yes.
Mr. Smith – When did that begin?
-After his statement from the pulpit in October 1917.
Do you believe him to be a truthful man now? –No.
Do you mean him to be a conscious liar or not always accurate?- Not always accurate.
Would he be liable to make mistakes, like you or me? – I cannot speak for you. So far as I know, I may make a mistake under misapprehension. I consider myself to be truthful, although I may be sometimes inaccurate.
Would not Morris be equally truthful, although prone to mistakes? – He may be.
Have you ever known Morris to tell a conscious lie? – You would have to go behind his mind to answer that.
That is what I am trying to do with you. Have you ever bowled him out in a misstatement of fact that he must have known to be untrue? – Yes.
Then, you may say he has told a conscious lie? –Yes. He is convicted by the church of telling lies.
Then you think he is a conscious liar? –Not always. (Laughter)
The witness said he believed Morris to be honest in money matters. He had always believed that.
Mr. Smith – Is he as honest as yourself? –Yes. As honest as the Rev. Langsford or the Rev. O. Lake? –I cannot speak for them (Laughter.)
Do you place the Revs. W. Langsford and O. Lake on the same plane as yourself in regard to honesty? –Yes.
So that you are all on an equality? –Yes.
Do you suspect that Morris is a Jesuit? –Yes, I do.
How long have you harboured that sus-picion? –For the past eight or nine weeks.
What has led you to suspect that he is a Jesuit? –I am always suspicious of an Orangeman that the "Southern Cross" praises.
If I show you an article in the same paper praising you, would we have to suspect you of being a Jesuit? –I don't care what they say about me.
Answer the question? –I cannot say.
What else causes you to entertain a suspicion that he is a Jesuit? –The disruption he has caused and sought to cause since his suspension.
How long have you believed that? –For a considerable time.
You are a good Methodist, and do you obey the laws of the church in every respect? –Yes.
The witness said he considered Donnell and Ward were estimable men until they "betrayed what he told them officially and confidentially."
Mr. Smith – Do you know that they did that? –The plaintiff could not have got the information otherwise.
Then it was your design to withhold from the plaintiff what you were communicating to Donnell and Ward? –Yes.
The witness admitted that he had made a mistake in not consulting Morris in regard to the conduct of the circuit and the proposal for the appointment of a probationer.
The witness said they always had the expectation of being invited for the fourth year. He was not, however, satisfied that he could get the two thirds majority necessary. He wished to remain there another year.
Mr. Smith –Did you ask Morris to exert his influence for you? –Yes. I was anxious on account of my children's educ-ation.
Mr. Smith –When did Morris next speak to you about having paid visits to Mr. Senior?
The witness –After I had seen Mr. Senior at Covent Garden I saw Mr. Morris within a few days. He said, "Don't worry about the old man; I have seen him at least half a dozen times."
Did you mention his name? –No.
You did not say to Morris, "Senior is a liar?" –No; I thought there must have been a misunderstanding.
On whose part? –Mr. Morris'.
He could not explain why he did not acquaint Morris with the fact.
Mr. Smith –When you visited Senior did you say "Morris is a liar?"
The witness explained that he remarked, "If what you say is correct, then Morris is a liar."
Is that a Christian utterance? –It is strong. Perhaps it was in-discrete.
Was it a gentlemanly thing to say of an absent friend? –No.
Don't you think it was a blackguardly thing? –No. I made the statement because of Senior's emphatic remark.
In similar circumstances would you say such a thing about the Rev. F. Lade? –Their personalities are different.
Having heard the explanation, you were wrong in calling Morris a liar? –Yes.
Do you want to make the amends honourable? –Yes, if necessary.
Will you apologise standing there in the box? –Yes.
His Honour –You cannot compel the plaintiff to enter into communi-cation with the defendant.
The witness said he offered at the quarterly meeting to withdraw absolutely and unreserv-edly anything he said concerning the de-fendant. He had never reported a brother parson before. He had the question of the marriage fees in his mind for six months. He thought that from the number of marriages performed a larger amount should have been returned by Morris.
Mr. Smith –Do you suggest that Morris was stealing marriage fees? –No. I had no suspicions.
Do you think he is perfectly honest? –Yes.
The witness said when the Methodist Union was consumated it was agreed that £3 10/ should be charged for marriages. It would be dishonest for a parson to charge less because other ministers' stipends would be affected.
His Honour –It is a very sensible arrangement so that the ministers should not undercut each other. (Laughter.)
The witness said he had received the full fee for marriages in all except four cases.
Mr. Smith –You are a menace to the birth-rate. (Laughter.)
How long have you been hearing rumours that Morris is a Jesuit? -–Probably two years.
The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday
