Full resolution (JPEG) - On this page / på denna sida - Sidor ...
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
Below is the raw OCR text
from the above scanned image.
Do you see an error? Proofread the page now!
Här nedan syns maskintolkade texten från faksimilbilden ovan.
Ser du något fel? Korrekturläs sidan nu!
This page has never been proofread. / Denna sida har aldrig korrekturlästs.
MR. WHITE. 1323
duty so to act, Vice-Chancellor Stuart, in his subsequent judgment
in the case, distinctly declared.
"While the Committee felt it to be their duty, however, to take
these unpleasant steps, it was their sincere wish and endeavour, to
act with all the forbearance and consideration towards Mr. White
that the circumstances would admit of.
"Although advised by their Counsel that Mr. White had forfeited
his engagement, by the course he had pursued, and was subject to
immediate dismissal without notice, and that, under the circumstances,
he was not entitled to compensation for want of the six months’ notice,
yet the Committee made him an offer of compensation, without pre
judice. On dismissing him the Chairman read to him a letter in which
this was expressly stated.
"The Committee then adjourned: when Mr. White, instead of
delivering up the keys of the business premises, went down stairs
and locked the doors of those apartments, and put the keys in his
pockets. Upon the advice of the Committee’s Solicitor, who was
present, the Chairman, Dr. Spurgin, accompanied by Mr. Watson,
went down and, in the name of the Committee, demanded admittance.
Mr. White placed his back against the door, and tacitly refused
them admittance-the Sub-Committee then, after consulting with their
solicitor, sent for a mechanic to open the door. Mr. White having
refused to give up the keys, new locks and bolts were placed upon
the doors, and bailiffs put in possession to hold the premises for the
Committee. This was done openly, and with full right and authority
of law. Mr. White, as decided by Vice-Chancellor Stuart, was never
a holder or occupier of the Society’s business premises. He was
only a servant there. The committee were his employers. His refusal
to admit them was therefore the case of a servant refusing to admit
the master to his own premises.
"On November 12 and 13, a meeting was held at Freemasons’
Tavern, which was called a meeting of the Swedenborg Society, at
which a permanent engagement was entered into with Mr. White
(and signed on behalf of the Meeting by Mr. W. M. Wilkinson and
Mr. W. Fryer) for a period of seven years, at an annual salary of
£ 125, being £ 50 a year more than he had been receiving from the
Society. The effect of this arrangement- if they could succeed in
fastening it upon the Society-was to make the Agent entirely
independent of the Committee; and thus in effect to remove the
business of the Society out of the hands of its managing body, and
transfer it entirely to their paid servant, who would be practically
irresponsible, for the long period of seven years .... One of the
Resolutions of this pretended Meeting of the Society authorized Mr.
<< prev. page << föreg. sida << >> nästa sida >> next page >>
