[Footnote 90: _Ecclesiastical Law_, Sir R. Phillimore, p. 1907.]
No deputy clerk when removed can claim to be restored. It will be
gathered, therefore, that an incumbent is compelled by law to restore a
clerk removed by him without just cause, that the justice of the cause
is not determined in the law courts by an _ex-parte_ statement of the
incumbent, and that an accused clerk must have an opportunity of
answering the charges made against him. If a man performs the duties of
the office for one year he gains a settlement, and cannot afterwards be
removed without just cause.
An important Act was passed in 1844, to which I have already referred,
for the better regulating the office of lecturers and parish clerks.
Sections 5 and 6 of this Act bear directly on the method of removal of a
clerk who may be guilty of neglect or misbehaviour. I will endeavour to
divest the wording of the Act from legal technicalities, and write it in
"plain English."
If a complaint is made to the archdeacon, or other ordinary, with regard
to the misconduct of a clerk, stating that he is an unfit and improper
person to hold that office, the archdeacon may summon the clerk and call
witnesses who shall be able to give evidence or information with regard
to the charges made. He can examine these witnesses upon oath, and hear
and determine the truth of the accusations which have been made against
the clerk.
Pages:
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311