1438 THE CHURCH IN THE DOMINIONS [PART VII 
Presbyterian Church. The General Assembly, hearing of 
this, and on his admission that the writ had been issued, 
resolved to suspend him, which, under the constitution of the 
Church, involved the dissolution of the pastoral tie and 
the loss of his emoluments. The plaintiff then brought an 
action against the General Assembly and the Presbytery 
jointly for a declaration that the sentence passed was illegal 
and void, and for a mandamus to restore him to office. It 
was held in the second action by the Supreme Court of 
Queensland, and on appeal by the High Court of Australia, 
on the construction of the terms of the consensual compact 
existing between the members of the Church in Queensland, 
that the respondent had submitted himself to the control 
of the Presbytery and the General Assembly only in matters 
within their jurisdiction under the compact, and that the 
General Assembly had acted in breach of the compact in 
summarily suspending the plaintiff from office and thus 
depriving him of emoluments to which he was entitled, and 
that therefore the suspension was illegal and void. It was 
held also by the majority of the Court (Griffith C.J. and 
O’Connor J.) that the issue of the writ in the first action was 
not a violation of the plaintiff’s vow of submission to the 
jurisdiction of the Courts of the Church. The order of the 
Supreme Court of Queensland * had directed that the plaintiff 
should be at liberty to apply for such relief by way of 
mandamus, injunction, or otherwise as he might be advised, 
and their order was altered by the omission of the word 
mandamus, as suggesting an order in the nature of an order 
for specific performance of an agreement for the establish- 
ment of personal relations between parties. 
The first action brought by the plaintiff to restrain any 
proceeding upon the resolution was successful before the 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Queensland, but the 
decision was reversed bv the full Court. and leave to appeal 
11909 St. R. (Qd.) 89. In the first action judgement was given by 
Cooper C.J. for the plaintiff, but that judgement was reversed by the full 
Supreme Court, and its decision was upheld by the High Court on the ground 
that up to the issue of the writ there had been no legal wrong to the plaintiff.