acted in the exercise of its peculiar jurisdiction as to fraud, which is different from that in our Courts; but we are not to act as a Court of equity in enforcing mere equitable rights. The nearest case to this is Vorley v. Barratt (a), where the plaintiff sued for contribution as surety; the replication did not substitute a new right and alter the original liability, but set up a subsequent discharge. The answer to the plea there was that there was a mistake or collusion, which is different from setting up an answer which goes to a different course of action. I think that the rule is that an equitable replication cannot be pleaded to a legal plea if it merely shews that the plaintiff has some right in equity, which is ground for applying to a Court of equity. Also the replication is bad as a departure, which is an objection open on general demurrer (though there has been some doubt as to that), because it sets up a tort, the original cause of action being a contract. MELLOR J. I am of the same opinion. An equitable ground is relied upon in the replication, and one which is matter for a suit in a Court of equity: that is not within sect. 85 of The Common Law Procedure Act, 1854. I am also of opinion that the replication is a departure: and therefore, on both grounds, the demurrer ought to be allowed. Judgment for the defendant. (a) 1 C. B. N. S. 225. 1862. BARTLETT V. WELLS. 1862. Monday, Friendly Ex parte WOOLDRIDGE. Rule 16 of a friendly society provided, that a dispute of any kind whatsoever arising under the rules should be referred to a committee. By rule 22, any member in the receipt of the gifts of the Society being found imposing on the Society was to be expelled. A member of the Society in the receipt of pay was charged with receiving full pay when he was only entitled to half pay, and, the matter being referred to a committee under rule 16, he was expelled, but without being heard before the committee. Upon application for a mandamus to reinstate him as a member of the Society, 1. Held by Crompton, Blackburn and Mellor JJ., Cockburn C. J. dubitante, that the County Court had jurisdiction, under stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. ss. 41, 42, to order him to be reinstated, if he had been improperly expelled. 2. Quere, whether this was a dispute within rule 16; but, if it was, held that the County Court might order the Society to hear the applicant. THIS HIS was an application for a rule calling upon the Loyal Nelson Lodge of the Midland Counties Order of Odd Fellows, held at Woodside, in the county of Worcester, being a duly registered Friendly Society, to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding the Society to reinstate George Wooldridge as a member of the Society, upon service of the rule on the secretary of the Society. The applicant became a member of the Lodge on the 15th November, 1841. In August, 1860, he became blind, and under the rules of the club he was entitled to 7s. a week for six months and 3s. 6d. a week afterwards. He applied for and received his sick pay at the rate of 7s. a week until the 22d April, 1861. It was then discovered that he had unintentionally received full pay for seven weeks longer than, according to the rules, he ought to have received it, and he repaid the excess to the treasurer on the 6th May. Payments at the reduced rate of 3s. 6d. a week were made to the applicant from that time until the 13th August, when his daughter, upon going as usual for the sick pay, was told by the secretary that orders had been given to pay no more, because she had received from the treasurer a full week's pay on the 6th May, when the money received in excess was repaid; and that, for that reason, the applicant had been expelled from the Lodge. The applicant was required to attend with his daughter, on the Lodge night, on the 26th August. They did so, and were not allowed to go into the Lodge meeting-room; but some of the members came out and repeated that he had received too much, and at the close of the evening they informed him that they did not intend to pay him any more. In answer to a letter by the attorney of the applicant, demanding his pay, one of the trustees wrote, on the 5th September, 1861, as follows:-"Wooldridge's case, of the Lodge of which I am trustee, has been heard before two committees, and then referred to the whole Lodge according to rule 16; and it was clearly proved that he had received moneys unlawfully in receiving whole pay when he should only have received half pay, and that, after returning some of the moneys that he had received, he again sent, and they received the full amount again, which they must well know that they were doing wrong." On the 7th October, which was the usual club quarter night, the applicant tendered his quarter's money, when the officer who received the members' payments, one of the trustees, said that they would not receive it: they had crossed his name out of the books. The rules of the Society were duly certified and enrolled under stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. The following were referred to. "6. That this Lodge shall consist of an unlimited number of members; the business thereof shall be con 1862. Ex parte WOOLDRIDGE. 1862. Ex parte WOOLDRIDGE. ducted by a committee of management, consisting of the following officers, viz.," &c.; "that five shall form a quorum. The meetings shall be held every third Monday, at half-past seven o'clock in the evening, and continue open until ten o'clock, when it shall be closed for the evening. That every member of the Lodge shall have an equal voice in all property and concerns thereof, and when, at any time, the votes are equal, the president shall have the casting vote." "16. That if a dispute arise, under the rules, in the Lodge, of any kind whatsoever, which they cannot conveniently settle, they must refer the same to a private committee, and, if the same be not settled by them to mutual satisfaction, it shall then be referred to the district committee, and their decision shall be final." "22. That any member in the receipt of the gifts of this Lodge being found imposing thereon by stating himself sick and incapable of following his employment, usual trade or calling, when he is able, or actually doing so, shall be expelled," &c. "39. If any officer, member, or any person whatever, by false representation or imposition, shall obtain possession of any moneys, securities, books, papers or other effects of this Society, or, having the same in his possession, shall withhold or misapply the same, or shall wilfully apply any part of the same to purposes other than those expressed or directed in the rules, he may, upon complaint made by any person on behalf of this Society, be summoned before two justices, and if the justices shall determine the complaint to be proved, they shall adjudge and order him to deliver up all such moneys, securities, books, papers or other effects, or to repay the amount of money applied improperly, and to pay, if they think fit, a further sum of money not exceeding 201, together with costs not exceeding 20s.; 1862. Ex parte and, in default, the said justices may order the said WOOLDRIDGE. person so convicted to be imprisoned in the common gaol or house of correction, with or without hard labour, for any time not exceeding three months." J. E. Davis, in support of the application.-It is doubtful whether this is a dispute over which the county court has jurisdiction. Stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. s. 40. enacts: "Every dispute between any member or members of any society established under this Act or any of the Acts hereby repealed, or any person claiming through or under a member, or under the rules of such society, and the trustee, treasurer, or other officer, or the committee thereof, shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of such society, and the decision so made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties, without appeal: Provided that where the rules of any society established under any of the Acts hereby repealed shall have directed disputes to be referred to justices, such disputes shall, from and after the 1st August, 1855, be referred to and decided by the county court as hereinafter mentioned." The proviso taking away the jurisdiction of the justices was repealed by stat. 21 & 22 Vict. c. 101. s. 5., and their jurisdiction to decide disputes is restored, if the rules so direct. stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. s. 41.: "All applications for the removal of any trustee, or for any other relief, order, or direction, or for the settlement of disputes that may arise or may have arisen in any society the rules of which do not prescribe any other mode of settling such disputes, ..... shall be made to the county court of By |