went to the Junction Inn, Crosland Moor, where the lodge meeting had been held, and then for the first time learnt that the lodge had been broken up, and the place of meeting had been changed to the Griffin Inn, Crosland Moor. At the July meeting the chairman (William Armitage) and the secretary (Thos. Newsome) and other members said they could see where the Standard of Freedom Lodge had missed it, and that they could see where they could hit it, and get out all right. They said the way they should do was to cease paying their contributions, run back, and then form another lodge. The defence was that if the members of a lodge ceased to pay their contributions for four lodge nights they ceased to be entitled to benefit until they brought themselves into benefit by paying their arrears, and the lodge and the district had no liability towards them. In this case all the members ceased to pay contributions, and paid nothing for May, June, and July, nor since. Therefore as the lodge could make no claim on the district in respect of those members, the district could make no levy on the lodge in respect of such members. In any case the lodge could only be liable for the nineteen members shown on the July return, which was the last return sent in. The defendants had paid a sum of money into court to cover the claim on nineteen members and the fines. It was admitted that the lodge had not seceded from the district under the forms of the rules. Thomas Newsome, landlord of the Clarence Hotel, Newsome, and a warehouseman, said he had been the only secretary of the lodge since it started in January, 1885. The last contributions by any members were paid on April 9th, 1887. He attended in May, June, and July to receive contributions, but none were paid. No minutes were left of the July meeting. He did not go to the August meeting. It was not his place to keep the minutes; it was the duty of the Grand Master. He made no further return after that one of nineteen members; there was no return to make, and the lodge was making no claims on the district. It was in April when it was agreed that the members of the lodge should cease to pay contributions. He went to the place of meeting on the lodge night in July, but there was no one present. In crossexamination he said the idea of ceasing paying to avoid going through the forms of secession was not his invention; the members mentioned that there was a better way, and they all agreed to run unfinancial. William Armitage, tobacconist, said he joined the lodge, but was not a member now, because he became unfinancial. Cross-examined: He did not know whether he was chairman in July; he would be if he was Grand Master, but he did not know whether he was then Grand Master. The rules told the members of this scheme for leaving the district; he had seen it himself for a long time: it was nothing new. His Honour said he could not see any justification whatever for the course that had been adopted by the lodge. The last valid return which was in time was that one of April, and upon that the levies were made, and they must be paid. The amount paid into court was not sufficient. There was nothing to show that the whole of the members had become unfinancial since. Mr. Wilkinson asked for leave to appeal upon the construction of the rules. His Honour refused leave to appeal, and said that there was a right and a wrong way of seceding from the district, and the lodge must take the right way.

HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE. QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION. 1887.

County Court-Practice-Appeal-Application to Dec. 7. County Court-Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 DIVISIONAL Vic., cap 60), sec. 22, sub-sec. (d)-Claim for LeviesCOURT. Secession Rules - Registration-Refusal of County Before WILLS, J., Court Judge to decide question as to whether Branch had GRANTHAM, J. properly seceded-Case remitted back to County Court.

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, on Wednesday, December 7th, 1887, before Mr. Justice Wills and Mr. Justice Grantham, sitting as a Divisional Court, the case of Wilkinson and others v. Jagger and others came on for consideration. Mr. E. Tindal Atkinson, Q.C., and Mr. B. G. Wilkinson (instructed by Mr. J. W. Piercy, solicitor, of Huddersfield) were counsel for the appellants, the defendants in the court below; Mr. Waddy, Q.C., M.P. and Mr. J. L. Walton (instructed by Messrs. Learoyd and Simpson, solicitors, of Huddersfield) represented the respondents, the plaintiffs in the County Court.

Mr. E. Tindal Atkinson said this was the appeal of the defendants from a judgment of the learned County Court Judge at Huddersfield. The action was brought by the plaintiffs, who were the trustees of the district lodge of the National Independent Order of Oddfellows, against the defendants, who were the trustees of a branch lodge of that Order, to enforce a claim in the shape of a levy provided by the rules of the society, and made by the trustees of the district lodge upon the trustees of the branch lodge. The case came into the County Court under section 22 of the Friendly Societies Act of 1875. The branch with which the appellant defendants were connected was a very flourishing one. It had the greatest number of members in the district, and they were desirous of severing their connection with the Order. Accordingly they proceeded to take the necessary steps provided by the rules for the purpose of severing such connection. They called a special meeting, they had a majority of three-fourths of the members in favour of secession, they directed that the liabilities be ascertained, and that a sum of money be set apart for the purpose of satisfying them. The papers necessary to secede were sent into the district lodge, and after some delay that body indicated that they disputed the validity of the steps which had been taken for the purpose of seceding. Ultimately the district lodge made a levy on the branch lodge under the rules and this having come before the County Court Judge, he, finding that the branch was still registered, held that so long as they were registered as a branch of the friendly society they were estopped from denying their liability to pay the levy. The question as to whether the branch had ever legally separated its connection with the district lodge had not been decided, the Registrar of Friendly Societies, to whom the County Court Judge had referred the matter, saying that that was not a point on which he was called to express an opinion.

Mr. Waddy for the plaintiffs, the present respondents, argued that the verdict was right, as the branch remained registered as a part of the district body.

Mr. Justice Wills, without saying that his mind was finally made up, said it seemed to him that as soon as the branch lodge got a threefourths majority in favour of secession, that was accomplished, although registration might be necessary to continue for other purposes prior to a final separation.

Mr. Waddy said all depended on registration, which was the whole life of the societies.

The case was not concluded when the court rose.

THURSDAY.

Mr. Waddy resuming his argument, contended that this was not an appeal from the County Court in the ordinary course, and that the proper way for the appellants to have moved would have been by a special case. The statute provided that the case should be tried in a certain fashion, and as the inquiry was a different one, it was not competent now to raise the question, which ought to have been tried in a particular way.

Mr. Justice Wills: If that applies, then your action was ill-founded in the beginning.

Mr. Waddy thought not. He was entitled to bring his plaint in the County Court. It was simply a question of money due.

Mr. Justice Wills: It is a dispute, is it not?

Mr. Waddy: No doubt it is; but I say they must get the County Court Judge to state a case, and cannot come by way of appeal.

Mr. Justice Wills: Then we had better send the case back to the County Court.

Mr. Waddy assented. The better course would be for the County Court Judge to judicially state a case, in such conditions and terms as their lordships might think fit to impose on either side. The case should then come before the High Court for its opinion.

Mr. Tindal Atkinson doubted if the difficulty arose which Mr. Waddy had submitted. This was a dispute between the parties. If, however, the court thought the appeal was misconceived, he would be glad to meet his friend so as to get a final determination of the matter.

Mr. Justice Grantham: Suppose we decide in your favour on this appeal, what is your position then? Will that finally settle whether the branch lodge has seceded?

Mr. Tindal Atkinson: If you were in my favour you must send the case down to the County Court Judge to be tried on the merits.

Mr. Justice Grantham: Then that raises the whole question of secession. Therefore it comes to the same thing if we send the case back to have a special case stated.

Mr. Waddy said that was really what the whole thing would amount to.

Mr. Tindal Atkinson insisted that this was not an arbitration in the County Court under the Friendly Societies Act. Had it been so there would have been no appeal. But, being a regular plaint, there was the usual appeal to the superior court. To show that this was the practice, he mentioned, that in an action brought against the Royal Liver Friendly Society there had been an application for a certiorari to remove the case from the County Court at Liverpool into the High Court, and that was granted.

After very lengthy arguments on the point.

The court held that the case had been entered in the County Courts in the regular way, and that, therefore, the appeal from the County Court Judge in the way it had been brought forward was regular.

The

Mr. Waddy said a very important question now arose: Whether or not it was competent for any lodge to say, "We have seceded?" contention made in the Huddersfield County Court was that the plaintiffs could not recover the money from the Huddersfield branch because they had seceded. The ruling of the learned County Court Judge was that he found the local branch still registered as a lodge of that particular district, and therefore he decided in favour of the plaintiffs. In doing this he (Mr. Waddy) maintained that he was right; and in support of that contention he quoted from a judgment in the Court of Appeal, in the case of Schofield v. Vause, which had reference to the Royal Caledonian Lodge of Oddfellows at Bolton. That judgment decided that this society could not secede until certain things were done, similar to what he said had not been done in the case of the Huddersfield lodge.

Mr. Justice Grantham: You may say they have not done it, but the County Court Judge does not say so. He simply says they are still registered, and therefore he gives judgment against them.

Mr. Justice Wills said he still thought that when the three-fourths majority in favour of secession had been obtained, the lodge was freed, the question of registration or non-registration being a mere formality, Therefore if the case was sent back to the County Court, it would be for the learned County Court Judge to ascertain whether all the substantial parts of the rule relating to secession had been complied with.

Mr. Waddy: Then what we have to do is to go back to the County Court Judge and get the facts found?

Mr. Justice Wills: Yes. It seems to me that he was wrong in refusing to entertain the question as to whether the society had properly seceded. He seems to me to have put the cart before the horse by what he decided.

Mr. Justice Grantham concurred. He did not regret the lengthy discussion which had taken place on the case, because it was an important one, and he hoped the arguments would do some good in the elucidation of future difficulties. Still the court was of the same opinion then as it was at four o'clock on Wednesday afternoon. The

case in the Court of Appeal which Mr. Waddy had quoted he (the learned judge) thought was conclusive against him.

Mr. Waddy I should have hoped to have induced your lordship to take a very different view before I had done.

The judgment of the County Court Judge was then set aside, and the case remitted for him to decide it on its merits.

Mr. Tindal Atkinson asked for the costs of the appeal, and also for the costs in the County Court, which were thrown away, as the judge would not hear the case on its merits.

Mr. Justice Wills said the costs of the appeal would be awarded to the appellants, but the court did not in any way deal with the costs in the County Court.

HIGH COURT OF
JUSTICE,

QUEEN'S BENCH
DIVISION.

WILLS, J.
1896.

June 28, 29.

CASE 178.

MORRIS v. WHITE.

Friendly Society-Report-Alleged libel-Malicious prosecution--Damages awarded.

In the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, on Monday, the hearing commenced of a case of alleged malicious prosecution. The case, which was heard before Mr. Justice Wills, was one in which Mr. James Morris, managing clerk to Mr. Roberts, solicitor, Luton, was the plaintiff, and Mr. Francis Frederick White, builder, of Princes Street, Dunstable, was the defendant. Mr. Bigham, Q.C., with Mr. Lewis Thomas (instructed by Mr. S. Ward, of Dudley, appeared for the plaintiff) and Dr. Blake Odgers, Q.C., with Mr. Saltren Willett (instructed by Mr. Lathom), represented the defendant.

Mr. Bigham, in opening the case, said the action was one for malicious prosecution taken by the plaintiff against Mr. Francis Frederick White. The plaintiff was a solicitor's managing clerk in Luton, and had occupied that position for about 20 years. He was also connected with a very important friendly society, viz., the Ancient Order of Foresters. He (Mr. Bigham) was astonished to find that in that society there were over one million members and that the capital amounted to £5,500,000 sterling. The plaintiff was secretary for one branch of that society called Court Hope, at Luton, and for 11 years he had occupied that position. That fact showed that the chief men in this most important society had great confidence in the plaintiff. In 1895 a discussion arose as to the state of the accounts of another branch of this society called Court Unity, at Dunstable, and it was thought desirable for the affairs of the court to be investigated. Thereupon the executive council of the Foresters, he supposed having confidence in Mr. Morris, passed a resolution that the secretary of Court Hope (Mr. Morris) should go to Dunstable and investigate the position of affairs of Court Unity. Accordingly the plaintiff made the required investigation, and having done so he wrote a report which Mr. White, who at one time was