possible-take care that although, no matter how far a member of the society might be entitled to the benefit so long as he is himself a member, yet the moment the Poor-Law Guardians become entitled to the benefit the pauper ceases to be entitled to any benefit from the society.

Mr. Justice Mathew: In other words, the other members of the society decline to take upon themselves a burden cast upon the community.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce; So long as the benefit goes to the pauper he is to have it, but the moment it goes to his creditors then it is to stop. It is remarkably like those provisions your lordships are familiar with in settlements, where a man is to have the whole benefit of the money that is settled upon himself, but the moment it goes to his creditors then all benefit is to stop. I do not know whether your lordships have copies of the printed rules-the General Rules-the rules of the Independent Order of Oddfellows.

The Lord Chief Justice: Yes.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: The first rule that I shall call your lordships' attention to is rule 38, at page 43 of the book. The rule relates to the rate of contribution and benefits. It is a long rule, and I need not read the whole of it to your lordships. It states upon what basis the contribution is to be made, and what benefit the person making the contribution is to have. I begin at the last paragraph on page 66 44: Such contributions, and all interest which may arise from the investment of the whole or any portion thereof, shall be appropriated respectively to the payment of the sick and burial of the dead, and paying the contributions of members in a workhouse or lunatic asylum at the charge of any parochial board, having no wife, children, or other relative dependent on them, except in cases of appropriation of surplus allowed by the board of directors; also, that each district shall fix the amount to be paid by each lodge during sickness for such payment, and the amount of funeral allowance." Then, my lords, rule 39 is the next to which I desire to call attention. That is on page 65

Sir Charles Russell: I do not think this is important.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: No; it is only for this-rule 39 provides for certain cases where the benefit shall cease. The former rufe gives him certain benefits. Then this is a rule which says where the benefits shall cease-where he has committed certain offences. Then there are provisions for fines and so forth. There is no provision for the benefit ceasing if he becomes a pauper.

Sir Charles Russell: It is dealing with breaches with regard to payment of penalties and contributions.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Exactly. Now, my lords, I think rule 63 is the one upon which the magistrates acted. That is at page 83: "If a member is in a workhouse or lunatic asylum, at the charge of any parochial board, no sick pay shall be allowed unless he has a wife or children, or some other relative, dependent upon him for support, when the amount due shall be paid for their relief and maintenance; in all such cases the member shall be kept good upon the books from the Sick and

Funeral Fund of the lodge." On the construction of that rule it seems to me the whole question turns. The Act of Parliament says that whatever the member of a friendly society is entitled to, the guardians may claim, or the magistrates may make an order declaring that what he is entitled to shall be paid for the money expended by the guardians for his maintenance.

Mr. Justice Mathew: That is when a member of the society, as such, is entitled to the particular payments.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Yes.

Mr. Justice Mathew: It is said here that under these rules he is not entitled.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce : Of course it is just like those questions where a settlement is made that he is to be entitled to the interest on money.

Mr. Justice Mathew: Why should they not make that bargain, because it is a fair one?

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Generally speaking, those settlements are set aside.

Mr. Justice Mathew: We are talking of contracts now. Why should not a man enter a friendly society upon those terms?

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: He has here entered into a contract, the effect of which is to nullify the provisions of an Act of Parliament.

Mr. Justice Mathew: No, because the Act of Parliament says as such," and the rules correspond exactly. There is no illegality in it.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Is it competent for a society to say this? He does not cease to be a member of the society. But is it competent for the society to say "We will pay over to you so long as you yourself are entitled to the money, but so soon as your creditors become entitled to it (they are the guardians of the poor) it shall stop." It is an evasion of the Act.

The Lord Chief Justice: Is it not for the societies to say what shall be the terms upon which their members, as such, shall receive benefits. Mr. Gainsford Bruce: No doubt. I should say, yes: certainly.

The Lord Chief Justice: They do say so.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: They do say so, but it is o viously not for the purpose of affecting the benefit of the member, but for the purpose of depriving the guardians of sums of money which they would be otherwise entitled to.

The Lord Chief Justice: It is as my learned brother put very well just now. They contract with their members: "Till you become a public burden we will pay you, but when you become a public burden we will not pay you."

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: As long as he is entitled to it himself they go on paying, but the moment his creditors become entitled to it it shall

cease.

Sir Charles Russell: They are not entitled to it.

The Lord Chief Justice: Why should the benefit societies relieve the public?

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Because the payments are made upon this basis that the person shall be entitled to certain benefits.

The Lord Chief Justice: Why?

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: A portion of the contributions——

Mr. Justice Mathew: That is taken into account in the bargain that is made. The contributions may be less, because in certain events certain members will cease to have any claim.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: I do not think it is so in this case, because the particular rule seems to have been made in order to repeal the Act.

The Lord Chief Justice: No, not at all. It limits the benefit to the state of things under which the man himself can receive it, or his wife or other relative.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Originally the contributions were based upon this assumption

The Lord Chief Justice: I cannot think there is anything illegal in the bargain, and if there is nothing illegal it stands.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: It is only illegal to this extent. It is a rule made just at the time the Act of Parliament is passing, for the purpose of nullifying the Act of Parliament.

The Lord Chief Justice: You must not get away from your admission that it is for the lodges to settle upon what terms their members shall receive what benefits.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce Certainly; and if this was for the benefit of the man, then, no doubt, your lordships would hold the rule to be good; but it is so obviously for the purpose of preventing the guardians getting this sum of money. It is not for the benefit of the member in any way. It is simply to prevent the creditors from getting it. The payments are based upon the theory that the members shall receive certain benefits. Payments are made upon that basis, and then an Act of Parliament is passed saying that in certain cases the benefit to which the member is entitled shall be paid over to the guardians, thereupon a new rule is made that it shall not be paid over to the guardians.

Mr. Justice Mathew: There is the right of contract in the society and its members.

The Lord Chief Justice: As such.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: A rule of this sort entirely prevents this Act of Parliament from being any use.

The Lord Chief Justice: What it says is-when a person is entitled he is to have the money; if he is not entitled he is not to have the money. Here he is not entitled.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: Well, if your lordships hold that that is the construction I cannot say anything more. I have put the point before your lordships. I submit that the effect of such a rule is to do away entirely with the Act of Parliament.

The Lord Chief Justice: I do not think so.

Mr. Gainsford Bruce: In no case where the society has such a rule can the guardians get the benefit.

The Lord Chief Justice: It prevents the society from being saddled with a portion of the public duty or the public obligation, that is all. Mr. Gainsford Bruce: If your lordship holds that, I have nothing more to say.

JUDGMENT.

The Lord Chief Justice: I do not think we need trouble Sir Charles Russell. It appears to me that the magistrates in this case decided perfectly rightly. This is a member of a lodge who is in a lunatic asylum, and who has no wife or children or other relative dependent upon him for support, and he is a pauper lunatic. That is found in the case. He comes directly under the 63rd rule of this society-the Independent Order of Oddfellows, which states that: "If a member is in a workhouse or lunatic asylum at the charge of any parochial board, no sick pay shall be allowed unless he has a wife or children, or some other relative dependent upon him for support, when the amount due shall be paid for their relief and maintenance: in all such cases the member shall be kept good upon the books from the sick and funeral fund of the lodge.' That is to say, they keep him. They do not defraud him personally of the benefit that he has entered into a contract to receive, but they say that when he becomes chargeable to the public, or any portion of the public, they will not take that portion of the public obligation upon themselves. That contract is plainly, but for any Act of Parliament impeaching it, and making it invalid, a valid contract. I should say it is a very sensible and reasonable contract, too; but at all events it is a perfectly valid one. Then it is said that, nevertheless, the 23rd section of the Act of 39 & 40 Vic., c. 61, in effect makes it illegal, and that the order for his sick pay may be made in spite of that rule, the section of the Act of Parliament being this: Where the guardians incur any expenses in the relief of a pauper lunatic, being a member of a benefit or friendly society, and as such entitled to receive any payment, they may recover from him as a debt, or from his executors, administrators, or assigns in case of his death, the sum so expended by them as aforesaid, and the managing body of such society, after notice from the clerk to the guardians, served previously to the money being paid over, shall be required to pay the same to such guardians, and shall be exonerated on payment thereof from any further liability. That is the section which it is said invalidates contracts made under the 63rd rule. I do not see that it does, because it says that in the cases of members of a lodge being entitled as members of a lodge to certain sums, the guardians shall, following the provisions of the Act of Parliament, be entitled to get those sums for the benefit of the members of the lodge. But the answer to it is this: "The words

"as such" put an end to the case, because he is not entitled as such to the sums of money that is sought to be recovered. On the contrary, the 63rd rule expressly disentitles him under the circumstances found in the case to receive that sum of money which it is said ought to be paid. The words of the Act of Parliament and the words of the rule are perfectly consistent, and under the words of the Act of Parliament and the words of the rule it appears to me that the magistrates have decided perfectly rightly, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

Mr. Justice Mathew: I am of the same opinion.

CASE 187.

BUSHELL v. SMITH.

Claim for funeral money-Dispute―Jurisdiction— 38 & 39 Vic., cap. 60, sec. 22.

This was a claim by a member of a friendly society before a magistrate against the secretary. One Harriet Bushell was the mother of a member of the Comical Fellows Friendly Society, who had nominated her to receive any moneys that might be due to him or his representative on his death. The secretary set up the provision in the Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (under which the society was duly registered), 38 & 39 Vic., c. 60, s. 22: Every dispute shall be decided in the manner directed by the rules of the society, and the decision so given shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal." Then rule 26 of the society provided that where a dispute arose between a member and any officer it should be decided by a committee. But the Act was not to apply if the society did not collect outside a limit of 10 miles. It was contended on the part of the secretary that the magistrate had no jurisdiction to make an order, but he thought that under 42 Vic., c. 9, re-enacted by 50 & 51 Vic., c. 56, s. 30, he had jurisdiction, and made an order accordingly for payment, against which the secretary appealed, the section providing "that it should only apply to societies which receive contributions by means of collectors at a greater distance than 10 miles from the registered office or principal place of business. The case had come last sittings before a divisional court constituted of Mr. Baron Pollock and Mr. Justice Charles, and it was sent back to the magistrate to find whether the society "collected" outside a limit of 10 miles, and he found that it had not, so that the arbitration clause would be applicable.

Mr. Warburton appeared for the secretary, and submitted that there was no jurisdiction, and that the magistrate was wrong in making the order.

The counsel for the claimant endeavoured to contest this, but