a committee of eleven. At a meeting of the committee, at which ten of the members only were present-the eleventh not having received notice -the defendant, the former treasurer, was removed, and the plaintiff appointed in his stead, by a majority of votes.

Held, that the election was void, although the absent committee man had, for a considerable period, ceased to attend the meetings, and had intimated an intention not to attend any more, and although the defendant himself had demanded a poll.

CASE 220.

IN IN THE MATTER OF THE HEANOR FRIENDLY CHANCERY.

MASTER OF THE ROLLS.

SOCIETY.

An officer of a friendly society, entrusted with moneys of 1838. the society jointly with another person, who is a member Dec. 21, 22. but not an officer of the society, is not within the summary remedy provided by the 8th section of the Act 33 Geo. III., c. 54.

This was a petition presented by Matthew Wood and Benjamin Jackson, as trustees of a friendly society, which was established at Heanor, in Derbyshire, before the passing of the Act 33 Geo. III., c. 54, and which, not having conformed to the provisions of subsequent Acts of Parliament was still entitled to the benefit of that Act. The petition was presented under the 8th section of the 33 Geo. III., c. 54, for the purpose of making the respondent, Thomas Heath, who was alleged to have been the treasurer of the society, account for certain sums of money, with which, it was said, he had been entrusted.

The society had no such officers as trustees, nominatim. The petitioners were called stewards, and the petition, as presented, purported to be the petition of the petitioners as stewards, alleging that the stewards of the society were, in fact, the trustees; the Master of the Rolls, however, considered that he could not entertain the petition unless it purported to be the petition of the trustees. His fordship having given leave to amend, the designation of trustees was substituted for that of stewards, and, being satisfied by the affidavits, that the stewards were in fact, although not in name, the trustees, his lordship allowed the petition to proceed.

The society held all its meetings at a public-house, of which the respondent, Heath, was for some time the landlord. It was one of the society's printed rules that the landlord for the time being should be an honorary member, and should be entrusted, to a certain extent, with the society's property. Heath, in this respect, acted as his predecessors had done; but in addition to his duty as prescribed by the society's rules, it happened that a sum of £100 belonging to the society and not required for their immediate wants, was, by their direction, deposited in a banking house at Derby, in the joint names of Heath and a member of the society, named Thomas Whiteman, and to them jointly the bankers gave an accountable receipt for the amount. Twenty pounds, part of

this sum of £100, were afterwards duly drawn out for the purposes of the society, but it was now alleged that the remaining £80 had been misapplied by Heath, or with his concurrence, and the present petition was presented for the purpose of obliging him to make it good. Whiteman, however, could not be joined with him as a respondent to the petition, inasmuch as he was not an officer of the society, and therefore not within the terms of the Act of Parliament by which the summary remedy was given.

A question was raised upon the evidence, as to whether Heath could be considered as the treasurer or an officer of the society; but the Master of the Rolls was of opinion that he must be considered, at all events, an officer, if not the treasurer of the society. There was considerable conflict of testimony upon the merits of the case; Heath alleging that the £80 in question had been applied under the authority and for the purposes of the society, and the petitioners denying that any such authority had been given or that any such application had taken place, and stating, that having discovered that a particular person had, by some unlawful means, received £24, part of the £80, the society had obliged that person to give his promissory note for the amount, as the only security which could be obtained, but a security which was said to be in fact worthless.

Mr. Craig, for the petitioners, cited Ex parte Ashley, and Ex parte Ross.

Mr. Pemberton, for the respondent.

The Master of the Rolls, at the conclusion of the argument, said he considered that Heath had been, during the time in question, an officer of the society, and that he had been a person entrusted with moneys of the society; that such moneys had been misapplied by him or through his instrumentality; and that if the case was clearly within the terms by which the summary jurisdiction was given, Heath ought to be ordered to make good the whole amount, after deducting the £24 as to which the society had, in his lordship's opinion, discharged him by taking the promissory note before mentioned; his lordship however said, he had considerable doubt whether any order could be made, inasmuch as in the present instance Heath had been entrusted jointly with another person, who was not before the court upon the present occasion, and could not be brought before it, in consequence of his not being amenable to the summary jurisdiction given by the Act of Parliament. His lordship said he would consider the case.

On a subsequent day, the Master of the Rolls stated that, upon further consideration, he was satisfied that the difficulty to which he had before alluded was insuperable, and that no order could be made.

Mr. Pemberton some time afterwards applied for Heath's costs, but the Master of the Rolls refused them.

CASE 221.

SALFORD REGISTRAR OF FRIENDLY SOCIETIES v. NODEN.

BOROUGH

COURT.

1881. July.

Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vic., cap. 6), 28- Quinquennial Return - Failure to supply ·

sec.

Conviction.

At the Salford Borough Court, July, 1881, John Noden, the secretary, and J. L. B. Houghton and E. H. Parkinson, members of the Salford Funeral Friendly Society, were summoned before Mr. J. Cook and Mr. F. Moss for not complying with the requirements of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, to make a quinquennial valuation of their assets. Mr. Tomkins, chief clerk in the central office of the Registrar of Friendly Societies, London, appeared in support of the information. It was stated that the society was founded in 1815, and was now very extensive, numbering about 25,000 members, with an annual income of over £5,000. The section of the Act under which the prosecution was taken allows six months at the expiration of the term of five years for the return to be made, and although this period had expired, and the society had been three times reminded of the necessity of making the return, it had not been made. Mr. Noden, one of the defendants, said it was impossible to make a valuation every five years, but Mr. Tomkins said he could not see how it was impossible when much larger societies of a similar character, such as the Royal Liver in Liverpool, had complied with the requirements of the Act. The magistrates were of opinion that the return ought to have been made, and fined the defendants £5 and costs, including 30s. for Mr. Tomkins' expenses.

N.B.-See Friendly Societies Act, 1896, 59 & 60, Vic., cap. 25, secs.

27-28.

CASE 222.

COURT OF

KING'S BENCH. THE KING, ON THE PROSECUTION OF G. SPURGING AGAINST GILKES AND OTHERS.

1828.

An order of justices requiring the stewards of a benefit society to re-admit A. B., who had been expelled, recited that it had appeared to the justices that the rules of the society had been enrolled at the Quarter Sessions. On the trial of an indictment against the stewards for disobeying such order.

Held that the recital was not evidence of the enrolment of the rules.

NISI PRIUS.
LORD

ELLENBOROUGH.

1814. Friday, May 27.

CASE 223.

BATEY AND ANOTHER v. TOWNROW.

An action cannot be maintained by the trustees of a benefit society elected under new regulations, agreed to by the members, unless these regulations have been confirmed by the Quarter Sessions, although the original rules of the society were enrolled in pursuance of 33 Geo. III., c. 54.

Trover by the plaintiffs as stewards and trustees of "The United Society of Bricklayers," for the books and insignia of the society.

This was a benefit society, the rules of which had been enrolled at the Quarter Sessions, pursuant to Statute 33 Geo. III., c. 54. According to these rules, the society was to meet at four different public houses, and there were to be two stewards chosen together, who were to remain in office for six months, and then to be succeeded by two others chosen in the same manner. It was afterwards agreed to meet only at one house, and that one steward should be chosen every three months, to remain in office for six, so that there might not be two new stewards coming into office at the same time. These alterations of the rules never were submitted to the Quarter Sessions.

The books and insignia had been delivered to the defendant by two stewards chosen under the original constitution; but the plaintiffs who are now the acting stewards, had been chosen at different times, according to the new mode of election.

Mr. Garrow, A.G., contended that the plaintiffs were entitled to recover by virtue of section 11 of 33 Geo. III., c. 54, which vests the moneys, goods, chattels, and effects of these societies in the trustees for the time being.

Lord Ellenborough: The plaintiffs have no right to stand here except by this Act of Parliament, and the Act of Parliament gives them no such right, unless they be lawfully elected to the office they now fill. But it appears that they were elected contrary to law, and therefore they cannot maintain this action. The first section of the statute says, that "the rules, orders, and regulations," approved of and confirmed by the justices, "shall be binding upon all parties," and the second section, which permits an alteration or repeal of these rules, orders, and regulations, with the concurrence of three-fourths of the members, provides, that "such alteration or repeal shall be subject to the review of the justices at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace, and shall be filed in manner therein before directed, and that no such rule, order, or regulation, shall be binding, or have any force or effect until the same shall have been agreed to, and confirmed by such justices, and filed as aforesaid."

I cannot look, therefore, at the rule for altering the mode of electing the stewards, and it is admitted that the plaintiffs were not elected according to the original rule upon this subject confirmed by the

Quarter Sessions.

Therefore they are not the legal trustees of the society for the time being, and the effects sought to be recovered never vested in them.

Plaintiffs nonsuited.

N.B.-See Friendly Societies Act, 1896, 59 & 60 Vic., cap. 25, sec. 13.

COUNTY COURT OF CUMBERLAND. HOLDEN AT COCKERMOUTH. 1895.

May 6.

CASE 224.

SCOTT V. BARTON.

Friendly Societies Act, 1875-Secession-Rules— Illegality of unless Rules complied with―Injunction restraining dealing with Society's Funds.

Mr. Ward, who appeared for the Ancient Order of Foresters' Friendly Society (the plaintiffs), said: May it please your Honour, this is an action on the equity side of your Honour's court, and your Honour may remember something of the circumstances of the case when I remind your Honour that I made an application to you in Chambers at your Kendal Court for an interim injunction to prevent the dealing with certain moneys, and for an order for substituted service upon those two defendants who are out of the jurisdiction, and your Honour made those orders, and I then to some extent explained the nature of the action. I propose now with your Honour's permission, shortly to state the facts, and then I shall have a suggestion to make, to which, perhaps, your Honour will see fit to accede, and which may save the time of the court and shorten the action. There are three sets of plaintiffs. The first set are trustees of the Ancient Order of Foresters' Friendly Society; the second set are trustees of Carlisle City District Branch of the same society; and the third set are dissentient members of Court Mulberry Tree, No. 5,994 of the said society-the court holding its meetings at the Schoolhouse, Gilcrux. Now, the defendants may be divided into two sets, namely, Barton, Monkhouse, and Brown, who, as I say, are the legal trustees of Court Mulberry Tree, they being the only trustees whose nominations have been registered. Then William Carter, Joseph White, and William Key are members of Court Mulberry Tree, who have been, de facto, appointed or attempted to be appointed, trustees of that society in substitution for the legal trustees.

His Honour: Who do you say; Carter, White, and Key?

Mr. Ward: Carter, White, and Key. The defendant, Robert Johnstone, is a member of Court Mulberry Tree, who has been appointed secretary, as your Honour will see hereafter, of a society which has been named Industrial Society No. 1, and the establishment of which society the plaintiff's seek to restrain. Joseph Hardisty, the remaining defendant, is the treasurer of that new society. The facts are, that the defendants, with the remaining members of Court Mulberry Tree, formed what is called a subordinate court or branch of the Ancient Order of Foresters' Friendly Society, and, as your Honour is aware (as I understand you have had considerable experience in friendly society matters), that court is an integral part of the whole society-of