that on the 6th July, 1843, a demand for this sum on behalf of that society was duly served upon the assignees. A dividend of 5/- in the pound had been declared; and it appeared that there were still funds of the joint estate more than sufficient to pay the sum of £126. The petitioners contended, that the sum of £126 was, at the date and suing forth of the fiat, in the hands of the bankrupt, by virtue of their employment and office, and that the petitioners were entitled to receive the same out of the bankrupts' estate, before any further dividend should be made. Mr. J. Russell and Mr. Cholmley appeared in support of the petition, Mr. Anderdon and Mr. Bacon contra. V. C. Knight Bruce, C.J.: This is an enactment creating a privilege against a common right, and therefore care should be taken not to enlarge the construction of it. The argument in this case has turned on the meaning of the word "employment" in the statute; but, if that word was to mean anything distinct from the word "office" which is the material word in the statute, it is strange that the word "employment" should not have been associated with the word "office" in the preceding part of the section; but there the word "office" only occurs. I cannot consider the word "employment" as enlarging the meaning of the word "office." The question is, whether these bankers had any moneys of the society in their hands "by virtue of their office or employment." I apprehend it is quite immaterial, whether they were employed in the ordinary way of bankers or not; the material point being whether they were appointed to any office in the society. It appears that the bankrupts were appointed to be the agents of the society in receiving and transmitting moneys to London for the purpose of investment in the Bank of England to the account of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, and that Messrs. Williams, Deacon & Co. were the agents of the bankrupts for the same purpose in London. Any man, no doubt, may in a sense be said to be discharging the duties of an office, when he performs the duties attached to any particular employment; but a person who is acting as a mere agent for another, is not in the ordinary sense of the term, understood to be appointed to an office. Although there are some senses in which the term "office" may be used as synonymous with " employment," yet in the construction of this Act of Parliament, I think the word must be taken in the ordinary sense and meaning of mankind. A butcher, or baker, is employed by a customer, but neither of them holds an office to which the customer has appointed him. I am of opinion that the appointment of the bankrupts, as agents for this society, was not an appointment to an office or employment within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. I shall give no costs on either side. Petition dismissed, without costs. N.B.-See Friendly Societies Act, 1896, 59 & 60 Vic., cap. 25, sec. 35. IN CHANCERY. CASE 39. EX PARTE ORFORD. Rules-Treasurer-Bankers not officers to entitle the society to preference in case of Bankruptcy. By the rules of a friendly society it was provided that there should be appointed a treasurer or treasurers, in whose hands should be deposited all the cash belonging to the society, until the same should be placed out at interest, and that as soon as a sufficient sum should be collected it should (after leaving in the club box sufficient to pay the sickness and other expenses of the society) be deposited in the hands of the treasurer or treasurers of the society, and that the clerk or the stewards should take the same to the bank. No formal appointment of treasurer was made, but the moneys of the society were paid into a bank. Held that the bankers were not "employed" as officers of the society so as to entitle the society upon their bankruptcy to payment in full. MERTHYR CASE 40. RE SIDNEY THOMAS, A BANKRUPT. Claim of COURT. Treasurer Bankrupt Distress for Rent 1876. Friendly Society-Demand in Writing-Landlord entitled April 21. to retain proceeds of distress in priority to claim of Society. Mr. Beddoe for the Trustee, and Mr. Lewis for the Friendly Society and the Landlord. His Honour Judge Falconer said: Sydney Thomas was treasurer of the Cyfarthfa, held at the Lamb and Flag. John Thomas and John John were his sureties. On the 14th of January, 1876, a distress was issued on the goods of the debtor, Sydney Thomas, for one year's rent, due on August 1st, 1875. On the next day, namely, January 15th, Sydney Thomas filed his petition for liquidation. The first meeting of creditors was on January 31st, when a resolution was passed, and a trustee was appointed. On February 1st another half-year's rent was due, and on that day there was a second distress. By section 35 when rent is not due when the order of adjudication is made the person entitled to rent when it would become due may prove for a proportionate part thereof as if it become due from day to day. As respects the rent for the year which was first distrained for, the landlord, under section 34, was entitled to receive it, and this is not disputed. In the case of Ex parte State re Binns, L.T.R., March, 1870, one Binns let premises to the debtor, the rent of which was to be paid by a forehand quarterly payment, beginning on the 14th of February, 1875. The quarters began, therefore, in February, May, August, and November. On the 24th of June, when the May forehand quarter's rent was unpaid, the debtor filed his petition. This rent was paid in August, another quarter's forehand rent was due, and the landlord distrained. It was held by the Chief Judge that section 34 of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, enabled a landlord to distrain for one year's rent in arrear, but it does not interfere with the common law right to distrain for what subsequently becomes due. The 34th section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, authorises the landlord before or after the commencement of the bankruptcy to distrain for one year's rent accrued, due prior to the adjudication, but the landlord may prove for the overplus due for which the distress is not available. Then section 35 provides that when the rent falls due at stated periods, and the order of adjudication is made at any time other than such periods, the person entitled to the rent may prove for a proportionate part thereof, up to the day of adjudication, as if the payment grew due from day to day. The landlord may prove for the proportionate part, that is, he may get less than the full amount of the part of the distribution of the estate. But if there is no disclaimer, and a stated period arrives for the payment of the rent accrued, due subsequent to the adjudication, then it appears that the landlord may distrain. It would also appear that up to the date of the adjudication, and before the arrival of the stated period for payment of rent, there is no right of distress, but a payment in the nature of use and occupation is to be made. When the common law affecting the right of distress is not expressly interfered with by statute, then, as all bankruptcy rules are statutory rules, if they are not expressly interfered with, the common law continues to prevail. See the case of Williams v. Taylor, 21, Law Times Report, 619. By the 23rd section of the Bankruptcy Act, 1869, the trustee may disclaim. A second question arises respecting a preferential claim of the club. There had been a doubt if the preferential right given to trustees of friendly societies under the Act of 18 & 19 Vic., e. 63, s. 23, was extinguished by the Bankruptcy Act of 1869. I think the decision of Judge Herbert, given in April, 1872, to that effect was correct. By the Act of the 38 & 39 Víc., c. 60, passed in August of last year (1875), section 15 [7], is now provided, that on the death, or bankruptcy, or insolvency of any officer of a society having in his possession, by virtue of his office, any money or property belonging to the society, the trustees in bankruptcy shall, upon the demand in writing of the trustees of the society, or any two of them, or any person authorised by the society, or by the committee of management of the same, to make such demand, pay such money, and deliver over such property to the trustees of the society in preference to any other debts or claims against the estate of the said officer. As between the landlord and the friendly society, it appears to me that the landlord may retain the proceeds of the distress. The claim of the society must be preceded by a demand in writing. The distress not perfected before such demand could have been made, then comes a third question, namely, how are the costs of liquidation to rank? Therefore the ranking of these claims will be-1st, the landlord will have the proceeds of his distress; 2nd, the friendly society will be entitled to be paid; 3rd, the costs of liquidation. [Ex parte page 25, Law Times Report, 716.] N.B.-See Friendly Societies Act, 1896, 59 & 60 Vic., cap. 25, sec. 35. E HIGH COURT CASE 41. ROSS, EX PARTE. CHANCERY. Money paid by order of a friendly society from time to THE LORD time upon notes carrying interest, there being no CHANCELLOR. treasurer appointed, is not money in the hands by virtue 1802. of any office within the Act of Parliament, 33 Geo. III., April 27. c. 54, s. 10, entitling the society to a preference in case of bankruptcy. The The petition presented by the president and stewards of a friendly society under the Act of Parliament, prayed, that the assignees under a commission of bankruptcy may pay the sum of £334 4s. which the bankrupt, Dawson, had in his hands as treasurer at the time of his bankruptcy, either out of the joint or separate estate. Upon the affidavit it appeared, that no treasurer had been appointed by this society. The president and steward were chosen annually. bankrupt had served the offices of president and steward in different years. In the latter capacity he had received the money of the society; but not in the former. The money which was the subject of this petition, was from time to time paid to him by the stewards and clerks by the order of the society upon promissory notes, bearing interest, given by him in the name of the partnership to the president and stewards; and upon a change in the partnership by taking in his sons the security was changed. The question was, whether under these circumstances this case was within the Act of Parliament. Mr. Cox appeared in support of the petition; Mr. Heald for the assignee. Lord Chancellor: In one case, Lord Rosslyn, held that any man, who got the money of the society in his hands was within the Act. If Upon a subsequent petition I could not agree to that. I had a most clear opinion, that it was impossible to maintain the proposition, that a man, who, by consent of the society, receives a sum of money, giving a promissory note for it as a debtor, is within the Act of Parliament an officer receiving it by virtue of his office. The case of another person receiving their money is the subject of another clause. the bankrupt received as steward, president, as any officer of the society, for what he received by virtue of his office you may make him accountable. But if the president received £300 and the society afterwards authorised him to lend that out to a bank, in which he was a partner, they would not have it by virtue of his office. I have no conception, upon the meaning of this Act of Parliament, that if they authorise him to lend it out upon security, the persons to whom it is lent can be said to have it by virtue of his office. By the consent of the society it is taken out of that possession by virtue of his office. I must observe, that, if these friendly societies expect the benefit of that very liberal, and perhaps more liberal than just, provision of the legislature in their favour, that all creditors, however meritorious, shall be sacrificed to their demand, it is their business to take the protection given them in the mode in which it is directed, by appointing a treasurer and making him give security according to the Act. The affidavits being contradictory, I will order the commissioners to enquire whether any and what sums of money were in his hands at the date of the commission, by virtue of his office, belonging to the society. But let it be understood, my decided opinion is, that if the money was lent by the consent of the society upon a promissory note, carrying interest, it is not money in his hands by virtue of his office. You may bring an action, if you please, under this Act. N.B.-See Friendly Societies Act, 1896, 59 & 60 Vic., cap. 25, sec. 35. PRESTON Before W. A. HALTON, ESQ. CASE 42. JOHN O'GAUNT LODGE OF ODDFELLOWS v. BELL. Friendly Societies Act, 1875 (38 & 39 Vic., cap. 16) sec. 15-Preferential claim-Bankruptcy of OfficerOmission of Society to obtain from its treasurer, before he entered on his office, a bond, as required by the rules and the Act, section 20. Held that this neglect was, on the bankruptcy of the treasurer, fatal to the society's claim to be paid in priority to other creditors. In this case, recently heard at the above court, his Honour, in giving judgment (wherein the facts are fully stated), said:-The trustees of the friendly society claim payment of the sum of £190 5s. 7d. from the assets of the bankrupt, in priority to the other creditors of the bankrupt. The claim is founded upon the 15th section of the Friendly Societies Act, 1875, by the sub-section of which it is enacted "that upon the bankruptcy or insolvency of any officer of a society, having in his possession, by virtue of his office, any money or property belonging to the society the trustee in bankruptcy or insolvency pay shall, upon demand in writing of the trustees of the society, or any two of them such money and deliver over such property to the trustees of the society, in preference to any other debts or claim against the estate of such officer." The Loyal John o' Gaunt Lodge Friendly Society has been established for many years in Lancaster. Officers were appointed, and their duties were laid down. John Bell was alleged to have been appointed treasurer to the said lodge, and by virtue of his office to have received the sum of £190 5s. 7d., and to have had such sum in his possession at the time he became a bankrupt. It was admitted that such sum was duly demanded from the bankrupt's trustees by the trustees of the friendly society. The claim of the trustees of the friendly society was disputed by the trustees in bankruptcy on the grounds: first, that John Bell never was duly appointed treasurer of the said society; secondly, that the said sum of £190 5s. 7d. comprised many sums of money which were not received by the bankrupt in the capacity of an officer of the said society, and that the said lodge was not entitled to any priority over the other creditors of the bankrupt; thirdly, that the said lodge has never taken, as |