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"Every dispute between any member or members of any society established under this Act or any of the Acts hereby repealed, or any person claiming through or under a member, or under the rules of such society, and the trustee, treasurer, or other officer, or the committee thereof,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on all parties, without appeal: Provided that where the rules of any society established under any of the Acts hereby repealed shall have directed disputes to be referred to justices, such disputes shall, from and after the 1st August, 1855, be referred to and decided by the county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 The proviso taking away the jurisdiction of the justices was repealed by stat. 21 & 22 Vict.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. By 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 ..... 1862. Ex parte the district within which the usual or principal place of business of the society shall be situate; and such court WOOLDRIDGE. shall, upon the application of any person interested in the matter, entertain such application, and give such relief, and make such orders and directions in relation to the matter of such application, as hereinafter mentioned, or as may now be given or made by the Court of Chancery in respect either of its ordinary or its special or statutory jurisdiction." In this case, rule 16 directs that disputes between a member and the Society shall be determined by a private committee; a reference under that rule has taken place, and the Society have proceeded to expel the applicant. But the applicant has never been heard, and rule 22, which provides for the expulsion of a member in certain cases, is not applicable to this case. If fraud is alleged, proceedings should be taken under rule 39, or sect. 24 of stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. [Blackburn J. Does not sect. 41 provide for disputes as to whether a member has been rightly expelled? Sect. 42 gives power to the county court judge to adjudge the restoration of a member : it enacts: where the order of the said court shall be for the doing of some act, not being for the payment of money, it shall be lawful for the judge of such county court in his said order to order the party to do such act," &c. Cockburn C. J. If the Society have taken upon themselves to expel a member, I doubt whether the county court has jurisdiction: it would be an answer that the applicant was not a member.] Stat. 10 G. 4. c. 56. s. 27. enacted that provision should be made by the rules of the Society specifying whether disputes should be referred to justices or to arbitration; and, in the former alternative, jurisdiction being given by sect. 28 1862. Ex parte to justices to determine disputes, this Court has frequently interfered by mandamus to compel justices to entertain applications by persons thinking themselves WOOLDRIDGE. aggrieved. [Blackburn J. Re Hoey v. M'Farlane (a) decides that stat. 18 & 19 Vict. c. 63. s. 41. gives the county court all the remedial powers previously possessed by the Court of Chancery.] COCKBURN C. J. The first question is whether the expulsion was not altogether idle and vain, inasmuch as, on the facts stated, there was no ground for expulsion. It is also a question whether the matter was a dispute which could, by the 16th rule, be referred to the committee. If it was, the committee do not appear to have acted judicially, but only to have reported. If there was no expulsion, the matter would be the ground of an application to the county court. And, if the committee have not heard the applicant, he could get an order of the judge of the county court on them to hear him. My brothers, however, have no doubt that the county court has jurisdiction to order that the applicant be reinstated if he has been improperly expelled; and there is an authority to that effect. That being so, this Court has no jurisdiction. When the judge of the county court has made that order, if the pay is still withheld, he should inquire into that; and, if the dispute was within the 16th rule, he should direct the Lodge to hear the applicant according to that rule, or, if not within the rule, he should decide the case and give relief. CROMPTON, BLACKBURN and MELLOR JJ. concurred. (a) 4 C. B. N. S. 718. VOL. I. 3 L B. & S. 1862. Monday, Indictment. Nolle prosequi. Power of Attorney General. The QUEEN, on the prosecution of GREGORY, against ALLEN. 1. The Attorney General has power to enter a nolle prosequi on an indictment without calling upon the prosecutor to shew cause why that should not be done; and where he has done so this Court will not interfere. 2. Quære, whether the nolle prosequi has the effect of putting an end to the prosecution altogether? INDICTMENT charged that the defendant, on the 13th September instant, at the Custom House, in the city of London, unlawfully, wilfully, knowingly and corruptly did give certain false evidence on his examination on oath before Ralph William Grey Esq., one of the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Customs, then conducting a certain inquiry under and in pursuance of sect. 38 of The Supplemental Customs Consolidation Act, 1855 (18 & 19 Vict. c. 96.), and thereby unlawfully and knowingly did commit wilful and corrupt perjury, contrary to the statute, &c. A true bill having been found at the October Sessions of the Central Criminal Court in 1861, the indictment was removed into this Court by certiorari at the instance of the defendant; and, on the 26th November following, a nolle prosequi was entered in pursuance of an order of the Attorney General, addressed to the Queen's coroner and attorney; which, after reciting that an indictment had been found at the Central Criminal Court against the defendant for alleged perjury, which was removed by certiorari into this Court, proceeded: "And whereas it is deemed advisable that a nolle prosequi should be entered to the said indictment. These are therefore to authorize and require you to enter, or cause to be entered, a nolle prosequi to the said indict ment. "Dated this 26th day of November, 1861. "W. Atherton." J. J. Powell, on behalf of the prosecutor, moved, upon affidavits, for a rule calling upon the defendant to shew cause why the prosecutor should not be at liberty to proceed to the trial of the indictment, notwithstanding the nolle prosequi. First, the nolle prosequi has been entered irregularly; and therefore the indictment is still in force. The Attorney General has no power to enter a nolle prosequi without calling the prosecutor before him and hearing the parties. In The Crown Circuit Companion, 9th ed., p. 22, 10th ed. by Ryland, p. 25, it is said that if the defendant has an action brought against him for the same offence of which he stands indicted, he may apply to the Attorney General for a nolle prosequi to be entered on the indictment, and must first procure a certificate from the clerk of the peace of the substance of the indictment, which must be annexed to a proper affidavit, "whereupon the Attorney General will grant a summons, directed to the prosecutor, to attend him on such a day, to shew cause why a nolle prosequi should not be entered on such indictment." [Crompton J. That is only done by the Attorney General for his own information; but he may enter a nolle prosequi in Court. Blackburn J. The Attorney General has the same right to enter a nolle prosequi on behalf of the Crown as a plaintiff has in a civil suit.] In 1862. The QUEEN V. ALLEN. |