The Express.
London, England, 1863-01-15 00:00:00

COURT OF ESCHEW:MR.-JAN.I4.

Sit isp in Beim in Hilary Term.—(Before Lord Mat
Harm PoDock nod Baran Martin, Chaaaell, and Wilda.)

DM V. NAISSII—PRIENDLY SOCIETY'S DISPUTER.
Mr. Device applied for a prohibition, directed to a °minty-
court judge, to stay prome&egs in the matter of this plaint.
The action was brought to recover 101. from the trustees of
the Manchester Unity Friendly Society, by reason of the
death of the wife of the plaintiff, who was a member of the
Victory Lodp in the Hull district. By the rules of the
'misty, which were drily certified under the Friendly
Societies Act, if say dispute arose between a member and
the trustees in respect of any amounts ezoesdieg 21a, rt
was to be heard and decided by a committee, and by the
40th section of the act that decision was made biodieg and
conclusive between all the parties without appeal. The first
question was, whether this erotica) did sot oust the jurisdic-
tion of the county-court judge. There wee another point,
as to whether the prom{ appliaatioe was made in time.
Mr. Baron Martin said it seemed that the members and
trustees of friendly societies were at war, ash. had recently
had several cams of this kind before him. As far se be na-
derstood the act of parliament, if the certified rules pro-
vided that disputes should be decided by a certain tribunal,
that excluded the jurisdiction both of magistrates and
count? court judges. He and Mr. Boron Bramwell had the
question before them yesterday, and they were of opinion
that such tribunal bad an 'Wats power to decide the
matter.

Mr. Damson said that Mr. Initial Crompton bad, ins case
at chambers, stated that it must be taken to be eetabliihed,
that if the rule. required these disputes to be referred and
the act provided that the rides should he sawed, they
most be referred, and the remedy Inaction was taken away.
Mr. Justice Hill. who concurred in that opinion, observed
that the object of the legislature was to protect the societies
from useless and expensive legislation, and to give the
parties a speedy remedy. The Sesreed ocamml submitted
that this was a conclusive derision of the point. With re-
gard to the question of time, he said the plaint wee taken
out on the 29th August, the ems was tried on the 11th
September, and on the 10th October a 11131111110011 woe taken
out for the prohibition, and served on the parties on the
13th. Previously the debt and mists had been paid under
an execution, but it bad been mentioned to the county-court
judge that a prohibition would be applied for.
Mr. Raymond, who showed cause in the first hotance,
submitted, upon the second point, that the cause could not
he taboo out of the settled rule, that a prohibition could
not he applied for after judgment unless there was an
original want of jurisdiction apparent on the face of the
proceedings. He stated that a whole month had elapsed
after the trial before any proceedings were taken to obtain
a prohibition, and contended that under the circumstances
the court ought not to interfere.
The Lord Chief Baron said they were all of opinion that
the present application was too late. Although notice was
given to the county-court judge, which placed the matter on
the same footing as if an objection to his jurisdiction had
appeared on the face of the proceedings, there must be
some limit. to the delay before the Demo/or steps were
taken to apply for • prohibition. In this came the delay wee
such as to dosntitle the party to make the application.
There was now really nothing to prohibit, as judgment had
been pronounced, and the mosey paid under an execution.
The suit was no longer under the control of say court, and
for all purposes was at an end. If the defendant wished to
have the benefit .of the law be ought to have applied
promptly, and especially in a case of this kind, but as he
bad not dons so the rule must be discharged.
Mr. Baron Martin said that if the defendant was compelled
to pay the money by a court which bad so jurisdiction, he
had still his remedy by an action for trespass.
Rule discharged.

COURT OF PROBATE AND DIVORCE.
JAIL 14.
(Brian the Jedne Ordinary.)
CKITCHILL V. CRITCHILL.
_ _ _

Mr. T. Jonesappm red fortieilaintiff who wasthe
widow and executrix ; Mr. Brett, Q.C.. and Dr. Tristram
for the defendant, who waa the brother of the deceased.
John Critchell was • publican in BR George's-in-tbs.
East. He was • persoa of dissipated habits, and had lived
with the plaintiff for some years before he married her. In
July last he was suffering from a mortal illness, and at the
suggestion of • person named Spice, who was temporarily
managing hie baniaem, be agreed to make • will in favour of
his wrle. Spice thee went and fetched • blank form ap-
pointing • tinivenal legatee ; the wife', name was inserted,
and it wee duly executed sod attested by four persons.
This was the case for the plaintiff ; but it was averred on
the other side that the mine was not Med in before the
execution of the document, sad that the decessed was not
of testamestary capacity. The property was worth about
7001.

The mere arlfoareed before the ease wee &idled.

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANISON-HOUSE.
A well-dreamed gessisenanly.looking voting son, about 22
”an of age. who gave his name as kdautad Riley, was
brought before the Lord Mayor, charged with ratempung to
obtain • quantity of goods from Messrs. Elkin and Co.,
warebossanies, of Greshamatreet, by means of false pre-
tences.

It appeared from the evidence that the prisoner went to
the off ee of Mews. Lawaoo and Skala, ooroniission agents,
at No. 4, Gresham-street, where he saw Mr. Gimbell, one of
the firm, whom he told that he wanted to buy some Bred.
ford stuffs. Mr. Gimbell told him he would most likely
get them at Mese*. Elkin and Co.'s, Mr. Elkin
being his cousin and carrying on businees in
the same house, and he took him into the warehouse,
where the prisoner ordered goods from sa.oples to the
amount of 9601. He stated to the warehouseman
that he was baying for Messrs. Riley and Co. of
Bradford, Montreal, and Paris. He afterwards selected •
quantity of Ballads and French merinos from the stock,
which he directed to be packed in tindined cams aod forwarded
to Messrs. Baines and C.o. Liverpool, and be would call for
the invoice of the latter 'goods in the afternoon. He said
the terms of his firm were cash in • month. When asked
for • reference be gave Means. W. and R. Morley and
Messrs. Bradbury, Greatorez, and Co. Inquiries were
made at those firma, but nothing was known of the firm of
Riley and Co., of Bradford. From the fact of several
persons having applied that day to Messrs. Bradbury sad
Greatorez for references as to the respectability of Messrs.
. Beale, • member of the former home. comma-
'
Bl Riley,eated M
with • trade protection society. and aerertanned that
there was snob afirm at Bradford as RileyandCo. He after-
wards put himself in communication with the prisoner. who
said his name was Edmund Riley, that he was Mr. Riley's
son, and that he was • member of the firm of Riley and
Co. A telegram was sent to the firm, who replied by
stating that Edmund Riley was not authorised to purchase
i goods
.n London on their account. The prisoner was then
given into custody.
It appeared that the prisoner had also been to the ware-
house of a Mr. Solomon, and had selected a quantity of
crinolines, ha., to the amount of 3001., and which he
directed to be peeked in tin cases, and forwarded to Memo.
Barnes, Liverpool. He stated that they were for Messrs.
Riley and 00., of Bradford, Montreal, and Paris, and gave
Masers. W. and It. Morley, and Messrs. Bradbury,
Oreatorez, and Co., es reference.
Detective officer Jarvis, who had the case in hand, said
be believed there were other cases of a similar descriotioo.
and in answer to the Lord Mayor be said he had sot heard
at present that the prisoner had succeeded in obtaining any
goods. He believed be bad sot.
The prisoner was then remanded, with the option of ora-
-1 curing bail, himself in 2001., sod two sureties in 1001. each.