The Express.
London, England, 1853-11-22 00:00:00

Lau Intelltaence.

EQUITY COURTS.—YESTERDAT.
4:11. W. rifts swan.
lung: ns T. WALE.--TIIE LONDON UNITED T01.1,117E4,
Tins was a bib by true plaintiffs, as trustees of ti The,
Widows and Orphans' Fund S iciety of the London United
District of the Ancient Order of Forester'," against the
defendant", who were formerly trustees, for the wow: of
compelling them to transfer the stock /dandling in their
names and belonging to the society. The facto were tally
reported in the Daily News of Thursday last.
The Vice• Chancellor now gave judenneet, and stid,the
case of the plaintiffs is very steeple ; they assert thet they
are member and trustees of a society called the Widows'
and Orphane Fund Society ; that certain faints be longing
to that society had ben invested in Buyee and Wale, as
trustees ; that the society was then ea. unregistered and
uecertified society; that It afterwards wan registered
and certified; that tho plaintiffs were then appointed
new trustees, and with to have the funds trans-
ferred into their name". To this Boyce does not
object, bat Wale does object, and on several grounds.
His first objection is one which goes to the feet of the whole
matter. He says that the society, being at find not a certi-
fied or registered society—being divided by a schism, and
that a portion only of the members adhered to the body IL-
present. by the plaintiffs; that others, including hitaserf,
were illegally expelled ; that when registration took place,
therefore, it was only a fragment that was registered; an!
that he wan removed front the position of trustee h, that
Iportion only which did not represent the whole); that
therefore there is no case mode eut to call upon him to
bond over the funds, and no privity estehlished between
himself and the plaintiff's. Several other questions were
also raised—that the Kielce), was one of such a eaturn that
the court will leave it to settle its quarrels for .t-elf as it
best can; that the defendant is a trustee eating for a cer-
tain number who support him, and therefore that the suit
is imperfectly framed, there being persons having
different interests to that represented by the plain-
tiffs, and who are not before the court. Next,
that the society was illegal wader the set pasted in
1797, against "corresponding societies?' Fifthly. That
the plaintiff.' proper remedy was under the li*relidly
Societies Acts; and that, as they have chosen the expensive
proem.* of a bill in this court, instead of going befere a
magistrate, they must pay the costs. And sixthly, that the
plaintiffs were not duly elected trustees. With a view to
the decision of the first question—whether the plaintiff, re-
present the real society—l have gone through two docu-
ments put in evidence: first, the rules of 1848, before the
society was registered, and which were produced by the
defendant; and secondly, the rules of the certified body;
and the question is, whether the society so registered and
certified is identical with that of 1848 ? The object of that
society is stated in the rules to be " the relief of widows
and orphans of Foresters." The funds are directed hi be
and tr the control of the district chief ranger and sub-
ranger, the secretary, and three trustees. There aro fur-
ther rules as to suspended members, which it is not neces-
sary to allude to. Then the 25th rule lays down that the
representatives, at quarterly meetings, should have fail
power and control over the widow arm orphan fund, with
some restrictions as to what representatives were ta attend
(and it is admitted that quarterly meet:ngs are
still held) ; and the last rule provides that the
district officers should apply for registrstion of the society if
it could be obtoineil. Therefore the very persons. who
formed the original body proposed to have it registered, and
nothing done for the purpose of registration coald be beyond
the powers of tile officere who were instructed to apply for
that purpose. Therefore there is no necessity for me at try
the legality of the expulsion, for the defendants do rot
the w note constitution of the body is broken up, but only
I that they had been illegally suspended, and have the right
to be restored. Therefore, whatever illegal acts they may
have done, they still exist as a body. The rules have been
enrolled, and, looking to those ruler, the present society ap-
pears to me to be identical. The title corresponds, and
though I was for some time misled by a punted book of
rules which were handed up to me, yet when 1 look at the
certified copy which is put in evidence, I find that these
rules correspond with the old ones, with very alight, if soy,
variations. The defendants themselv,s admit that the
quarterly meetings have been held, for they refer to them
in their affidavits, end rely on some proceedings that have
taken place there. (His Honour then referred to
these affidavits, and coritinued)—Therefore, 1 must hold this
to be the same continuing body now registered. The rest
of the plaintiffs' case is very simple. 1 have only to look
how the trustees are to be appointed, and that is regulated
by 13 & 14 Vie., c. 115, s. 4, which requires the rules to
contain a way of appointing new trustees ; these rules con-
tain such a direction for that purpose; and, thotiole they
do notexpressly contain a power of removal, yet that most
be inferred. I bad at one time a doubt whether I had the
proper evidence of the new appointment, hut I think I
have; all the neeessary ceremony required by the act of
parliament has been gene through. I must consider the
plaintiffs entitled to have the stock transferred. As to the
second objection, that this court will not interfere with the
intestine squabbles of an unregistered body, the only ques-
tion I have to deal with is, who is trustee of the turd. I
think I should not have bad mach trouble if the society was
not registered, but it is now protected by the act. The third
objection, that the plaintiff+ do not represent the whole body
' because there are a large number who object to their pro-
ceedings, cannot prevail. I will assume that those who
object are cesuai quo trusts ; all I have to look to is
that the governing body still exists and has ap-
pointed new trustees. It is for the benefit of the
whole body that that should be done ; they may
be keard afterwards to say that they have an interest in
the funds, but if they arc cestni que trusts, it is their interest
that thou funds should be in proper hands. The next ob-
jection was, that the society was illegal, and therefore this
court would not interfere. I should have great diffiettly
under any circumstances in saying that a society for the
benefit of widows and orohaas wee illegal, under the Act of
1797, because it happened to he divided into districts. Such
an interpretation would bring the methodists and many of
the scientific societies within its scope ; but here 1 have no
difficulty, fir the legislature has left it with the barrister to
say what societies shall be registered, and he has registered
this society, and has approved of the rules which contain a
reference to the district courts amongst other things. It
was then urged that the remedy was improper, and that the
plaintiffs should have applied to a magistrate, under the
Friendly Societies Act. But it appears to me that that act,
in section after section, contemplates suits in equity being
carried on, and moreover, the remedy there given by dis-
tress would be very inappropriate, when the object was to
obtain a transfer of stock. But it is enough to say,
that there is nothing in that act to oust the
jurisdiction of this court. The last objection, that the
trustees were not duly appointed, 1 have already disposed
of. It becomes, therefore, a simple question of trustees
duly appointed calling for a transfer of funds from those
who have ceased to be trustees. And in making a decree
for that purpose I am saying nothing about the legality or
illegality of the suspension of the defendant. Any steps
may be taken afterwards in respect of that, but the defend-
ant Wale, who has created alktbe difficulty, must pay the
casts.

..COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.—YEsTEnDAY.
=Twos 111 111 All CO. minas caw :mug navis, M. avF•rias

NADIA, XL JUI!WI WILLIAMS, AND 11/1. JVIMCB TAI:TOVID.
ITHROOIL AND !EVEN OTIIRRS V. THE AUSTRAL]
WAIL CONYANY.-THE SHIP MELBOURNE AUAIN.

Mr. Lush said that eight persons had commenced as
many settees against the defendants upon precisely the
same grounds, and he now mused that proceedings might
be stayed in 'even of the actions until the other oue should
have been tried, the defendants agreeing to abide by the
decision in the one case. The plaintiffs were passengers
who had come home from the diggings in the Melbourne,
and they had brought eight actions, by the same attorney,
for breach of contract in not supplying them with proper
second-class cabins, proper berths meat and drink, and
other requisites. It was also compliined that the decks of
the cabins were allowed to be in a filthy and unwholesome
state, by which the plantiffs had suffered in their health.
Mr. Justice Maule—Smith did not suffer in Brown's
health, so the injuries complained of were different, and
therefore the actions could not be consolidated.
Mr. Lush said that the defendants might defeat the
liability in one of the actions. The plaintiffs bad signed a
round-robin when they got home, and they all went to the
I same attorney and the same form of pleading bad been
used. If the plaintiff got a verdict in one cue, the defen-
dants would cement to a writ of inquiry in the others.
Mr. Justice Maule—One man, by the use of bad food,
might have suffered by getting bad in his inside, for in-
stenos ; and that was a personal injury not shared by the
others._ . . - . .

Mr. Lush—The breech of contract was the same in each

Mr. Justine Raule—To that, without further
there would be mere nominal damages. If Smith, Brown,
and Carter-brought actions against the company, he could
not see why the company had any right to insist on a rule
being made so bind one of them in the conduct of his cause.
Mr. Lush—Only this; that the defendants offered to
abide b the decision in one can and not defend the others.
J Mr. ustin Maule—A man might say, " I stand eighth.
and I like that position; for two or three of the cases I
know are pretty strong ones, and by the time the jury have
heard all of them they will see what sort of a company this
is ; and I shall have a better verdict than if I, get a dry
rule of court that a gentleman in the City, whom the de-
fendants know very well, shall awns damages."
Rule refused.