The Express.
London, England, 1866-05-31 00:00:00

THE POLICE COURTS.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Mr. Edward Sayer, the secretary to the Brewer's, Ches-
ter's, and Galley Quays Provident Society, attended before
Alderman Keeley, who sat for the Lord Mayor, to show
cause why one of the members, named James Foley, who
had been expelled from the society, should not be rein-
stated. _ _ _ _ _

The complainant was a labourer at Scovell's wharf, and
it appeared that on the Ith of April he had the misfortune,
while employed at his avocation, to break his collar-bone,
and he applied to the society for the usual allowance.
Accordingly he was paid It. a week as a first•class mem-
ber, and this sum was continued until the 7th May, when
it was stopped, and a meeting of the committee of the so-
ciety was convened? and he was expelled, on the ground
that, in contravention of the 19th rule of the association,
he had been at work while receiving the allowance from
the society.
The defendant admitted the facts, and said that the
ground uponwhich the complainant was excluded was that
he had been at work at Scorch's wharf during the period
that he was in the receipt of the allowance of IL per
week from the society. The superintendent at the wharf
had told him that this was the case, but he was unable to
attend. .

Alderman Bealey inquired of the complainant whether
it was true that he had done any work at the wharf since
he had met with the accident.

He replied that it was not. It was true that he had
been to the wharf occasionally, and that he had received
small sum of money, but this was given to him solely on
account of his having met with the accident, and it was a
usual thing to give a little money to any labourer who
met with an injury. Ile denied most positively that he
had ever dons any work since the accident happened, and
handed a surgeon's certificate to the alderman to show the
extent of the injury he had received.
Alderman Healey having read the certificate said that be
perceived by it that the oomplainant had his collar bone
broken and was incapable of following any ordinary
occupation. He then inquired of the secretary whether
he was in a position to give any evidence in support of the
defence that be had suggested?
Mr. Sayer replied that he was not, and all he knew was
that the superintendent at the wharf had told him that
the complainant had been to the wharf and that he had
given him some light work to do, such as tying up sugar.
The complainant said that this was the very sort of work
that it would have been impossible for him to have done,
as he could onl7 use one hand.
Mr. Sayer said that he had no Interest, of course, in
the matter. The case had been considered by the com-
mittee, and they had oome to the resolution to expel the
complainant, in accordance with the rule of the society
that had been referred to.

The complainant said that the committee decided the
matter without allowing him to be present, or to give any
explanation, and he thought that this was very unfair, as
he had no means of knowing upon what grounds they id
acted.

Alderman Bailey said it appeared to him that no suffi-
cient justification bad been made ont by the society for
expelling the complainant, and he could not help express-
ing Lis opinion that, in common fairness, he ought to
bare been allowed to be present when the subject was
under consideration by the committee, and have had an
opportunity of giving en explanation. He should, there-
fore, make an order that the complainant should be re-
instated as a member of the society, and that the amount
to which he was entitled should be paid to him from the
period at which the allowance had been stopped.