The Express.
London, England, 1866-01-29 00:00:00

COURT OF QUERN'S BENCH.-JAN. 27.

Sittings io Banco.—(Before the Lord Chief Justios, sod
Justice* Blackburn, Mellor, and Lush.)

This was the first of the last four days of term..
WAIN V. TEI MARTS OP OAIC BENIFIT socrary, ono.

Mr. Quain showed cause against a rule calling upon the
trustees and general committee of the Hearts of Oak
Benefit Society, in Greek-street, Soho, and oomprising
upwards of 10,000 members, to show cause why a manda-
mus should not issue, compelling them to re-instate Mr.
Evan Evans in the office of the secretary of the society,
which was represented to be worth about 2,0001. per an-
num. This was an ordinary voluntary friendly society, esta-
blished under the 10th Geo. IV., but since repealed by the
18 and 19 Via, c. 63, which now regulates these societies.
The act of parliament provides for the appointment of
trustees in whom the property of the society should be
vested, and that it should sue and be sued in the name
of the trustees, and a'eo for the appointment of
treasurer, but nothing was said about a se-
cretary. By the 25th section they were em-
powered to make rules for the appointment of trea-
surer and other officers. The rule with regard to the
secretary made by the society was, as he read it, for his re-
moval but not for his appointmeat. It named the founder
of the society as its secretary, and made it an office during
good behaviour, and in the event of his death another
secretary might be appointed by a special meeting of the
members convened for that purpose. Without going into
the merits of the ca.e be submitted that a mandamus was
not the proper remedy. It was not an ancient freehold
office known to the law, and Mr. Evans' remedy was by
action against the trustees.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said if a mandamus were issued
and it turned out be wan dismissed by a majority of the
members it would be an answer to it.

Mr. Gifford, Q.C., contended that this was an office that
came within the ru'e for a mandamus.

The Lord Chief Justice said there was nothing to pre-
vent the society from dissolving to-morrow and abolishing
the office. It was a voluntary society, and it was in the
discretion of the society to make any alteration they
pleased.
Mr. Gifford said the trustee's and general committee had
not complied with the rules in dismissing Mr. Evans.
They had not had a majority of the members to the pro-
emding, as they were bound to do. He disputed their hav-
ing seat notices to all the member'. AU they had done was
to Sall together a portion of the members, which he con-
tended was a packed meetiog.
Mr. Quin said all the members were summoned from
the list of members kept by Mr. Evan's, but 250 notices
were returned, the addressee being wrong.
Mr. Justice Blackburn said that if that were so it was
difficult to say that the members were not fairlysummoned.
Mr. Geffmd said hie point was that the preliminaries were
not properly complied with. Mr. Evans had been attacked
not for mismanagement, but bemuse certain members thought
he made too good a thing of his office. In 1857 commenced
a course of agitation by the reform committee for the ex-
press perms* of turning Mr. Evans out after he had served
the society for 20 yams, and had increased the members
from 300 to upward. of 10,000. In 1864 the same efforts
were made, and in 1865 two summonses were granted by
the magistrates, one of which wee dismissed.

The court, hOwever, alter hearing the further arguments,
discharged the rule, on the grm.nd that a mandamus could
not draw

Rule discharged.
The court then took the new trial paper.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.-JAN. 27.
Sittings in Banooo-(Before Lord Chief Juntioo Erie, and
&lotion Wilke, Keating, end Smith.)

CRAMS P. THE METROPOLITAN RAILWAY COMPANY.

The plaintiff in this cue had been in the habit of travel-
ling by the defendants' line, and of alighting at the Hiner
cross Station. On the evening of the 28th of July, 1864,
during daylight, he was passing up the stairs from the
'ses-Gross Station to the street, when he fell and broke
his leg. The present action was to recover damages for the
injury ; and the plaintiff's case was that the company were
in fault in this, that the nosiogs of the stain were brass,
and had become smooth by wear, and further, that there
was no handrail for the plaintiff to catch hold of when he
stumbled. On the other hand, it area said
that the steps were of the usual kind in such
places, and that 43,000 people had passed over them
monthly without accident and without complaint. The
jury at the trial found for the plaintiff, damages 100
guineas ; but subsequently a rule was granted to show
MUM why the viiet should not be entered for the de-
fendants. upon the ground that there was no evidence
against them • or at all events why there should not he a
new trial, because the evidence did not warrant the
finding.
Mr. Haddleston, Q.C., and Mr. Hy. James now showed
cause against the rule, and ststed that there was evidence
at the trial that the nosing' of the !stairs should have been
of lead, a material which would not become smooth by
wear. It was also said that there was evidence that the
stairs were dangerous, whilst on the other hind there was
no specific evidence that they were not dangerous. This
being the state of the evidence, it was submitted that there
was no good reason for disturb* the verdict.
Mr. Hawkins, Q. 0., and Mr. H. Lloyd, for the company,
contended that it was absurd to say that there was any neg-
ligence is this case, and more especially as the plaintiff was
thoroughly acquainted with the staircase, he having passed
up it daily ever mince the line opened.
Mr. Justice, seating asked whether, in consequence of
there being no handrail, people could fall over'
Mr. Hawkins—No.; there was a wall on each side the
stairs.
_ _

Justice Keating—But there was a handrail sow ; how
long had it been put up 'l'
Mr. Hawkins—About a twelvemonth atter the accident
it was put there. The fact of putting it up was no proof
that there had been oegligence io no/ havinf it.
The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that there
was no evidence of negligence to go to the jury. His expe-
rience was that the stairs were of an ordinary construction,
and he was of opinion that there was no law which com-
pelled ► railway company to have a handrail to such stairs.
Mr. Justice Willes said brass was commonly used for the
nosing of stairs ; and the statement of a witness that in his
opinion lead would have been better than brass was no evi-
dence to go to the jury.
Mr. Justice Keating observed that he had felt some dif-
ficulty in agreeieg with the rest of the court, but he did
not dissent from the judgment.
Rule absolute to enter a nonsuit.