The Sun.
London, England, 1823-08-16 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, AUG. 15.
Ex-PARTE KIIIKLEY, IN RE OULIIER.
A very- nice question arose in this case, as to the proper con-
struction to be put upon the Act, the 3.311' Geo. HI., commonly
called Mr. Rose's Act, which gives to friendly societies a full
claim upon the effects of their treasurers or other officers hold..
ing their money in trust, in case of such officers becoming
bankrupts, to the postponement of the dividends of other cre-
ditors. Mr. Bulmer had been treasurer, president, and one of
the trustees of the South Shields Benevolent Institution. The
society determined upon a conversion of their stock from the
three to the five per cents. some time in 1814. The money was
drawn out under the joint power of attorney of the four trus-
tees, and paid into the Bank of Mr. Bulmer to the advantage
of his private credit. The transfer was not made, though Mr.
Bulmer continued to account to the society for the dividends as
if it had been made. Upon Mr. Bulmer 's bankruptcy taking
place, the society obtained an order from the Vice-Chancellor
to prove their debt under the commission, conformably to the
direction of the statute.

Mr. HEALD and Mr. SPENCE now appealed, on behalf of
Mr. Bulmer's creditors, against the order made by his Honour.
Their Opposition to it was chiefly on the ground of the society
having a complete remedy
.in their claim upon the three trus-
tees, who had not become insolvent.
Mr. WETHERELL, who was followed on the same aide by
Mr. SISIPKINSON, supported the order, and contended for the
unconditional remedy which was left to the society by the word-
ing of the aet, without any reservations or exceptions what-
soever.

The Lour) CHANCELLOR said that Mr. Rose must have had
a strong feeling in favour of friendly societies, to give them a
paramount claim of 20s. in the pound upon the effects, to the
postponement of the other creditors ; and he doubted the justice
of doing so very much. However, such was certainly the pur-
port_ of the act in cases where there was but one treasurer. The
question in this case was, whether the act did really give such
a claim to the society upon the estate of one trustee, when that
claim must be considered in a manner useless, because there
were three other trustees who were equally implicated in the
misapplicatiOn of the funds, were equally responsible for the ef,
fects, and who, moreover, were all three solvent. It appeared
to him, that a- court of eqftity would find great difficulty in
bringing this case within the meaning of the act. He could
not, however, undertake so say that it did not come within, the
act, until he had read through all the acts (for there were seve-
ral besides the 33d (3eo. III.) which had been passed for regu-
lating the interests of friendly societies. This he proposed to
do in the vacation, and give his decision at the first sittings after
the vacation.

His Lordship, having been addressed by one of the counsel
upon a motion which had been fullyargued, said, that although
he could not sit after to-morrow, as he did not intend imme-
diately to leave town, after taking Sunday and :Monday for a
respite from his labours, he would look over the motions, which
had been fully argued, and communicate his decisions to the
parties. He proposed to occupy his time till the end of next
week in that way.