Star.
London, England, 1828-07-29 00:00:00

ASSIZE INTELLIGENCE.

OXFORD CIRCUIT—STAFFORD. JOLT ‘2.15.
CPul Suss—Belure 51r. Justice GASSLII.
aiming V. SHILLLEY AND OTHF.ItS.
Mr. RICHARDS opened the pleadings in this cause,
and stated that it was an action brought by the plain-
tiff to tecover the sum of 151. 9i. which Vie defendant
had, teceived to and fir the use of the plaintiff.
Mr.TAtINTON said, that the defendants in this cause
ate theStewerds of the Yoxall Friendly Benefit Society,
and the plaintiff is a respectable surgeon and apo:he-
caryv who had been appointed die medical attendant of
the Society at its. commencement in 1821, and con.
tinned to afford his professional assistance in that ea-
picky to its members down to the month of Atigust,
1820. In that month he was dismissed from his situa.
tion by the Committee who managed the affairs of the
Society; but notwithstausling that dismissal. he had still
continued giving advice to lie members down even to
the present period. The Society consisted• of one
hundred and three members, and by its rules they were
behind to pay their medical adviser three shillings call
per.annum for his attendance , upon them and their
families.during that time. The rule of the Society was,
that the, members should each pay the apothecary three
shillings; the custom was to pay the money to the
s'tewar'ds, who handed it over to the. plaintiff. In that
capacity they had received the money which the plaintiff
now claimed, and to recover which be had been com-
pelled to bring the present action. In the month of August
1826, it appeared that the defendants, without consult-
ing the memberi of the Society, took upon themselves
to dismiss the plai .tiff. The only motive which could
be assigned for this act was, that be had offended one of
the members of the Committee. Whatever might. Now.
ever..have been the motive, it was plain, by a reference
to the rations Acts of Parliament for regulating Benefit
Societies, that this proceeding of the defendants was
altogether irregular. By the sqth of Geo. HI. chap.
IZ. it was. expressly declared, that when a Standing
Catmint* was appointed,. their powers should be de;
dared in the general rules. of the Society, and being so
marked and defined. it wits enactcd.ezpressix,. that pci
Committee should have a gveater power than that which
was conferred by those rules.. Referring, then, :w.the
n?lnt of ibis Society, it would be found in the 16th. the
cagy pee which had reference to the present case, it ap-
peared. thfLthe Committee had these powers, in the
first place, le settle ni; grievances complained of by the

members, subject to an appeal to two Magistrates.—
Secondly, to lend mit the money of the Society at inter-
vals ; and, lastly, to appoint a new Committee, and three
Steivards every year. The Jury Would perceive there was
no power given by thost rulesto dismiss any of the officers
of the Society; and so much was the dismissal of the
plaintiff cor.trary to the inclination of the general body,
hat 75 ut of 103 signed in his favour; and at a Lie-
tieral Meeting, called to take the subject of Iris di,-
missal into consideration, out of 67 Members' who at
tended, 53 voted for the plaintiff, three voted against
him, and eleven declined voting at all. With this de-
clared opinion of the Members in his favour, the plain-
tiff felt himself entitled to make the present demand
upon the defendants; and whin he (Mr. Taunton) had
called witnesses to substantiate his case, he felt confi-
dent of a verdict in his favour.
' Mr. Isaac Brabbins, one t f the Stewards, said that the
books of the Society were kept in the club-room; but'
he had not brought them, although he had Joeen sub-
t. ce tared to do so. He believed they wile in tire hands of
Mr. Jackson, another of the Stewards, and in the Court,
but he declined producing them.
Mr. Justice GASELEE here interposed, and told the
witness he must choose either to produce the books or

go to prison.
The witness then consented to produce the books, and
vaiinns extracts were given in evidence to support the
plaintiff', case.
J.ihn Tasw ell being called to prove the appointment
of the plaintiff in 1821, said there were seventy mem-
bers present when he proposed him.
In answer to a question from Mr. Sergeant RusseLL,
he admitted that his motion fur the plaintiff's appoint-
ment was not seconded, and that it was nil a written
appointment.
Mr. Justice GASaLEa said, that the fact of the dis-
missal was a proof of the validity of the original ap-
pointment.
The attendance of the plaintiff upon the members of
the Society and their families being proved, MrJanvis
and Mr. Sergeant RussaLL took an objection to the form
of the action, upon the ground that it ought to have
been brought against the trustees who held the funds of
the Society, and not against the Stewards.
This objection being overruled,
Mr. Jan vis proceeded to address the Jury for the de-
fendants, and contended they had not exceeded their
authority; and that the plaintiff having neglected the
duties of his office, was no longer entitled to the profits
of the situation.
Evidence was then called to support this statement.

Mr. TAUNTON having replied,
Mr. Justice GASELEZ left two points to the Jury—
first, whether the defendants had power, under their
Rules, to dismiss the plaintiff; and nest, whether the
roes had been fairly taken upon the ballot?
The Jett', through their Foreman, said they thought
they ought to find for the plaintiff, as they considered
him a very injured man—
Mr. Justice GAMER refused to take the verdict in
that shape,• and requested their attention to the two
points he had already laid before them.
The Jury then returned a verdict for the plaintiff—
Damages, 151.95.