New-York tribune., 1886-06-02
Mr.. LOUBAT SUSTAINED.
DECIDING AGAINST THE UNION CLUB
JUSTICE DANIELS DFLvRRs THE OPINION OF THa
GENERAL TERM


| GENERAL TERM
A decision was handed down by the General
Term Of the Supreme Court yesterday, tho ofec, %
which s restore Joseph f. Loubst to all his rrh,s ai
privileges a member OF the Union CluD from which
he was expelled for using language to which Other
members objected The appeal taken by his counsel
Joseph H. Choite was from tins judgment rendered as
Special Term dsnissing Mr Louba.s complaint IN hix
suit against Herman T. Leroy, treasurer o,the foisn
Club Justice Daniels. who delivered the opinion o, ,ts
court. In which Presiding Justice DAVIS AMI Jcstiee
Brady concur says:
TIE club OF which tho defendantis the treasurer "a,
voluntary. unincorporaei association. Consisting Of
large number Of members and owning property Tor their
use and ouioymcnt. aud - suoh may be sued By an
action against JOINT stock company
under tho statutes OF this state. Iho paintiT
money TO enrle him also to NE membership, and by
resolution Of quorum Of Tho Governing Committee ot
least expelled from bis membership Of the club.
ms expulsion was directed because Of mis-
part occurring in conversation In the ciabhou,e with
ber 1881 fn this conversson grossly Indecent ain.
made by hun TO ladies who enjoyed the esteem
aud friendship OF at least o. the persons who wers
strong expressions Of condemnation OF what ms Ia .a
were made ny persons This 'fterw srd lei to
repetition OF expressed and correspond
ence cnbtterng the relations existing between
these persons Publicity given % the cOresp,nd.
afterward resulting In the Investigation producing
II tho case were to be disposed upon merits a,
It made to appear before the quorum Of the com.
would be felt In The wy OF sustaining tho CONCLUSION ar
rived IL matter solely 10 DO governed D. th3
rules regulations OF tho club itself and ne authority
designed to DO invested in what was called tas
Governing Committee IN. ene oin... ~, y
sucency OF the charge OF Misconduct made agin,s
have created by the mtnnerin which the proceei
carried oil for ti" inycstgation o, MS cOa-
duct and resulting IN the resolution or expulsion.
Justice Daniels says tnat It il not entirely tha.
the power OF the committee rescnd its acton. winch
might have been invoked In behan Of the psn'lf bus
not not present well ifounded legal objection
to the right Of the plaintiff to maintain thi- action.
But tho probability that the counitteo would have
rescnded It's action he regards remote that the
plaintiff snould not be held t. be required % apply fora
RECONSIDERATION before beginning acuon 20 restrain
OF the resolutions againstm In regard
TO the which TIE proceedings were ca r"d ois
Justice Daniels that there was total failure 10 gye
the plaintiff notice OF the hearing before the Governing
Committee the report Of the special committee tnat
examined the and opportunity to contest no
action taken against hun. and that deprived tao
proceeding. as well as the final resolution Of all lcsd
effect him. The resolution did not nave tho sup
port OF two-thiris ol the members Of the Governing
Committee required by the constitution OF the cu',
only fourteen OF the eighteen members present. A4'
ing voted for 1t. In conclusion the Justice says
All tue facts OF the been fully and clearly
iou, lnu a, s'sssu ab ~ III tice V vr.u sc.,.y
therefore Will another trial Of tho actpn. bnt
Judgment upon the report and dec,lon may be now
finally prOnOdhced ant taat should o. Ju isi'nt lie.
clar- the resOu OF expulsion 70 have been d.ope
legal auth Oriy AMI 20 be imperative and voit
a. To tnr plnlf ai restraining the enforcement or 1t
by officers members Ol tAo cab against , bIt
without prrgclcr, II that snail SIN br dccE"l atSst'
further proceedings 10 ~ tafen az iist the ni-
TN in conformity with the principles 0f the IA" pr-
scrlOel rhelr conduct @ui government " .cthcr
the plliutf shall also DO allowed costs
i'm the acon will reserved for determination To tLe
time order sh ali he sattsI. A. 10 thc costs
Ot tue appeal, their recovery sAYUti
De provided Tor Oy the order
Presidny Justice Davis, III coacu7rlns o2hi1n,
says:
put my concurrence IN tho conclusion os NY
brother Daniels altosethcr uTOl thc ground iht ths
appellant was attempted 10 be removed without tao
trA opportunity u be heard secdrl to ann " he
constitution and bylaws OF the cll,. lna
only body clothed with authority ID hrAr.
try and remove tue accused WAS the Governing COnut
That cOmlniee had power % direct now u ""nlt
take the the fact TO lie pres ntcd Tor ts coz
.deration trial. aud tuey directed tho sane 10 %
functions discharged whenever tAeF made .leir
renort to The Governing Committee. Inc case tLel
reached point OF readiness Tor hearing IL "as tto
duty then Of the Governing COUm.ttec To have gwen
notice the appellant Of tho TINS AMI placs ol thc
trial with Reasonable opportunity 10 attend ant
Attend himself against tue charges ani the
hdziDeut that ought reasoIibly 10 DC lhposeI
They gave snch notice, bat Proceeded
,sltnout further bearn notice and attendance du1
rendered dg gasnt expdsiOa. IL matters nJt "hst-
tee or OF le entire bo voting concnrrrnty In ei'Ler
they mad jurisdiction 10 pronounce Al ehHcLi'e
lud gnieuL aud their action cOycH JnlUe for
this reason The ad .net mast be sed and luigLcns
orlsred for Iintif Ny health wlh not permit iae 20
examine tho other questions ot the case.