Evening star., 1896-11-27
HIS EFFORT FAILED
The Jury Decides Against Contention
Of Prince Yturbide.
WILL NOT BE REINSTATED
The Metropolitan Club Wins the
Legal Battle.
ARG OF COUNSEL

The efforts of Prince de Yturbide to be
| reinstated as a member of the Metropolitan
Club from which he was expelled last
spring, have fallen through, at least for
the time being.
The hearing on his application for a mar
damus to compel the board of governors Of
the Metropolitan Club to reinstate him. af-
ter occupying the attention of the count for
two full days, came to end this after
room. The arguments were brief and
shortly after 1 o'clock the case was given
to the jury. A little before 2 o'clock the
jury returned a verdict in favor of the
Metropolitan Club.
AS was explained in The Star Wcdnes-
day, Prince Yturbide, claiming to have
been expelled from membership in the
club last May, seeks to compel the board
OF governors, by writ Of mandamus to
reinstate him. He insists that he was ac-
cused of making a scandalous charge
against the daughter of a club member,
IN that he was charged with asserting
that the young lady had written certain
anonymous letters. The petition for the
writ of mandamus was based on the al
legged ground that he had not been given
a full and impartial hearing before the
board of governors. The question at issue
being whether such hearing was given the
petitioner 1t was submitted by the court
to determination by jury and after the
testimony submitted by either side We'd
nesday counsel for Prince Yturbide MeSsrs
Walter V. r. Berry and A. w. Ferguson.
asked Judge Bradley to instruct the jury
to find for their client. Mr.. Berry had
just commenced to argue in support of
this motion when the court adjourned We'd
nesday afternoon.
MIR. Berry's Arguments.
When the case was taken up this morning
a formida BILE array Of law books were
placed before counsel for Prince Yturbide.
Noticing these Judge Bradley reminded Mr..
Berry that under the rules of the court
he could be allowed but thirty minutes in
which to argue the motion. Mr.. Berry re-
piled that he feared he could not complete
his argument and asked the indulgence OF
the court in the matter, promising to
speak briefly as he possibly could He
then proceeded to argue the motion, con-
tending that all the authorities apple able
in such q case hold that a club member
must be given the fullest opportunity to
meet charges preferred against him. or
submit matters in palliatioa Of the alleged
offense.
In the course of his argument Mr.. Berry
remarked upon what he considered the
palpable unfairness of expelling Mr.. Ytur-
bide, while permitting a man who had
made specific charges against Mrs. Slack,
the wife of a fellow member. still to re-
tain membership in the club and to Sit
upon the bosrd of governors.
That is hardly a proper line of argu-
ment, Mr.. Berry," said Judge Bradley,
caustically. This court has no knowledge
Of any such incident as you refer to-"
Mr.. Berry contended that he was not
tranecending the bounds of propriety in
speaking of the Slack case, which had
also played prominent part in the affairs
of the Metropolitan Club.
You are not making a Hypothetical
thp
ment a matter which has not been brought
to the attention Of the jury"
Right of Expulsion.
Mr. Berry dropped the subject, naturally
enough and then went on to quote from
number of legal authorities to show the
rights of a club member and the methods
that must be followed by the governors or
directors Of the club in order to disfran-
chise a. member His contention was that
the private affairs of a member or per-
sonal quarrel between two members did not
properly come within the jurisdiction of the
club as a corporate body. Even when the
right of expulsion is explicitly granted to
a club it can only be exercised, Mr.. Berry
claimed, upon the results of a full and free
hearing. Even if the right Of expulsion was
inherent in the Metropolitan Club, he said
it was vested not in the board of governors,
but in the entire membership of the club.
Mr.. Carlisle Argues.
. Mr.. Calderon Carlisle, for the club, ar
gued in opposition to the motion to take the
case from the jury, with the result that a
peremptory mandamus should issue.
Mr.. Carlisle said that he could not admit
Mr.. Berrys claim that the case was so
clear that it should be at once decided in
favor of the relator, Mr.. Yturbide. Neither
was he present to claim that the rights of
the club in the matter were so clear that
he could ask the court to instruct the jury
to deny the application.
Continuing his argument, Mr.. Carlisle
went into the matter of the powers con-
ferred by the club upon the fifteen mem
bers composing the board of governors
Among these rights was that of the eXpul-
sion of member whose conduct was such
as to dIsqualify him as desirable mem
ber When the relator became a member
OF the club and subscribed to its constitu-
provisions as were the original members
of the club.
Mr.. Yturbide, he said, was notified that
grave charges were lodged against him
with the board, to the effect that he had
made serious and improper reflections upon
the daughter of a fellow member. When
he appeared before a meeting of the board
he practically admitted the truth of the
charges.
Mr.. Frank Riggs while on the stand, said
Mr.. Carlisle, testified that at that meeting
in spirit of modification and shame as
member of the club. he asked Mr. Yturbide
If he realized the seriousness of the charges
which were to the effect that he had made
scandalous accusations against a lady, the
daughter of fellow member, to a member
of the club and within the club. According
TO Mr.. Riggs Mr.. Yturbide replied that he
understood the situation perfectly.
A civil court, said Mr. Carlisle, cannot
constitute itself a court of appeals to re-
view the action of the directors or gov
ernors of a club constitution SO long as
they do not transcend the powers specifical-
ly conferred upon them. One step further
the courts had gone and it was right that
they should, when they said that no man
should be expelled except after full and
fair hearing. In this case the contention of
the club was that its board of governors
had done no more than it had the right to
do, and that the relator had been expelled
only after free and impartial hearing
Mr.. Carlisle referred at length to the
famous Loubat case. in New York, which
was decided against the club. In that case.
however, the special committee of the club
was appointed solely to decide contro-
versy between two of the members of the
club. Mr.. Loubat was not informed that
he was under charges. and all that the club
had a right to do upon the receipt of the
committees report was to say that a case
had been made out against him. The
courts naturally held that the club erren in