Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1899-08-01
proceedings In Iowa the faith and
credit they had there. and were hence
entitled to in Kansas. Reversed.
BERKHOUT v. ROYAL ARCANUM
Supreme Court of New Jersey.
Aoril Is 1Soo

Supreme Court of New Jersey
April is, 1899.
A BYLAW OF a BENEVOLENT
SOCIETY PROVIDING FOR EN-
PULSION OF a MEMBER, WITH
OUT GIVING HIM y CHANCE TO
BE HEARD, IS NULL AND VOID
TO THE EXTENT THAT 1T DE-
PRIVES HIM OF SUCH HEARING
BUT. IF HE HAD a HEARING,
II II e PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SUCH BYLAW ARE NOT IN
VALID.
This was a suit by the beneficiary Of
a certificate of insurance issued by de-
PENDANT to recover $4,000, the amount
Of said insurance. The deceased, JAG
obus Berkhcut, was II member of the
society and the certificate sued on was
regularly issued to him. and all dues
and assessments had -heen regularly
paid. When he became Il member there
existed a bylaw providing that the GER
tificatc of court of record that men,
Der had been convicted of Il felony, and
sentenced therefor, should be sufficient
evidence on which to eXpel him, with
out the usual trial. Berkhout was. on
his own confession. convicted of grand
larceny and sentenced TO the pcniten-
tiary for four years. He was after
wards expelled from the society with
out any notice having been given him
Of the proceedings. he being then in
prison. He was afterwards pardoned
and died. There was u judgment for
the defendant and plaintiff appealed.
The court says:
The only question is whether the en-
pulsion of Eurkhout from membership
in the society without notice. and with
out hearing, i'll pursuance of the pro-
vision of IL bylaw which had been
adopted by the defendant before he be-
came Il member of the council is legal:
an association. which provides for the
turning out of member without an
adequate and sufficient notice, and an
opportunity TO meet the accusation
brought against him. is a nullty and
proceedings had under it void. a
member of Il benevolent association,
against whom proceedings arc pending
which have his expulsion for their OBJ
! tect. is entitled tomake such defense
as he may have to the charges upon
which the proceedings are based; and,
! If he is expelled without being afford
ed an opportunity to submit his de-
Tense. he is deprived of Il substantial
right which the ordinary principles of
Justice require that he should be per-
mitted TO enjoy. But where ii appears
that the accused member by his own
act. has made it impossible that he
should attend before the tribunal of the
society If notice had been given to him.
and it is admitted that the charges
against him are true, and that he has
no defense TO make against them. 1t
is not perceived that he can be in any
way injuriouSly affected by expulsion
upon such charges. without notice and
without hearing. The true rule would,
therefore. seem TO be that IL bylaw
which provides for the expulsion of n
member without affordnG him an op-
portunity of defending himself against
the charges upon which his expulsion is
based is not altogether null and void,
hut only so to the extent that it de-
prives such member of Il hearing from
j which he might possibly derive n ben
eilt and that where it conclusively ap-
pears that no such result has followed
It's enforcement the existence of such
provision in II will not be held to
invalidate the proceedings taken under
ii. Tested by this rule. the bylaw in
the present case affords no ground for
setting aside the judgment under re-
view. Affirmed.