Case Name: COMMONWEALTH vs. KENSINGTON BENEFICIAL SOCIETY
Court: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvania
Decision Date: 1885-02-09
Citations: 4 Walk. 313
Docket Number: No. 60
Parties: COMMONWEALTH vs. KENSINGTON BENEFICIAL SOCIETY.
Judges: Thayer, P. J.
Reporter: Reports of cases decided by the supreme court of pennsylvania which have been omitted from the regular reports
Volume: 4
Pages: 313–316

Head Matter:
COMMONWEALTH vs. KENSINGTON BENEFICIAL SOCIETY.
Embezzling tbe funds of the society is a “vicious and indecent practice injurious to civil society,” which is cause for expulsion.
Error to Common Pleas No. 4 of Philadelphia County, No. 60 July Term, 1884.
Joseph Struwe had been expelled from the Kensington Beneficial Society, and petitioned for a mandamus. The society answered, and Struwe demurred. The Court sustained the demurrer in the following opinion, p'er
Thayer, P. J.
The constitution of this society provides that if any member be accused of vicious and indecent practices, injurious to civil society, such member shall be served with a written notice signed by the president, stating the nature of the accusation, and requesting his attendance to answer thereto, and after hearing the parties a decision shall be held by ballot, and if it appears that a majority of the members present consider the accused guilty of the charges preferred against him, he shall be expelled. The return shows that the relator was accused of having embezzled funds of the society; that he received notice on-November 2, 1883, to appear at the next meeting of the society, November 13, to answer the charge of embezzlement; that in pursuance of the notice he appeared at the time indicated; that after hearing the evidence and the answer of the said Joseph Struwe, the society proceeded to ballot upon the question of his guilt or innocence of the charge, which ballot resulted in thirty-four votes being cast in favor of his guilt and expulsion, and nineteen votes in favor of his innocence and against his expulsion; whereupon a majority of the members being present he was declared found guilty and expelled.
In Commonwealth vs. The Philanthropic Society, 5 Binney, 486, where one of the causes of expulsion enumerated in the article of association was “scandalous or improper proceedings which may injure the reputation of the society,” and the defendant was expelled for having made a demand upon the society for relief,.and having presented a physician’s bill, which he had altered from four dollars to forty, which he alleged he had paid, when, in fact, he had paid but four dollars, it was held that his conduct in this respect was “a scandalous and improper proceeding” within the meaning of the articles of association, and that he wras properly expelled. Neither in the present case do we doubt that embezzling the money of the society is “a viscious and indecent practice injurious to civil society,” and so is within the words of the constitution already quoted. Independent of that, it is clear that without any express power in the charter tlii > was an offence affecting the interests and good government of the corporation, for which the relator might be expelled by virtue of the inherent powers in corporate bodies. The powTer of amotiou for this cause is always incident to a corporation : Commonwealth vs. The Guardians, 7 S. & R., 469. For an offence against his duty as corporator, a member may always be expelled after notice, trial and conviction in the forms provided by the rule 3 of the society : Commonwealth vs. St. Patrick’s Benevolent Society, 2 Bin., 441; Rex vs. Richardson, 2 Burr, 546. That embezzlement by a member of the funds of a society is such an offence, is, we think, too clear for argument. But it is objected that the notice to appear was insufficient and was not sufficiently explicit. The notice distinctly informed him that he was to be tried on the charge of embezzlement. What the notice contained is of no consequence when it appears by the return that the accused appeared, answered the cnarge, and. had every opportunity to defend himself, for this is a waiver of notice : Commonwealth vs. Pennsylvania Beneficial Institute, 2S. & R., 141; Willcock on Mun. Corp., 265; Angelí & Ames on Corp., 421. It is also objected that the return does not show with sufficient precision the offense for which he-was tried by the society. The member must be informed of the nature of the charge, but in the allegation of the charge technical precision or particularity is not required : Rex vs. Lyme Regis. Doug., 175; Angelí and Ames, 422. We are not to expect to find in the proceedings of such bodies, which are usually made up mostly of laymen, the exactness of statement which we might look for in an indictment, nor are we to scan the proceedings with the same critical nicety that we would use in reviewing a conviction by a magistrate upon a certiorari. It is enough if it appears that the charge was sufficiently definite to apprise him of its real nature and to enable him to defend himself. We must read the whole return together and not in detached parts. We think it appears with sufficient certaintO from this return, looking at all the facts which are contained in it, that the offence for which the relator was tried was embezzlement of the funds of the society, that he had ample notice, that he appeared and was heard in his defense, that evidence was produced against him, that he had full opportunity to make his defense and was convicted and expelled by the constitutional majority required by the articles. With all that concerns the case besides this we have nothing to do. It is no part of our function to inquire into his guilt or innocence or to decide whether the verdict of the majority was a right or wrong verdict. Courts entertain jurisdiction in such cases only so far as determine the sufficiency of the cause of removal, and to preserve these tribunals in the line of order, and to' correct abuses, but they do not inquire into the merits of what has passed in rem judicatam in a regular course of proceedings : Commonwealth vs. The Pike Beneficial Society, 8 W. & S., 247; Commonwealth vs. The German Society, 3 Harris, 251.
Judgment for the defendants on the demurrer.
A writ of error was then taken, complaining of the entry of judgment on the demurrer.
A. T. Goldbeck, Esq.,
argued that the return was insufficient to justify the judgment on the demurrer; and cited : Commonwealth vs. German Society, 15 Pa., 251; Society vs. Commonwealth 52 Pa., 125; People vs Aid Society, 22 Michigan, 86; Rex vs. Mayor, 2 Salkeld, 428; King vs. Faversham, 8 T. R., 352.
B. F. Fisher, Esq., contra,
argued that, by the demurrer, the plaintiff in error admitted the truth of the answer, which charged actual embezzlement; and cited : Society vs. Commonwealth, 52, Pa., 125; Society vs. Vandyke, 2 Wh., 312.

Opinion:
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Common Pleas on February 9th, 1885, in the following opinion :
Per Curiam.
We concur in the opinion of the learned judge, in entering judgment for the defendant on the demurrer. A wrongful conspiracy with others to defraud the society of its money, •and the fraudulent taking and appropriating the same to his own use and purposes, is certainly a vicious and indecent practice injurious to civil society. The relator was duly tried according to the rules and regulations of the society. He must abide by its decision.
Judgment affirmed.