NEW OSBORNE CASE.

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1024, 13 January 1911, Page 7

NEW OSBORNE CASE.

IMPORTANT POINT RAISED,

Br'TolcErarli-PressAEsoriaUon-CoDyriKM. (Rec. January 12, 5.30 p.m.) ; London, January 12. . The Appeal Court has refused the application of the Amalgamated -Society of Hailwaymen to compel Mr. W. V. Osborne to give security for costs in connection with his judgment. The appeal will.be heard on February

"A GROSS ABSURDITY." This was an action bv Mr. Walter Viegave Us niMiie to the "Osborne JudeoTtihvf the . A,,,al S : > So ety ,!.£*„ i J" 9 sb , orno complained that the defendants had expelled him from the society and had dissolved the Wa"thamHe sought a declaration that the resolution of June' 23 last, nasc-ed bv the Executive Committee,, expelling him from the society was ultra vires, void, illegal, unconstitutional, and against public nolicy, and that so much of the re■ated to the dissolving of the Walthamstow branch' was ultra vires and void. Jso_.jlso asked for an injunction restraining the. defendants from actin» Up ™ °? , enforci ng the resolution. Ihe defendants -took the preliminary point that the action could not. be maintained because at common law the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants was an illegal organisation, inasmuch as its' rules contemplated the nerformanco of acts against public nolicv. and interest,' ■such as strikes and restraint of trade, and because the Court's could not interfere- with respect to" the cxriulsion' of a member where only status and not pro. perty was involved.

Mr. Justice Warrington, giving iudgment. said he had anxiously 'considered whether he was, comnelled to. give effect to the preliminary objection taken by tho -defendants, and be thought that he was. Rule 11 of the society authorised the expulsion of a member found guiltv of attempting to injure the 'societv on "that fact being proved to the satisfaction ,of the Executive Committee. In his ship's opinion, the. agreement entered into by joining tho societv was. one which was illegal at common law on account of its being in..restraint o? trade. The preliminary objection therefore succeeded and as a decision on that must necessarily dispose of the whole action, he must give judgment for the defendants wi f, i costs.

"Iscussinp; the indgment, Jlr. Alfred Fellows wrote in the "Morning Post":—

"If Mr. Osborne is oxnelled because he ncserted liis rights ( and procured the, 'Osborne Judgment'—and, as ho may not. go into the hierits of-'the case, there is nothing to short 1 that this was not d6ne— it follows that any unionist for any reason becoming obnoxious to the union officials can,bo similarly-expelled, and sinin larly lacks redress. To take the .simplest possible. instance, a man who refused to pay e. 'voluntary' Parliamentary levy could be expel'eil from his union, and the exnulsion would be valid. Thus there' will be no need for union officials' to' obtain legislation to make the-- 'voluntary' levies compulsory: the first Osborne judgment laid down that a straieht-forward rule imposinr the levy on pain of expulsion was void, the second that- no Court can interfere if expulsion follows a disregarded levy. '

"From the above statements it will be clear that .these two judgments standing together constitute a gross absurdity; and to those who have .studied the law on the subject it. will also be plain that the absurdity is not the fault "of the judges who administer the law, but of th» Legislature which has made it. . . . Mr.'o.»lrarne is appealing against the judgment, but .Sir George Jessel's /orevious decision has been approved by the Court of Ar<peal. and even the House of Lords, though not bound bv Sir George Vessel's reasoning, will npt- easily refute/.it. . Legisla-, tion is obviousls ; reciuired .as soon as possible, and those candidates wV> anprove of the first Osborne judgment' should pfrte c'early arid at once that they, approve of making it effective." .