SUPREME COURT

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 10, 7 October 1919, Page 3

SUPREME COURT

REMOVED FROM OFFICE r . • / : A.S.R.S. EXECUTIVE COUNCIL'S POWERS His Honour Mr. Justice Edwards deliv-' ered reserved judgment in the Supremo Court yesterday in the 1 case of Martin Joseph Leo ngninst'' the Amalgamated Society of Railway Servants. "This'was an action in which plaintiff, Wio, prior to May 18, 1919, was a mem-' ■her .of- the Executive Council of tlio defendant (society, alleged that' he was upon that driie, by resolution of the Executive Council, -illegally removed from his-offloe as a member ,of such

council. Tho plaintiff claimed a . de- , claration that his expulsion from the '■■' Executive Council was illegal and ultra vires of the rules of tho society ; an ini iunction restraining tho Executive Coun. ■' oil from expelling or purporting to'ei"Pel him from his office, and JJIOO daruages.

The society admitted that the Executive Council removed the plaintiff from , liis office, but alleged that such removal vafl lawful in accordance with the rules. ■ His Honour said: 'T am unable to ngreo with the contention "of counsel for plaintiff that even if tho defendant society had power to make a rule, author-, ' ising removal of'.an'individual member . of tho council it could not make JRule 11, because'th'at' rule is in itself contrary to; natural' 'jiisMce. I can see nothing inconsistent iwith natural' justice in; a rule which' applies only to those. who voluntarily submit to it. There is' no compulsion of any kind upon any memfcer of the'sooiaty to accept the office of ' executive councillor. Those , who accept

the office do" so subject to tho'rule. Counsel for plaintiff" contends.. further tlmt if .the rule, is itself valid tho pow.ers which it gives have, been so. exercised (is to be such on tihitso of those powers as to infringo natural justice, 'and to justify tho interference of this''Court. I aril .unable to'agree with: this contention. The abuse of the • power,' must; be very jrross. indeed,,to justify, such inter- '.. fererice. • I am unable to , discern any Bitch abuse in tho present case." , The plaintiff; His Honour held, endeavoured to subvert, the , settlement' arrived.'. at •without,.'informing tho other councillors of his intent, and he persisted in justi-' ..fying the action .-which.'he .took.. "K , 'was for .the Executive' Council and for ' , the Executive Council alone, to.''consider' , : 'nnd determine whether or not this course -. of action was' injurious io . the society. If the Executive "Council, came .to. the conclusion that it was'so injurious then" . it, was' justified in treating it'as'^misconduct in connection, with the' society's . affairs." i " His Honour gave judgment for:'the defendant society, and remarked: "I think, however,:that.it is proper.to add ' "that this "'judgment involves' 1 no finding '. against the : 'character- of' the plaintiff. In 'liijr opinion, he' has mistaken- his rights, 'and has failed to appreciates the. V extent of the authority given by the society's rules to the Executive Council:' .T believe that the 'rrlaihtiff honestly believed himself to be justified in the course that he took, and -therefore", ivith- " out in the least dementing' from what I

' V have already'said< I think I may .properly i 'add that nothing has appeared in the, ■--' case to deprive the plaintiff of the es- ■" teem of the other menibntt) off the pociety." , At the hearing Mr. P. J. O'Heimn on- , neared for the plaintiff, and Mr.' M. Myers'for'the. defendant society.