IMPORTANT FRIENDLY SOCIETY CASE.

Poverty Bay Standard, Volume IX, Issue 998, 12 November 1881, Page 4

IMPORTANT FRIENDLY SOCIETY CASE.

At the Oswestry County Court on Saturday, the 27th August, before Mr Armsdale Rogers, judge, an action was brought by J. Hendrick on behalf of his wife, Sarah, the next of kin of a deceased member, named J. Harries of the Working Men’s Lodge of the Oswestry United District of the Grand United Order of Oddfellows, against the trustees of that Society, to recover £l2 as funeral allowance, which sum the Society refused to pay on the ground that at the time of his death Harries was not a member of the Society, he having been expelled because, as was alleged, he misrepresented his age when he entered the Society, and also because he was convicted of a criminal offence. Mr. Minshall, on behalf of the defendant lodge, contended that the judge had

no jurisdiction in the matter, but that these disputes between the officers of friendly societies and the members were to be settled by arbitration, as provided for in the rules of tbe particular lodges, by the district rules, and by the grand rules of the Order. The 37th rule of the Working Men s Lodge provides that disputes should be settled pursuant to the district and general rules of the Order ; the 34th district rules provides that, “If a dispute arises in this district, which they cannot conveniently settle, they may refer it to the district meeting, and, if so desired the party aggrieved haspower to submit the same to arbitration ;’, while the 44th grand rule provides that “ All disputes that arise between the district committees or branches and members of the society shall be reduced to writing, and referred to the general meeting for settlement ” His honor said he believed that he had jurisdiction, and that it w r as not ousted by the rules quoted. He fflt that in any case of dispute it was the duty of the Society, and not the claimant, to initiate the arbitration proceedings, and the-defendant Society not having done so in this case, he held that the claimant was entitled to come to that court and try to substantiate the claim set up. The case was then gone into on its merits, and at the close the judge remarked tnat no doubt this was an important case for all benefit friendly societies, and he must say that these societies did not frame their rules so carefully as they ought to do. However, he could only construe them as they were brought before him. His decision in the present case was that he had jurisdiction, that the Society had no power to expel the man Harries, and that the claimant was entitled to the funeral allowance. Mr. Minshall asked for leave to appeal, which was granted.