IMPORTANT FRIENDLY SOCIETY CASE.

Thames Star, Volume XII, Issue 4011, 5 November 1881, Page 1

IMPORTANT FRIENDLY SOCIETY CASE.

At the Oswestry County. Court om Saturday; the 26th August, before Mr Armsdale' Bbgers judge, an- action was brought by Joseph Kendrick on behalf of his wife, Sarah, the next of kin of a deceased member, named James Harries of the Working Men's Lodge; of"'the Oswestry United District of the Grand United Order of Odd Fellows, against the trustees of that Society, to recover £12 as funeral allowance, and 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 vxpelled 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 bad no jurisdiction in the matter, bnt:th«t 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 tbe 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 rule 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, tlie party aggrieved has power to submit tbe same to arbitration"; while the 44th grand rule providesthat, "All disputes that arise, between 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 was not ousted by the rules quoted.- He felt that in any case of dispute it was tbe duty of the. Society and not the claimant to initiate the arbitration proceedings, and the defendant Society not having done so in this ease, 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 tbe judge remarked that no doubt this.was an important ease 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 tfeey were brought before him. His decision in the present case was that-they had no power to expel the man Harries, and that the claimant was entitled to the funeral allowance. Mr Minshall asked for lea>e to appeal, which was granted.