Sharp Points of Law Touching Friendly Societies. OUR readers are, we dare say, tolerably familiar with the statute law relating to Friendly Societies; or, if they be not, the explanatory article in another part of this number will give them all necessary information. But comparatively few of them understand the decisions of judges which interpret and modify the provisions of the legislature on their behalf. This is to be regretted. The want of such information-that in a few short articles we shall endeavour to supply-has heretofore, and may hereafter, lead to difficulties. There is no reason why the few reported cases, or the principles therein laid down, should not be as familiar to the members of Provident Societies as the Acts of Parliament regulating their proceedings. In the first place, let us briefly explain the law as it stands with regard to money in the hands of officers who may become bankrupt or insolvent, or who may make assignments for the benefit of creditors, or who may have their worldly possessions seized by the sheriff, or a bailiff. The 23rd section of the Consolidated Act provides that, if any person appointed or employed in any office, in any Friendly Society, shall become thus unfortunate, or die while he has in his hands or possession, by virtue of his office, any money or property, deeds or securities, belonging to such society, his assignees or trustees, or the sheriff or bailiff, or executor, or administrator, shall satisfy the claim of such society before a creditor, or legatee, or next of kin receives a penny. Nothing appears to be more clear and precise, and, at the same time, more comprehensive than this enactment; but the judges have given it a rather more limited construction than upon a cursory perusal of the clause would seem to be justifiable. It has over and over again been laid down that, if any cash should happen to be in the care or custody of a treasurer, secretary, or other person, not strictly or technically "by virtue of his office," at a crisis in his affairs, that money is not protected by the statute. Some of these judgments which have, we need hardly say, all the force of legislative enactments, and the circumstances out of which they arose, are worth recital. It may also be necessary to state, that although some of the precedents are rather older than the most venerable statute affecting Friendly Societies, now unrepealed, they have the same force and effect as if they had only been delivered yesterday; because, the 23rd section of the 18th and 19th Victoria, cap. 63, is identical with that of the 33rd Geo. III., cap. 54. The first decision we shall quote is that given by the Master of the Rolls upon the petition of Mr. John Careless, on behalf of the Amicable Society of Lancaster, against the widow and administratrix of James Parkinson, who died, owing more than he could pay; and had, or ought to have had, in his possession, when called to render his final account, the sum of £100 belonging to that society. Some time before his death-but probably after the money had been spent he gave a bond to Careless (whose name should have been Careful), as trustee for himself and fellow-members, and a Court of Equity was asked to order that the Amicable should take precedence over other claimants. The Master of the Rolls refused this petition. He laid down a principle that "the debts to be preferred are not debts due to the society, but only debts due from an officer or trustee of the society; and that if a society trusts any person upon his private security, those debts have no preference." The acceptance of the bond was considered proof that the money was not, at the time of Parkinson's death, then in his hands, or owing by him as an officer of the society, and the Amicable ranking with other unprotected creditors, we imagine, got nothing in the pound, because he owed money to the crown, and the revenue officers levied, under a writ appropriately entitled "an extent in chief," upon both his personal and real estate. A second case decided by the Court of Chancery, is that of an old Shropshire benefit society, which had no regularly appointed treasurer, but used to let its funds remain in the hands of its stewards, until they accumulated sufficiently to make it worth the while of two lawyers, in partnership, to receive and lend out the money on behalf of the contributors. These respectable gentlemen gave acknowledgements for the cash as they received it, in the form of promissory notes, bearing interest, and the transactions went on, to the mutual satisfaction of the parties, for some time; but, at length, one of "the firm" died, and his partner became bankrupt. The society appealed to the Lord Chancellor, and claimed the usual preference. Their counsel, very learned in the law, argued with much ingenuity, that the dead and bankrupt attornies stood to the society "in the nature of treasurers, although not formally appointed," and his Lordship thought they were in equity, and in fact, treasurers. The case, however, came on again by way of appeal, in the shape of a petition, that the former order should be discharged, and Lord Eldon gave the final decision. He delivered a very long judgment, in which, among other things, he said that the money had not been received or retained by virtue of any office, and that a treasurer, or officer, within the meaning of the Act, must be elected and accept the office to which he was appointed. The former decision was therefore reversed, and the Society got only such a dividend as the insolvent estate would pay. There is a third case, in which money was deposited in the hands of a steward of a Society, which had no treasurer, upon promissory notes bearing interest, and it was held that this money was not protected by the then existing Friendly Society's Act. The steward proved unfaithful. He was made bankrupt while he held the Society's cash; and upon hearing a petition that his assignees should pay over £334 to the society, Lord Eldon uttered some strong language, that has found many echoes in Westminster Hail and Lincoln's Inn since his day. He said, "that if Friendly Societies expected the benefit of that very liberal, and perhaps more liberal than just provision of the legislature in their favour, that all creditors, however meritorious, shall be sacrificed to their demands; it is their business to take the protection given them in the mode in which it is directed, by appointing a treasurer, and making him give security according to the Act." The Chancellor made an order, directing the Commissioners to inquire "whether any and what sums were in the hands of the bankrupt, by virtue of his office, at the date of the fiat, belonging to the Society, but expressed a strong opinion, that "if the money was lent by the consent of the Society upon a promissory note carrying interest, it was not money in his hands by virtue of his office." It is to be observed that the doctrine laid down in the case first quoted, has never been relaxed, but on the other hand, each succeeding decision has widened the application of the principle therein enunciated. The next decision established that when a sum of money was left with a treasurer who had been duly appointed, upon his promissory note, bearing interest, and payable on demand, and that officer becoming bankrupt, the Society had waived its precedence over general creditors. In another still more recent case, a Benefit Society set up a preference claim, under the bankruptcy of one of its officers, for a sum of money which had been improperly received by him. The Vice-Chancellor dismissed the petition on the ground that the bankrupt was not the proper man to receive the money in question, and the Society got no more than other creditors. There is another case that arose under the administration of the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Act of 1849, which goes a little further in the adverse direction than any which occurred before in other courts. A Friendly Society at Oldswinford deposited its funds in the bank of Messrs. Rufford and Wragge, whose failure caused so much painful excitement in that neighbourhood a short time ago. A rule of this Society provided that the treasurer should not be a member of the Society, and that he should hold all monies until they could be placed out at interest upon satisfactory securities. Another rule went on to say that "as soon as a sufficient sum of money shall be collected, the same shall (after leaving a sufficient sum in the club box to pay the sick, and other expenses of the society) be deposited in the hands of the treasurer or treasurers of the Society, and that the clerk and two stewards shall take the same to the bank." The money was taken, after the manner directed, to the unfortunate bank, but its proprietors were never formally appointed to, or formally accepted the office of treasurers. When they stopped payment, they had in hand a good round sum, which represented the accumulated thrift of their humble neighbours. The Society presented a petition for payment in full, as not only provided for in the Friendly Societies' Act of 1855, but also in the Bankrupt Act of 1849. The latter statute gave to Friendly Societies a preference claim whenever a bankrupt had been "appointed to, or been employed in, an office in the Society." Upon this narrow and fine point the Society endeavoured to get paid in full. Their very astute counsel admitted that Rufford and Wragge had not been appointed to, but contended that they had virtually been employed in that office. In plain words, the Society argued that the money was left in the hands of the bankrupts, not as bankers of the Society and in the ordinary way of their business, but only as treasurers of the Society. Before the days of Lord Eldon that argument would, in all probability, have succeeded, but it was treated by the modern Court of Bank. ruptcy with little respect. This court held that the bankrupts were not employed in any office within the provisions of the Act. Worse than all, the Society was ordered to pay the costs of the assignees in opposing the petition. The Bankruptcy Commissioners dislike this provision by which the Legislature has sheltered frugal investments from the recklessness and dishonesty of men in whom confidence may be reposed. Mr. Commissioner Goulbourn, of the London Bankruptcy Court, has given it as his opinion that a Society which does not take security from its officers cannot obtain a preference over other creditors under any circumstances. We have traced the development of the common law in this matter with such minuteness, because, as must be obvious to our readers, there can be nothing more important, in connection with the management of Friendly Societies, than the wise and safe investment of their funds. The judges, who have limited the operation of statute law, framed for the benefit of thrifty men in the ranks of labour, have avowed their unwillingness to discuss the policy of legislation in this case. We regret they have not given to this aspect of the matter ampler consideration; but it is impossible to vary, alter, or evade the culminating prejudice of horsehair and ermine. The law, as it is written in "Barnewell and Cresswell," "Adolphus and Ellis," "The Exchequer Reports," "The Common Bench Reports," and innumerable tomes which our readers never saw, and for their reputations' sake be it said, are never likely to study, is, withal, a law as potent to make and unmake, set up and destroy human institutions, as that embodied in the Statutes at large. A glance over the short resumé of cases quoted, and we trust made readable, in the previous page or two, will, it is therefore hoped, convince the Members of Friendly Societies that when they lend money to an officer upon a specific contract, or allow him to convert his relationship into that of a debtor, they abandon one of the most important rights conferred upon them by the legislature. SPRING. Beautiful spring! beautiful spring! When winter his mantle so chilly doth fling, Pleasant the pictures the fancy doth weave Oh! I love thy sweet breeze, for it whispers of trust I love the bright flow'rets fast springing from dust, I love the blithe songsters of woodland and glade, The joy-thrilling tones, which their Maker has made I see the young buds bursting forth from the tree, I hear the soft hum of the insect and bee, And the lamb's bleeting low in the fold; I smell the sweet incense of hawthorn and flower, Beautiful spring! beautiful spring! The pale yellow blossoms their loveliness fling, Beautiful spring! beautiful spring! To thy fresh flow'ry meads and the verdure they bring, Yet we love thy successor-'tis fertile in gifts Who, in goodness, his curtain of beauty uplifts, Beautiful spring! beautiful spring! "Tis a season when hearts should be given ELLA. What makes a Gentleman. BY GEORGE FREDERICK PARDON. "When Adam delved and Eve Span, THE Conventional idea of gentility is so intimately connected with birth and riches that we, some of us, find it difficult to think of mere virtue, honour, education, and good breeding, without wealth, as the proper attributes of a gentleman. It is easier to say what is not gentlemanly than to discover what is, and we commonly find the vulgar acceptation of the word gentleman admitted by the world in preference to a higher standard of honesty and honour; and into this error we have been led unconciously by what Theodore Hook calls the sixand-eightpenny feeling of society-though his own notions of a gentleman were vague and loose enough, in all conscience. With the author of "Sayings and Doings," it was "genteel" to express horror and disgust at trade and traders of all kinds; and to dine before six, or live east of Temple Bar, was vulgar in the extreme. Fortunately, the Hook school is going fast out of fashion. For merely genteel people-folks who live beyond their means, and boast of their acquaintance with Sir "Harry" and Lord " Thingum "-we have the greatest possible horror; and would rather clasp the horny fist of an honest man in friendship than take the cool, white-kidded fingers of your very "genteel" people from a carriage in Rotten Row or a box at the opera. Genteel people do and say things every day at which they would blush "interestingly" if they were called by their right names. For instance, if you were to tell Mrs. Match-maker and her fair daughters that they were acting a lie when they said "not at home" to their servant, they would be quite astonished; and if you ventured to hint to young Fastman that ordering clothes without intending to pay the tailor was a dishonest swindle, he would most likely "cut your acquaintance" immediately. In fact, there is a great deal of humbug in the world, and the "genteel" humbug is the most unbearable-at least to all right-thinking people. The idea that money makes the gentleman is exemplified every day of our lives, and in all manner of ways. Try it by a cheap experiment: give a halfpenny to the beggar who waylays you in the streets with a professional drawl about hunger and cold, and you are overwhelmed with a torrent of thanks; refuse it, and you go home with a curse upon your head: assist an infirm old lady into an omnibus-“You are a gentleman, sir," says she, in a grateful whisper; offer the legal fare to the conductor when you get out, and you are told by that individual "you are no gentleman to dispute about threepence:" give up your seat in the front box at a pantomime to a couple of noisy children-"Sir, you are a gentleman," says the gratified father; refuse the customary extortion of a penny to the waiter at a cheap dining-room, and you are told by that hitherto obsequious person that he "is sure you are no gentleman;" and if you ever go to that establishment again, make up your mind to an inferior cut of the beef or mutton, and a cold potato left from somebody else's dinner. Somebody has cleverly said that in every block of marble is concealed an un |