FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16220, 24 May 1918, Page 8

FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.

SOLDIER MEMBERS' SICK PAY. INTERESTING COURT CASE; " (special to "the rwss.") DUNEDIN, May 23. - A ease of more than usual interest, particularly to soldier members ,of friendly societies, and one in which tit decision (when it is given) will eon. siderably affect one way or the. other' the funds of the various lodges, wm J heard in the Magistrate's Court thii. morning. John Simmons, grocer, <uitf ' a returned soldier, claimed from Alfred I Henry Shelton, as secretary of the : Ivanhoe Lodge of tho United Ancient?; j Order of Druids, an amount represent' • ing sick pay at tho rate of £1 pop week .' from February 27th last until the data of his discharge from military service; i Mr Adams appeared for the plaintiff; - and Mr Tonkinson for tho defendant. • i§. The whole point at issue was whether • a soldier can claim from a friendly ;; society sick pay benefits while he n > tffcill in military service. Mr Adams contended that plaintiff, ; who had been wounded and had" bees sent back to New Zealand, was uncle] " the lodge rule which provides for 'thi >•;. preservation of. a soldier member's - status as a financial member entitled to receive sick pay during the period he was laid up, even though.-ha was for that period undischarged from , forces,-and was in receipt ofmiUtMi pay. The fact that the JodgeV&eutcal man had certified that plain tiff, ■was*; unfit to follow, his usual occupation, and v was thus entitled to the benefits of tbf lodge was, Mr Adams submitted, suffi* 5 cient proof in answer ;to tho \ contention that plaintiff was following '4 his occupation of a soldier, even though | he was Vid up and unable/,to. do anv work. . Mr Adams submitted that the ■; payment of sick pay did not depend | upon whether the member was a waft < or salary earnor. A member who wju 4 carrying on a business of. his own,-m ' who was living on a private 1 was equally entitled to sick pay if h(, claimed it. and his cbntjition was' nrt> perly certified to. It was not suffi J cient. therefore, for the defence to si\ ' that the plaintiff was getting his qofaier's pay. They must be able to.say that he was able to fulfil the active ; duties of a soldier, and in this case tbo";£ plaintiff was not able to do so. v. a Mr Tonkinson said that'the-attitude •' the Ivanhoe Lodge had taken up was that of other lodges and orders, "and ' they wished tho point settled. Tlwjr submitted that plaintiff was not en- i; titled to sick pay. In a similar case ;< of another soldier member, the com- ?• 'nittee had resolved that no such'pay? • . 'nent was to be made until after tue " discharge of the member from'militrfiT service. Tlie committee's decisioniwas K ?bsolutelr final, and the lodge, cbnr idercd that this decision governed .ihp • •resent case. Counsel contended tJiAfc . the term "occupation" used in ' the • member's' declaration and in the dotr'a. tor's certificate meant "the means".by 4 vhich the livelihood is earned." The Magistrate said tho question ;v •aised was quite an interesting one.'rH< 'vould take time to consider his sion. .I '-'.V;*