DISMISSED FROM CLUB

Feilding Star, Volume 7, Issue 2135, 14 February 1929, Page 5

DISMISSED FROM CLUB

REINSTATEMENT CLAIMED

ACTION IN' SUPREME COURT

BY 'GOB,DON PERRY

Action was taken by Stanley Gordon Perry, farmer, of Waituna, in the Snpreinq Court, before Mr Jus tico Smiilll'4 in ’ Palmerston yesterday against the Fefklittg iClub, Incorporated, claiming that the resolution of his .suspension from the dub as a and void, that he bo restored to the list of members, and that an injunction be issued prohibiting the committee and servants of the club from interfering with plaintiff’s pairtioipation of memberhip. He ►also' claimed £IOO damage s.

Mr H. It. Cooper, counsel for claimant, submitted evidence that in December, 1027, a prohibition order was issued against' plaintiff on his own application. On August 3*l, 1928, at a special general meeting, a motion was passed to amend tfcte rules of the club to include that any: person with a, prohibition order issued against him should cease to be a. member. The secretary then advised him that he had ceased M ■ be a member. Plaintiff claimed that bis .status as a member of the defendant club was not affected by the alterations to the rules. On request Pc attended a committee meeting of the club on November 2, 1928, but, hoi alleged, be was not given a reasonable opportunity jof defending: himself and meeting accusations brought against him.. He submitted that, the committee, in passing the resolution, did not act in good faith, but maliciously and without reasoiir ablo and probable cause and had prior toi the holding of the meeting on November 2, 1928, determined to suspend {plaintiff with' the purpose of terminating Pis membership. Mr A. M. Ongley, for the defence' submitted thajti plaintiff, as a prohibited person, had been guilty of! gross misconduct by coming into l the club (premises in a drunken condi-1 tion, and in possession of intoxienr- j ting liquor, and offering intoxicating liquor to the steward of the club for consumption. At' a duly convened meeting of the committee, notice of which wa„ given to plaintiff, and at. which plaintiff attended, he was suspended as a member of the club. Plaintiff did not avail himself of the privilege 'Wat, if plaintiff was not removed within one month,.‘‘then he was entitled to have the question tb‘ aided by the members within 40; days. !

Gordon Perry, claimant, said lie had been a. member of the club since 1912 or 1913. Following bankruptcy, he- was discharged in August, 1.928, and was reinstated as a. in ember.

In reply to Mr Ongley witness said it was practically put to him that because be slipped on the mat We was drunk. He- said bo did not know it when Ongley suggested there never was a. maitJ there.

Perry said he agreed not to enter the club while his prohibition order was in force. This, be said, expired in December, 1928. He said lie would have apologised if he knew had misconducted himself in June. He was refused information as to who was acting as witness against him.

11l reply to; Mr Ongley, Perrv said he would suggest that Messrs. GooObehere and iSbndsford /(Manager of (the Union Bank) were biased against him. Prior to the bankruptcy he ran over Goodbehera in .avoiding another nlan with him after he left the club. Since, he inn over Goodbehere ! lle thought he was biased, her ■cause of the latter’is general behaviour towards Mm. He heard nothing of the matter until he was called to attend the committee, which was held in the strangers’ room, contrary to the usual practice. What he could not understand, he said, was wtyy lie was allowed ,to drive home in June if ho were intoxicated, and nothing was said about it until later, in October. He remembered a 'dojnversatidn with the secretary of the club when he was told that the committee were determined to. get rid of him. .Mi- Ongley said the/ committee were of the view that itihe man should not belong tri the club when he had broken a prohibition order, and wanted to get him out as quietly as possible. Edmund Goodbehere, president of the Feilding lOlnb for the last four or five years, said he was not bi;m--at all towards Pcin-y, The action following the accident, he said, was a police action. All committee moot*, ings, he said, were held in the stranger’s room, fit! wa s tl/e first occasion in his 40 years’ association with the club tharj it bad come to the knowledge iof the com miff tee that a. member had a. prohibition order out against him. At the conclusion of the qvidence at a meeting ho was satisged that Perry brought liquor into the club during the period of Ms prohibition order. He stated to Cooper that his evidence, he had

/ been told by several people, had been effective in securing the dismissal of *» jpoliee charge against , Perry a,ti the time of the accident, j Hi s Honour reseawed his decision.