EXPULSION FROM CLUB.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXII, Issue 18949, 21 February 1925, Page 11

EXPULSION FROM CLUB.

WELLINGTON BOWLING CASE. AN INJUNCTION GRANTED. RULES NOT STRICTLY OBSERVED. I.rtv TEI.EGRAPH.- - TRESS ASSOCIATION'.] VKLLINOTON. Friday, 'I he r|ijr»«iir>ti as to whether the Wellington Bowling < 'hib, Ltd., was justified in expelling from membership James Dickson Sievwrighf, was decided this morning in a reserved decision delivered by Ml". J usl.K-0 O.sflor. Sievwrighf proeeeded apa.in.st the club, claiming a, declaration that- he was still a member, and had not forfeited his share:, or rights m the company, also damages, £25. In March lasl lie went In Ibe club and found that a leg had been cut, from a, pair of his trousers, following which, if was alleged, blows were struck. The other member concerned complained lo the directors, who called upon Sicvwright, to attend a meeting of inquiry, Sievwrighf, declined to attend on the ground that, it was beneath his dig nity. The directors, after hearing evidence, passed a, resolution expelling him from the, dub, Sievwright, immediately afterwards commenced an action in the Supreme. Court. In delivering judgment. His Honor decided that, plaintiff must, be, considered to be a shareholder in the company. The low "ii the point- of power of expulsion was well settled, and was as follows; "In exercising the power of expulsion from the club not, only must there, be strict, compliance with the rules, but, the. principles of natural justice, must be observed, unless it plainly appears on the. const ruction ot the rules that the power was intended to bo an absolute one." In this case, continued His Honor, it was not, absolute. In determining what, must he necessary for valid expulsion, the following conditions: must lie satisfied: (1) That, the member expelled had had due notice and opportunity of being heard. (2) that there had been no want of good faith, (35 that there had been some cause which a reasonable body of men might consider reasonable, (4) that the rules had been observed. His Honor held that plaintiff bad a fair opportunity of being heard, but refused to avail himself of il ; that the directors acted m good faith upon the evidence before them, wit-bout- mentioning a previous occasion on which plaintiff had displeased them. He held thai it the directors had considered all the evidence, arid had come to a conclusion upon it, as they did unanimously, then they had reasonable cause for flKur action in forfeiting plaintiff's share. After dealing at length with the, question as to whether the rules were strictly complied with. His Honor decided that the del.iv of a week, which occurred after the charge was made in writing before such charge was forwarded to the plaintift, was neither strict, nor substantial in compliance with the rule governing expulsion. He did not consider it necessary to decide whether the rule concerned was ultra or intra vires. In. view of this decision that the rules had not been strictly complied with, the purported expulsion was held to be invalid. and an injunction to restrain the company from acting on the resolution was granted. Nominal damages fixed at £l. and costs on the lower scale were awarded plaintiff.