BENEFIT SOCIETIES

New Zealand Times, Volume LXXI, Issue 4312, 22 March 1901, Page 3

BENEFIT SOCIETIES

THE WHARF LABOURERS’ UNION. Judgment in the case P. Garrick against J. D. Parminter (secretary of tho Wellington Wharf Employees’ Benefit Society) was delivered by Dr McArthur, S.M., at the Stipendiary Magistrate’s Court yesterday morning. The case is one of interest to unions and members thereof.

Mr Cooper, who appeardd for plaintiff when the case was heard, objected, on tho ground that the Court had no jurisdiction. In support thereof, he quoted rule 17 of the society’s rules, as to disputes in connection with section 27 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1882, which reads:—“Every dispute between a member, or person claiming through a member, or under tho rules "of a registered society or ' registered branch, and the society 1 or registered branch or officer thereof, shall be decided in manner di-, rected by the rules of the-society or re-, gistered branch, and the decision to made shall be binding and conclusive on all parties without appeal, and shall nob be removable into any court of law or j restvaiuahle by injunction, and applica-1 tion for tho enforcement thereof may j he made to a Resident Magistrate’s l ■Court.” The facts of tho case are as follows : ] Plaintiff, who was a member of the Wei-] lington Wharf Employees’ Benefit So-1 ]cielt.v, met with an accident, and went i to the Hospital on the 4tb July, 1900. j Ho came out of the Hospital on the 6th! November and entered a convalescent, home. On November 22ud he gave no-1 tica to the! society that ho was unable, ] from sickness, to follow his employment from July 4th. Plaintiff was “financial” when ho met with tho accident, but became “unfinancial” on July 13th. A meeting of the society was called in December. No decision was arrived at in connection with plaintiff’s letter, and on January’Oth, 1901, he demanded, through his solicitors, the sum of £7 los, which ho considered ho was entitled to under the rules of the sccidty. Defendant denied any liability, and plaintiff asked that a special meeting of members of tho society bo called to consider tho claim. A meeting was called for Janu ■ ary 21st, which plaintiff was invited to attend. In consequence of the letter having miscarried (it was received by a neighbour of, plaintiff’s) ho did not attend. The committee of the society decided to disalloiv plaintiff’s claim, on tho grounds that plaintiff was not a “financial” member of tho society when ho tendered his claim, being twenty-four weeks in arrears; and that his reasons for tho delay in sending in his claim could be in -nowise considered satisfactory. This result was intimated to plaintiff or. February 13tb, and he brought the proceedings ca tho 23th of that month. His Worship hold that tho society, though by no means generous to the plaintiff, had acted within its rights, as laid down by its rules, and that lie was therefore, by section 27 of the Friendly Societies Act, 1832, precluded from exercising jurisdiction in tho matter. The committee , had admitted * that its decision might seem to bear heavily on the plaintiff. Tho Magistrate, recommended tho society to make plaintiff some compensation. After taking all the facts into consideration, he was not inclined to allow-costs. Mr Dalrieli appeared for defendant.