IMPORTANT DECISION.

Timaru Herald, Volume XIIIC, Issue 13713, 30 September 1908, Page 7

IMPORTANT DECISION.

JUDGMENT AGAINST CLUB

SECRETARY,

case °i considerable interest to secretaries of. clniis .and friendly sOcjctKswas decided at the Magistrate's Court, Geraldiiie, yesterday, when llr C. A. Wray, S.M., gave judgment in the cas« of Edwin Bull, Peel Forest, v. Frederick McCallum, of Afartinborougli. Th« judgment stated that this was a claim for hares supplied bv the plaintiff to the order of the defendant, who is secretary of the .Martinborough Coursing Club. The receipt of the number of hares (44) *ued for and the price £l4 6s, is not contested, but the defendant denies his liability on the giound that- it was the club, through its that had ordered the hares. The evidence of defendant was taken at borough on the 4th August, from which it appears that there luid beeu dealings between the parties from the year 1905, and that pre* vious consignments bad Wn paid for bj j the cliques of the coursing club, signed j by the secretory and treasurer. Th® defendant is riot a member of the club, but u paid secretary, and was authorised by resolution of the club to purchase tiie harvs and signed his orders as secretary. The hare* were aupplied in two h»tfi, the last order being by telegram. The order fur these (9) was sent on his own responsibility, but his action was endi»i>ed at a sub*-tjuenl meeting of the committee. He promised afterwards to pay when subscription* came in, but subscription* did not come in. The chairman of the club gave corroltoration, and said it was never intended by the com mittee or club that the defendant .should be |terminally liable, that tlte club would have juid for the bar.'* if it liad the tm-an* to do so, and that the club ix not a regintered (incorporated) club. The treasurer said he had signed the cheque* which ha<l been sent from time to time to the pluintiff for hares. It wa* also said that the defendant had not been paid for his service* a." secivtury. The c;ws bearing on contracts by club* are collect ed in the Tncvclopaedia of the Laws of Kngland i pages 51). and k apjiears that an unincorporated club cannot be sued. It is now settled law "that no member of a club is liable to a creditor except *o fa! as lie Assented to the contract in respect ot v.liii:i( s|ic}( liability has arisen" (in m St. .lames Cluti, 1855, £ de U. M and (j. "•85, Mi 9;. I'll*- rules commonly fiuthorise the committee of a club to act by >|uorurn, or to delegate their jtowetn t«> a Meward. 'Todd v. Ktnly, l&U, Mee and W 505.) .Such a ijuorum or such ag<uit becomes the aytilit of the It Mill hers of the club, hut iipnrt from >uclj authority i M'liicli jt, js for th- merchant to prove an individual memljer uf the committee, not having in any war jwiv eij his p rvonal credit, is not ]-».-oii«i!ly baldi- for good* supplied to a club In jfio pte*cn! >.!«-• the authority of .t ijuor mu <<i t!«P i:o:iinntt«' was given U i (lie »««.-retary u> pur« .it two »epar.it'- coinmittc.- ni-etwg* fith •! wly .»isd 20th Augu«t.. but. thy iiunics <,t tbo*.- nicniltr* wrr-- not roßiintnirated to ilm* p!oo;>!f. who had no uiratii of killing at i i-rabllnr. in South ('anScbtny. m l».it wa* being don*, at Mart int*>r.fugh. in the V«>ri(> I»l.md. Ho w.ix therefor* n«>t u> » jK»sition to know what member* of ih.t committee, if any. w. r« liable. According to hi* evidence, ! hplaintiff gave credit. to sb- defendant, from whom he had rei«":vd rh«-<iuf» on ptwiou* uiu»iuii», and !ookr-l io him for

payments*. hi: -knowing nothing of the vOiumitteeor* fcinb. Xt seems thai, that • though defendant signed himself secre-, taiy of the club, ana said he,tfos acting' under the instructions of the club committee, he did not disclose to the?* plainfrtf the identity of his principal, that: is I to say, he did not give, the names ot i the committee who authorised the ' pur- ' «liasc- of the hares, and- Were privy' to the contract he entered into. The whole matter thus resolves itself into one to be uecided by the law of Principal and Agents and the question is whether the defendant, contracted UiS an agent for an undisclosed principal, he having failed' to disclose the identity of that principal. This is fully discussed in a leading case (Thomson v. Davenport, 9 B.' and Crew 78, 88) and quoted in " Storey on Agency" Bth edition 267; (see also note 3) in the words foEowing" So if ' the agent should at the time of" the purchase of the goods, acknowledge that he is purchasing for another person, but should not then name him, in such ' case he would be personally liable, although the principal when discovered might also be liable for the debt." This can be no injustice as applied to the present case. The defendant was fully acquainted with the affairs of the club; he could* easily have protected himself by collecting the money before distributing the hares,' and - it is idle for the chairman and the treasurer to say that it was nevetr intended to muke the secretary peraonally liable at the expense of the plaintiff, who wasin a different part ,of the Dominion, and in justice had to be paid. Surely these "sportsmen" should have promptly come forward and paid the debt. 1 must- accordingly hold -the defendant liable. Judgment will be. for the plaintiff for the amount claimed £l4 6s and, costs £2 3s. Mr T. C. Farnie appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Cooke for defendant.