FRIENDLY SOCIETIES NOT REGISTERED. 
141 
those issuing or liable under policies of assurance upon 
human life, or granting annuities upon human life. 
(1st.) By sect. 4 of the Companies Act, 1862, it is provided 
that “ no company, association, or partnership, consisting of 
more than twenty persons, shall be formed after the com 
mencement of this Act for the purpose of carrying on any 
business (a) that has for its object the acquisition of gain 
by the company, association, or partnership, unless it is 
registered as a company under this Act, or is formed in 
pursuance of some other Act of parliament, or of letters 
patent, or is a company engaged in working mines within 
and subject to the jurisdiction of the Stannaries.” On this 
the commissioners remark that “it would seem at least 
doubtful whether an unregistered society of more than 
twenty members, which places out at interest the contribu 
tions of its members, and divides its funds among them at 
stated periods, is not, since the Companies Act, 1862, an 
illegal company.” This point is of great importance, and, 
while the doubt which it raises exists, all societies having 
a rule or practice of dividing funds should accept the benefits 
of registration under the Friendly Societies Act of 1875. 
If it should prove correct that all societies for mutual 
assurance (or even only those which have a practice of 
dividing), that exceed twenty in number and are not 
registered, are illegal, it becomes important to consider 
what is the effect of such illegality. The question arises, 
whether all persons concerned might not be found guilty 
of misdemeanor at common law, for violation of the re 
quirements of the statute, since, in the words of Lord 
Campbell, “ to violate an Act of parliament, although there 
is no specific penalty attached to the violation, is a misde 
meanor, and a person who does so is liable to be indicted 
mid punished It is not the practice, however, of 
(a) The word “business” lias a more extensive signification 
than “trade.” Per Willes, J., in Karris v. Amory, where 
fanning was held to be a business within the meaning of the 
Companies Act, L. It. 1 C. P. 148. 
(b) Longworth’s case, 1 De Gex, F. & J. 31. Further as to 
illegality in contracts of partnership, see Scratchley and Bra- 
brook on Building Societies, pp. 99-101.