APPENDIX OF OASES.
199
received by the defendant to the use of the society, it
appeared that the society had been established as early as
1825, and had, till 1853, been governed by a set of rules
duly certified. By one of the rules a treasurer was to be
appointed, and by another rule provision was made for
making alterations, which rule incorporated the 9th section
of 10 Geo. 4, c. 56. Under these rules the defendant was
appointed treasurer, and nothing had occurred to put an
end to his tenure of such office, unless the circumstances
after mentioned had that effect. In 1853 a set of new rules
was transmitted to the barrister, with an affidavit that, in
malting of them, the provisions of the Act under which the
rules of the society were enrolled had been duly complied
with. The new rules were duly certified, but it afterwards
appeared that they had been drawn up and transmitted
without any such meeting having been held as was prescribed
by the old rules and 10 Geo. 4, c. 56, s. 9. By the
new rules three trustees were to be appointed, one of whom
should be treasurer, in whose names the funds of the society
were to be invested. And whenever the unappropriated
stock amounted to above .£50, the same was to be invested
by the treasurer as a majority of the board of management
should direct, and pursuant to the 13 & 14 Viet. c. 115.
After the enrolment of the new rules, the three plaintiffs
were elected trustees, according to the regulations therein
prescribed, except that no one of them was treasurer, but
that another person, named Thomas Grune, was elected
treasurer. It was admitted on the part of the defendant
that he had received the money claimed on behalf of the
society ; but it was contended for him that he continued
treasurer, and that the plaintiffs were not legally appointed
trustees. For the plaintiffs it was admitted that the action
must fail, unless the plaintiffs could establish their title
under the new rules ; and it was further admitted that the
new rules had not been made in conformity with the old
rules ; but it was contended that the registrar’s certificate
was conclusive as to the validity of the new rules, and that
rt was not open to object that they were not regularly
adopted in the manner prescribed in the old rules. The
learned judge was of opinion that the certificate was not
conclusive, aud he directed a verdict for the defendant j
but it was afterwards arranged that the plaintiffs should be
nonsuited, with leave reserved to enter a verdict for them.
For the defendant it was further objected that the plaintiffs
were notentitled to sue, even supposing the new rules valid,
inasmuch as the 12th of those rules directed that one of
the three trustees should be treasurer, and none of the rules
