APPENDIX OP CASES. 
213 
moneys, &c., were tlie property of tlie society previously 
to its registry. In Ex parte Gordon, 15 J. P. 767, a rule 
nisi for a certiorari was moved for, to bring up a con 
viction of Mr. Alderman Carrol, made under 13 & 14 
Viet. c. 115, s. 26, by which Gordon was ordered to pay 
over to certain persons named therein the sum of 
ill ,014 5s. 6d. The certiorari was taken away, and this 
rule could not therefore be granted, unless "there was 
entire want of jurisdiction ; but it was submitted that 
there was a want of jurisdiction, both as to the facts and 
upon the face of the conviction itself. First, as to the 
facts :—In and before 1848, Gordon had been the treasurer 
of a certain society of Foresters ; in that year there was a 
division in the society, which was in consequence split into 
two. Gordon remained with the larger division, and con 
tinued to act as treasurer to such division. At the time of 
the division, Gordon held, as treasurer to the entire societ}-,. 
a considerable sum of money. He continued to hold this 
money after the division, and permitted the society, of 
which he remained a member, to enjoy the proceeds of it - r 
but he considered that he still held it as a trustee for the 
entire society. In December, 1850, the said larger division 
of the original society was duly registered, and Mr. Aider- 
man Carrol had convicted Mr. Gordon of withholding this 
money from such registered society, and had ordered him 
to pay over to certain officers of the society the sum of 
,£1,014 5s. 6d., being double the sum so alleged to have been 
withheld. It was now submitted that the magistrate acted 
without jurisdiction, as the money withheld was clearly the 
money of the original entire society, and not of the divided 
society. And secondly, that the conviction was bad for 
ward; of jurisdiction on the face of it, as it did not show, 
as required by the 26th section of the Act, that it was- 
made on the complaint of any officer of the society appointed 
lor that purpose, but simply that it was made on the com 
plaint of certain officers of the society. The court held that 
on the first point there would be no rule, as the magistrate 
had jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and the facts were 
for his determination, but granted a rule on tire other point.. 
Where, however, an unregistered society had dissolved, 
and a portion of its members formed themselves into a 
registered society, it was held that the justices had no 
jurisdiction under this section against an officer of the 
original society who did not join the new society, and 
retained in his possession the papers of the original society 
Patrick v. Gilbert, 34 J. P. 597. 
The summary power given by this section does not pre