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  conviction ­
  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  continued ­
  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.  Aiderman
  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  forward; ­
  of  jurisdiction  on  the  face  of  it,  as  it  did  not  show,
as  required  by  the  26th  section  of  the  Act,  that  it  wasmade
  on  the  complaint  of  any  officer  of  the  society  appointed
lor  that  purpose,  but  simply  that  it  was  made  on  the  complaint ­
  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 ­