216 
APPENDIX OF CASES. 
appellant, as such, trustee, under 18 & 19 Yict. e. 63, s. 24, 
in which the respondent was charged “ for that, being an 
officer of the said friendly society, he did, having in his 
possession certain moneys belonging to the said society to 
the amount of £31 2s. lid., unlawfully withhold and mis- 
apply the same. The following facts were proved : — 
3. The respondent was duly appointed treasurer of the 
society, but had not been required to give the security 
directed by section 21 of the Act. The moneys which lie 
was charged with withholding and misapplying had been 
received by him in his character of treasurer for the use of 
the society. It was his duty to render quarterly an account 
of all moneys received and paid by him on account of the 
society, and to pay over to the trustees, on demand, the 
balance due from him on such accounts. The last account 
rendered by him was dated the 5th of August last, and it 
appeared therefrom that he was indebted to the society in 
the sum of ,£26 10s. 2\d., to that date, and from subsequent 
entries in the treasurer’s books, further sums, making a 
total sum due by him to the society of £31 2s. lid., the 
amount charged in the complaint. This sum he was unable 
to pay; and as he could not give such security for the 
payment as was satisfactory to the trustees, these pro 
ceedings were taken. There was no charge of fraud or 
misrepresentation against the respondent in respect of these 
moneys. 
4. The magistrate held that the inability and consequent 
refusal of the respondent to pay the balance was not a with 
holding or misapplying under section 24. 
The question lor the opinion of the court was whether 
the magistrate was right in dismissing the complaint. 
Oppenheim, for the appellant, cited Sinden v. Banks, 
3 E. & E. 623, and Ex parte O’Donnell, L. R. 1 Q. B. 274. 
John Thompson, for the respondent, was not called upon. 
Willes, J.—It appears to me that the statement in para 
graph 3 of the case that there was no charge of fraud or 
misrepresentation against the respondent in respect of these 
moneys makes an end of the matter. A civil remedy 
having been given against a defaulting officer by section 22, 
a proceeding of a criminal or penal nature is given by 
section 24 in respect of something which is of a criminal 
character. I do not say it is necessary that the matter 
complained of must, to bring it within section 24, be a 
thing for which an indictment would lie. I found my 
decision upon the language used in the beginning and at