Amicable Benefit Society (1871)

Post date: Mar 18, 2013 2:48:59 PM

Extract from Maidstone Telegraph 11 March 1871. See also Prettiest maidens Kent can boast of for an explanation of the club and also Amicable Benefit Society (1860)

THE WATERINGBURY AMICABLE FRIENDLY SOCIETY.

John Adams summoned the stewards of the Wateringbury Amicable Society for a superannuation allowance of 2s 6d.a week . Mr W. S. Norton appeared for the stewards of the society, and objected to the rules put in as not being the original copy certified by the late Tidd Pratt, Esq.

John Adams then deposed -I have been a member of the Amicable Friendly Society for years. The last time I received relief was on Thursday four weeks. I have been receiving 2s. 6d. week as superannuation money. I received 10s. 6d.a week for the first six months, after the six months 7s. or 7s. 6d. for another six months and then had 3s.6d. a week superannuation and at about at 18 months ago I consented to throw shilling a week off, leaving me to receive 2s. 6d. a week. I received 3s 6d. a. week about six months. I have not received any money for four weeks. The stewards then stopped the 2s. 6d.a week saying the funds would not allow them to pay.

Mr. Norton explained that the society was held at the Duke's Head, and that complainant had been a party to several alterations in the rules since their registration by Tidd Pratt and therefore he was amenable to any other alteration. He, however, again objected to the rules produced being put in as evidence as they were not the original copy.

Complainant observed that if he had done anything wrong he could understand their objecting to paying him, but he had not.

The Clerk—-The question appears to me to be whether the society is in a solvent state, if not they should wind it up as done by other societies. Mr. Norton —But the defendant has consented to receiving 2s 6d in lieu of 3s. 6d.

Clerk—But he don't forgo the 2s. 6d. Mr Norton—They were obliged to reduce 3s 6d to 2s 6d and now the stewards say they can't pay any more. The Clerk—-Then it is a question of their inability to pay. Mr Lee—Have you the last balance sheet to refer to.

Mr Norton —I will still ask for an adjournment, as there are great many things to look to.

Chairman —-You can adjourn it by paying the applicant's costs of the day.

Clerk- —It can't be from inability to pay for I see that they had £150 in hand at the time the last balance sheet was issued. Complainant said that he had been a member of the society for 40 years. One of the stewards said that they had paid £10 away since that balance sheet and that their feast day was coming on which cost £30. Complainant had received £2OO out of the funds. A magistrate observed then that because their feast day was coming on they were not to meet their liabilities.

Steward—-The members pay for the feast independently.

Mr Norton-—But my objection is technical one ; it that I object to the present rules of complainant being received as evidence. If complainant could not prove the rules the bench was in a position to dismiss the case. The Clerk remarked that the only way to get the original rules was by serving a notice on the stewards to produce them. Mr Lee considered that the man ought be paid at least his superannuation of 2s 6d week.

The Chairman—I think we had better adjourn the case for a month. Mr Norton— I don't admit the rules nor ask for an adjournment. Clerk-—Why it was your first suggestion to adjourn. Mr. Lee—l think the stewards ought to have produced the original rules here to-day. The case was adjourned till the next monthly sitting.

Extract from Maidstone Telegraph 8 April 1871. See also Prettiest maidens Kent can boast of for an explanation of the club and also Amicable Benefit Society (1860)

THE BENEFIT SOCIETY CASE.

The stewards of the " Amicable Benefit Society" Wateringbury, were summoned by another member whom they had excluded from the benefits of the club. The case which had been adjourned was settled by the society consenting to continue its payments. Thos Dadson deposed to having been a member of the society, for fifty two years and on the 2nd of Feb., by decision of the committee he was excluded from the benefits of the society. Mr Norton argued that there was a discretionary power vested in the committee by the rules, and they had discontinued the payments to Mr Dadson because they believed he was not sick within the meaning of the rules. Mr Dadson gave evidence to show that he was receiving medicine up to the time of the pay being discontinued and that subsequently had been admitted to the Infirmary for a few weeks. He paid 5s. per annum, into a doctor's club, and if doctor did not attend him as was alleged he had not, it was not his fault. The bench did not consider that the evidence was sufficient to show that the stewards and committee were justified in excluding the man from the benefits the club, and accordingly they overruled the decision of the committee.