Opinion
March 24, 1939.
May 8, 1939.
Beneficial societies — Procedure — Expulsion of members — Hearing — Language used — Representation by outside attorney — By-laws — Appellate review.
1. Where the by-law of a beneficial association provided that any defendant had the right to be represented before the trial board of the association by counsel, and that such counsel might be any literate member of the association, the word "counsel" as used in such by-law did not give an absolute right to have an attorney-at-law, but a right to have someone in the association represent the accused. [531]
2. Where another by-law provided that the official languages of the federation should be Serbian and English, such by-law, under the circumstances, conferred no absolute right on the part of a member to insist upon the exclusive use of the latter tongue in the conduct of an expulsion proceeding. [531-2]
3. Where plaintiff, upon the advice of his attorney, chose to walk out of the hearing, he did so at his own risk and was obliged to take the consequences. [532]
4. A resolution passed by the convention, creating a committee as a trial board, to hear complaints and make recommendations thereon to the convention, was merely a necessary and proper amplification of the by-law, giving appellate power to the convention, and was not in derogation of plaintiff's rights. [532-3]
5. When the proceedings for expulsion in a beneficial association have been regular, fair and just, giving an impartial trial, the results must stand, and the appellate court will not go into the merits of the case nor the findings by the association which resulted in the expulsion. [533]
Appeals — Review — Findings of chancellor.
6. Findings of the chancellor approved by the court en banc are as binding on the appellate court as the verdict of a jury unless there is no evidence to support them or there is capricious disbelief of the evidence. [533]
Argued March 24, 1939.
Before KEPHART, C. J., SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN and STERN, JJ.
Appeal, No. 91, March T., 1939, from decree of C. P. Allegheny Co., Oct. T., 1936, No. 885, in equity, in case of Joseph Raynovic v. Simo Vrlinic et al. Decree affirmed.
Bill in equity. Before PATTERSON, J.
The opinion of the Supreme Court states the facts.
Decree entered dismissing bill. Plaintiff appealed.
Error assigned, among others, was dismissal of exceptions.
Jacob Seligsohn, with him H. L. Abrams, for appellant.
William H. Markus, with him Elmer A. Barchfeld, for appellees.
Joseph Raynovic had long been a member of the Serb National Federation, holding insurance therein. Expulsion proceedings were instituted by charges filed against him, and notice of a hearing before the Supreme Trial Board at Pittsburgh was duly given. Appellant appeared at the hearing, with an attorney not a member of the organization, and demanded the proceedings be conducted in English, since his attorney did not understand Serbian. The trial board refused his request. The official languages of the organization were English and Serbian. Several members of the board had difficulty in understanding English, and most of the documentary evidence was in Serbian. Appellant, by advice of his counsel, left the hearing, and the trial was conducted in his absence. He was expelled.
As provided by the by-laws, Raynovic appealed to the Convention of the Serb National Federation. The Convention appointed an advisory committee of five, to assist in its appellate work, which heard about one hundred appeals, including appellant's. Additional evidence was presented, and the recommendations of the committee were submitted to the Convention. Appellant was given an opportunity to defend himself and for almost an hour addressed the Convention. The action of the trial board was sustained.
Appellant contends that Section 2 of the by-laws ("The official languages of the Serb National Federation shall be Serbian and English") entitled him to a trial in English so that an attorney not familiar with the Serbian language could represent him. It is also urged that Section 114 ("Any defendant has the right to be represented before the Trial Board by counsel. Such counsel may be any literate member of the Federation.") gives him the right to be represented by an attorney and that the attorney need not be a member of the organization.
Appellant's contentions are without merit. The word "counsel" as here used does not give an absolute right to have an attorney-at-law, but a right to have someone in the federation represent the accused. The words "Such counsel may be any literate member of the Federation" are words of limitation and definition. Trial procedure in beneficial associations need not be conducted under rules of law applicable to court trials nor under the scrutiny of a lawyer.
Appellant's rights were in no wise prejudiced by having the trial conducted in Serbian, and we agree with the conclusion of the adjudication: "That the official languages of the Federation (Section 2 of the By-laws) were Serbian and English, conferred no right on plaintiff to insist upon the exclusive use of the latter tongue. Indeed, such procedure appears to have been impossible. All the documents presented, the complaints prepared, the utterances and publications by the plaintiff against the integrity of the Federation and its officers, the criticism of its financial policies, these were all in the Serbian language. The plaintiff, himself, speaks and understands the Serbian language better than he does English, and at least three members of the Trial Board found understanding of the English language, in the phraseology of such a hearing, difficult. Everyone concerned was more familiar with the Serbian language than the English, except the outside attorney-at-law, which the plaintiff had brought into the hearing to represent him. All these circumstances would indicate to us that the use of the Serbian tongue afforded the greatest facility for disposition of the matters involved, with the minimum of confusion."
When appellant chose to walk out of the hearing, he did so at his own risk and must take the consequences: Crow v. Capital City Council, 26 Pa. Super. 411. See also Com. v. Union League, 135 Pa. 301, 321. This is unlike the case of Lazic v. National Croatian Society et al., 260 Pa. 205, where a board attempted to expel a member without authority or jurisdiction over the subject-matter.
Appellant complains that his appeal to the Serb National Federation Convention was not properly proceeded with. The resolution passed by the Convention creating a committee of five as a trial board was not in derogation of his rights. The committee elected by the Convention, under Section 15 of the by-laws, had authority to hear complaints and make recommendations thereon to the Convention. This procedure was merely a necessary and proper amplification of Section 24 of the by-laws, which gave appellate power to the Convention. The circumstances show appellant's case was fully heard and adequately considered by the Federation.
"the convention shall elect . . . A committee of 5 to pass upon motions, petitions, and complaints referred to the convention."
The court below found the charge that certain members of the committee were unduly prejudiced, was not substantiated by sufficient evidence to set aside the proceeding. Findings of the chancellor approved by the court en banc are as binding on this court as the verdict of a jury unless there is no evidence to support them or there is capricious disbelief of the evidence.
Lodge No. 19 v. Svi Sveti et al., 323 Pa. 292; Patterson's Estate, 333 Pa. 92; Glenn v. Trees et al., 276 Pa. 165; Pusey's Estate, 321 Pa. 248; Weiss v. First National Bank of Scranton, 321 Pa. 365; Brown et al. v. Hoekstra, 279 Pa. 418; Secretary of Banking v. Southwestern B. L. Assn., 323 Pa. 317, 319; Mooney's Estate, 328 Pa. 273; Manheim v. Board Co. Com., 330 Pa. 92; Honan v. Donaldson, 331 Pa. 388.
When the proceedings for expulsion in a beneficial association have been regular, fair and just, giving an impartial trial, the results must stand, and this Court will not go into the merits of the case nor the findings by the association which resulted in the expulsion: Carlin v. Ancient Order of Hibernians, 54 Pa. Super. 512; Maloney v. United Mine Workers of America et al., 308 Pa. 251, 257; Lytle v. New Castle Agricultural Assn., 91 Pa. Super. 152; Com. v. Union League, 135 Pa. 301; Lodge No. 19 v. Svi Sveti et al., 323 Pa. 292; Beeman v. Supreme Lodge, 215 Pa. 627. The bill was properly dismissed.
Decree affirmed at appellant's cost.