
    The People of the State of New York ex rel. J. Carlton Ward, Appellant, v. Uptown Association, Respondent.
    
      Givis — expulsion of a member must not be cm'bitrwry—notice to appea/r— sending a, circular to other members of a dub criticising, the directors, amd ashing for a special meeting — effect of a false statement.
    
    A member of a club cannot be arbitrarily suspended, nor expelled upon insufficient grounds.
    A notice to a member of a club, requiring him to appear and answer charges, will not be construed with the strictness applicable to a pleading.
    A member of a club proposed a person for membership, who was rejected by the board of directors, and the member thereupon addressed a circular to the members of the club, stating the rejection of his friend, and that he had written a letter to the board of directors favoring his election, and that the rejection was made by two black balls, the minimum number, which, according to the by-laws, was necessary to exclude a candidate, and wns unwise, and asked that, pursuant to a provision of the by-laws, a call for a special meeting of the club be issued. Subsequently the relator was accorded a hearing before the board of directors, and his membership was annulled.
    Upon a motion made by the member for a mandamus to compel his reinstate- ■ ment in the club, the statement contained in the circular, that two black balls had rejected the candidate, was denied, it being alleged that nine ballots were cast against the candidate. The by-laws of the club authorized the directors to annul the membership of a member for conduct which in the judgment of the directors endangered the welfare or character of the club.
    
      .Held, that if the member knowingly published a false statement, or recklessly made one without seeking to ascertain whether it was true or false, it would afford a sufficient ground for his expulsion. That his expulsion, if based upon the sending of the circular, was not justified, as the member had a clear right .to appeal to his fellow-members to alter the by-laws or to change the personnel of the hoard of directors, hut that, as it did not clearly appear in what the member’s alleged offense consisted, the proper corase of the court was to direct the issue of an alternative writ of mandamus upon the return. of which it might be determined what proceedings were had against him, with what he was charged, and for what he was tried.
    Appeal by the relator, J. Carlton Ward, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the New York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 17th day of April, 1896, denying his motion for a writ of mandamus.
    This was a special proceeding for a writ of mandamus to compel a membership corporation, organized under chapter 267 of the Laws of 1875, and located in the city of New York, to reinstate the relator as a member. The application was for a "writ peremptory or alternative, as might he proper. It was denied by the Special Term in the first department. This appeal was transferred to the second department^ because all, or nearly all, the justices of the Appellate Division in the first department are members of the Uptown Association,
    
      Elihu, Root, for the appellant.
    
      William E. Sage, for the respondent.
   Cullen, J.:

The respondent undoubtedly possessed the power of amotion, and the relator by becoming a member assented to the authority vested in the directors of the corporation by its by-laws to annul his membership for conduct which might, in the judgment of the directors, endanger the welfare or character of the club. “ But it by no means follows that a member may be arbitrarily suspended or expelled upon insufficient grounds.” (In re Haebler v. N. Y. Produce Exchange, 149 N. Y. 414.) The relator proposed one Siegel for membership in the association. Favorable action on his nomination being-delayed, the relator obtained from the business associates of Siegel certificates or statements as to his character and qualifications. He then sent a letter to the board of directors giving the statements and expressing the hope that he would be immediately advised of Siegel’s election as a member of the club.. The candidate was rejected. Thereupon the relator addressed a circular to the members stating the fact of such rejection and the relator’s letter to the bodrd of directors. He urged that the candidate would be a desirable member and that his rejection was unwise, and asked that a call for a special meeting of the members, under the provision of the by-laws, be issued. In this circular the relator stated that two black balls had rejected the candidate. Subsequently the relator was notified that the board-of directors had under consideration this circular and that he would be heard before the board, to give such explanation as he might make in justification of his action. The relator was heard and the board of directors annulled his membership. By the statute the board of directors are elected by the members of the association. By the by-laws of the corporation two black balls exclude a candidate. Also, by the by-laws, twenty-five members may call a special meeting, and a special meeting may amend the by-laws. We think that the relator had the clearest and most undeniable right to appeal to his fellow-members, either to alter the by-laws or to change the personnel of the board of directors ; that for this purpose he had the right to state any material fact, and to fairly criticise any action of the governing authorities of the club. It may be unfortunate that there should be difference of opinion or disputes in club management, but dissension is a hazard to which all associate action is liable, and clubs no more than other organizations can expect to be exempt from this hazard. Of course the relator had no right to make any misstatement of fact or cast unfounded aspersions on the directors or his fellow-members. The concluding .sentence of his letter to the board of directors would indicate that modesty or diffidence is not his dominant characteristic. Whether his violation of good taste in this respect was serious enough to justify action by the directors it is not material to inquire, as he has not been disciplined for this letter but for the circular to the members. The opposing affidavit states that in fact nine ballots were cast against the candidate instead of two. If the relator knowingly published a false statement on this subject, or even recklessly made one without seeking to ascertain whether it was true or false, such conduct would be a sufficient ground for action by the board of directors. But the notification to appear before the directors seems to indicate, as the relator’s offense, his appeal to his fellow-members and not any false statement or unfair criticism made in that appeal. This, as we have said, could not of itself be an offense. Hence,, if we construe this notice with the strictness applicable to a pleading, we would say the ground for proceeding against the relator was insufficient. But such is not the rule applicable to the case, To require technical precision in complaints of this character * * * would greatly embarrass and many times defeat the disciplinary regulations of such associations.” (People ex rel. Johnson v. N. Y. Produce Exchange, 149 N. Y. 401.) However, in the case before us, the lack of precision has embarrassed us, for we are not clear for what offense the relator was disciplined. The relator appeared before the board and seems to have made no complaint that the charge was not definite. Therefore, he cannot now raise that objection. In this case'we think the .proper course is to direct the issue of an alternative writ, on the return to which can be determined what the proceedings against the relator were, what was the charge against him, and what he was tried for.

The order appealed from should be reversed and an alternative writ directed to issue, without costs to either party.

All concurred, except Babtlbtt, J., not voting.

Order reversed, without costs, and an alternative writ of mandamus directed to issue.  