Standing upon that advice, the trustees refused to allow the money to be paid. The lodge requested the Executive to call a special Council to consider whether a grant should be given them. The request was refused, because, as the rules had been violated and the trustees had decided that no money should be paid, it was no use calling the Council, seeing, if the vote were given to pay, the decision could not be carried out. However, the question was brought forward at the conclusion of a Council, and the delegates decided to pay a grant equal to strike allowance, but the trustees refused to allow the money to be drawn from the bank. The Executive then placed the position before the members. They said the giving of a grant was but a form of evading the provisions of the constitution. The decision of the Council placed the treasurer in a dilemma: either he had to refuse to pay, or face a prosecution in court for paying money contrary to rule. The Committee had, therefore, either to leave the treasurer to his own devices, or call the trustees together, and place the whole question before them. The meeting was held in the office of Dr R. S. Watson, who was one of the trustees. They decided to take the case to the Court of Chancery, and to inform the Washington Lodge of their intention, and give them the opportunity of being parties to the case. Mr Isaacs (the Association lawyer) was instructed to write the lodge, which he did. He said he was instructed to inquire whether they wished "to be a party to the proceedings, and if so, to kindly supply me with the name and address of any one of your members whom you may appoint to represent the lodge." After some negotiations, and with the view to make the matter mutual, the Executive agreed to bear the cost of the trial for both sides. The hearing did not take place until the 8th of February 1900, but in order that we may keep it in close connection it will be well to consider it here. It was heard in the Chancery Court, before Justice Cozens Hardy. The Association was represented by Mr I. Isaacs, its legal adviser, and the lodge by Mr C. W. Newlands of South Shields. There were able barristers on both sides. The judge decided: