Ashby v White et Al
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1688 |
| Date | 01 January 1688 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 90 E.R. 1188
IN CHANCERY AND THE EXCHEQUER-CHAMBER
See S. C. 2 Ld. Raym. 938 (with note).
3. ashby versus white & al'. Mich. 2 Ann. [See S. C. 2 Ld. Eaym. 938 (with note).] Mod. Cas. 45, 50, 53, 56. 1 Salk. 19, 20. 3 Salk. 17. In action upon the case against the constables of Ailesbury, the plaintiff declared, that such a day the late King's writ issued and was delivered to the Sheriff of B. for election of members of Parliament in his county; whereupon the said sheriff made out his precept or warrant to the defendants, being constables of A. to chuse two burgesses for that borough, which precept was delivered to the said constables ; and that, in pursuance thereof, the burgesses were duly assembled, &c. and the plaintiff, being then duly qualified to vote for the election of two burgesses, offered to give his voice for Sir. T. L. and S. M. Esq; to be burgesses of Parliament for the said borough ; but the defendants knowing the premisses, with malice, &c. obstructed him from voting, and refused and would not receive his vote, nor allow it; and that two burgesses were chose, without allowing or receiving his voice : a verdict was found for the plaintiff; and upon motion in arrest of judgment, three Judges held, that this action would not lie, 'till the Parliament had decided, whether the plaintiff had a right to vote as an elector. Holt C.J. The case is truly stated, and the only question is, whether or not, if a burgess of a borough, that has an undoubted right to give his vote for the chusing a burgess of Parliament for that borough, is refused giving his vote, has any remedy in the King's Courts for this wrong against the wrong-doer? All my brothers agree, that he has no remedy ; but I differ from them, for I think the action well maintainable, that the plaintiff had a right to vote, and that in consequence thereof the law gives him a remedy, if he is obstructed ; and this action is the proper remedy. By the common law of England, every commoner hath a right not be subjected to laws, made without their consent; and because it cannot be given by every individual man in person, by reason of number and confusion, therefore that power is lodged in their representatives, elected by them for that purpose, who are either knights, citizens or burgesses : and the grievance here is, that the party not being allowed his vote, is HOLT. K B. 6. PARLIAMENT 1189 not represented. The election of knights of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morgan v Simpson
...affected the result, the election was good, but the rejected voter could have an action for damages against the returning officer - see Ashby v. White (1703) 2 Ld. Raymond 938. 13 Such as the method of election at common law. It was open. Not by secret ballot. Being open, it was disgraced b......
- Ashby v White et Alios
-
Jesse Waiariki Temanava Butler v Martin Shepherd Hc Ak
...to rely on overseas decisions about different rights legislation. 7 S 76(2)(a), s 79(5) 8 S 92B 9 S92I(c), 92M-920 10 (1703) Holt ICB 524,90 ER 1188 11 Gorringe v Calderdale Metropolitan Borough Council [2004] 1 WLR 12 See Lord Wilberforce in Anns v London Bovozlgh of Merton [1978] AC 728 ......