Attorney General v Corporation of Poole
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Date | 01 January 1844 |
| Court | High Court of Chancery |
English Reports Citation: 50 E.R. 30
ROLLS COURT
S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 101; 9 Jur. 318.
30 ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CORPORATION OF POOLE 8BEAV.75. [75] the attorney-general v. the corporation of poole. June 3, 28, 29, July 1, Nov. 13, 1844. [S. C. 14 L. J. Ch. 101 ; 9 Jur. 318.] Jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery to moderate the amount of compensation awarded by the town council, on wrong principles, to a corporate officer under the Municipal Corporation Act. Under the Municipal Corporation Act, officers "removed" under its provisions, became entitled to compensation. A. B., the then town clerk, made no formal surrender of his office, nor any attempt to procure his reappointment, or to contest the election of C. D., who was appointed town clerk. Held, that this constituted a removal of A. B. from his office. For the purpose of establishing a claim to compensation for the loss of a connected or dependent office, it ought to be shewn; 1st, that the office was connected, or understood to be connected with, or dependent upon, the corporate office lost; and, 2dly, that the loss of it was connected with the loss of the principal office, but it is not required by the Act, that the connected or dependent office, or the office understood so to be, should be itself a corporate office. Held, that the circumstance of a town clerk having continued, for some time after he was removed from the office, to perform the duties of the offices of clerk of the peace and clerk of the magistrates until other clerks were appointed, did not, in any way, interfere with his right to compensation for the loss of those offices. The town elerk of Poole, who had several offices at the time of the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, was removed. Held, that he was entitled to compensation for the following connected offices:-Solicitor to the corporation, clerk of the peace, magistrate's clerk, solicitor to the quay committee, solicitor to the water bailiff, and prothonotary of the weekly Court of Record; but that he was not entitled to compensation for the offices of solicitor to the coroner, under-sheriff, solicitor to the overseers and guardians of the poor of the town and county, solicitor to the surveyors of highways, and solicitor to the lamp and watch commissioners^ This information was filed by the Attorney-General at the relation of certain ratepayers in the borough of Poole, in the county of Dorset, against the Corporation, Mr. Parr, and Mr. Arnold. It impugned the validity of the compensation awarded to the Defendant Parr for the loss of offices held by him in the borough, at the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act. (5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76.) The case formerly;came before the Court on demurrer, and upon appeal (2 Keen, 190, 4 Myl. & Cr. 17, and 8 Cl. & Fin. 409), and it now came on for hearing. The facts of the case are so fully detailed in the judgment of the Court, that it would be useless here to repeat them. B 6] Mr. Kindersley and Mr. Follett, in support of the information, r. Teed and Mr. Dickenson, for the Corporation. Mr. Turner and Mr. Freeling, for the Defendant, Mr. Parr. The following authorities were relied on: The. Queen v. The Corporation of Poole (1 Ad. & E. 730), The Queen v. The Lards of the Treasury, re Loxdale (10 Ad. & E. 179), The King v. The Mayor of Bridgewater (6 Ad. & E. 339), The King v. The Mayor of Swansea (11 Ad. & E. 66), The Queen v. Carmarthen (11 Ad. & E. 9). the master of the rolls reserved judgment. Nov. 13. the master of the rolls [Lord Langdale]. This information prays a declaration, that the Defendant Robert Henning Parr, having voluntarily resigned the office of town clerk of the borough of Poole, is not, under the Municipal Reform Act, entitled to any compensation in respect of such office, and that the Town Council of Poole had no authority to award any compensation in respect thereof. But, if it should appear that he did not voluntarily resign, but was removed from the office by the Corporation, that it may be declared, that, according to the true construction of the Act, he was entitled to compensation only in respect of the office of town clerk, and not in respect of any other office which was held by him, and that 8BBAV.77. ATTORNEY-GENERAL V. CORPORATION OF POOLE 31 the town council had no authority to award him'any compensa-[77]-tion in respect of any other office; and that the award of a sum of £4500, having been made to him in respect not only of the office of town clerk, but also of several other offices, was illegal and not binding on the Corporation, and that a bond given to him for that sum was fraudulent and void, or else ought to stand only as a security for such, if any, sum as he should be properly entitled to. And that it may be referred to the Master to inquire what, if any, amount of compensation he is entitled to, and for consequential relief. The Municipal Corporation Act was passed on the 9th of September 1835. (5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76.) Mr. Parr was at that time town clerk of the borough of Poole, and he at the same time held several other offices, which he alleges to have been more or less dependent upon or connected with the office of town clerk, and amongst those offices, were the offices of clerk to the justices and clerk of the peace, which, by the 102d section of the Act, were declared to be incompatible. On the 26th of December 1835 the town councillors were elected, and, it is said, that two-thirds of their whole number were Tories or Conservatives, to which party Mr. Parr belonged. The election of officers took place on the 1st of January 1836, and on that occasion Mr. Thomas Arnold was elected to the office of town clerk. Mr. Parr was not reappointecl, and on the 4th of August 1836 he presented his memorial to the town council for compensation, and he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL, At the relation of JOHN REA, on behalf of himself and all the other Inhabitants of the Borough of Belfast, subject to the payment of rates, Petitioner; THE MAYOR, ALDERMEN and BURGESSES of THE BOROUGH of BELFAST; and JOHN POTTS and fifteen others (Aldermen and Councillors of said Borough); JOHN THOMPSON (Treasurer) and JOHN BATES (Townclerk, and Solicitor to the Corporation); Respondents
...v. Holland 15 Law Jour., N. S., 91 b, Ex. Attorney-General v. MiddletonENR 2 Ves. sen. 327. Attorney-General v. Corporation of PooleENR 8 Beav. 75. Wilde v. Gibson 1 H. Lds. Cas. 605. Attorney- General v. Hartley 2 J. & W. 353, 369, 386. Parr v. The Attorney-General C. & F. 409; and see S. ......