Ex parte Harvey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Date | 01 January 1838 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 648
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 3 N. & P. 159; 7 L. J. Q. B. 129.
The following case was decided on the last day of this term. Ex parte harvey. 1838. By a resolution of the Corporation of Bath, a person was directed to attend upon arid assist the chamberlain of the city in the various business of his office, under the direction of the committee for inspecting the chamberlain's accounts. The appointment was during good behaviour, at an annual salary, payable quarterly. The person so appointed retiring, H. was, in 1810, requested by the then chamberlain to accept the office of assistant chamberlain; and the corporation, in common hall, on the chamberlain's statement that he wanted a person in place of the late assistant, resolved (but the resolution was not communicated to H.), that the chamberlain should be authorised to employ such fit and proper person to assist him in his said office as he should think proper. The chamberlain told H. that he was appointed, and H. entered upon the duties. A new chamberlain being afterwards appointed, the corporation, by a resolution in common hall, resolved that H. should be recommended to the new chamberlain as his assistant; and he was continued in that employment. On the passing of stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, a new town council was appointed, and a committee named by them recommended that the office of assistant chamberlain should be discontinued, which was accordingly done. Held, that the employment of assistant chamberlain under these circumstances was not an office for which compensation could be claimed under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 7, s. 66. [S. C. 3 N. & P. 159; 7 L. J. Q. B. 129.] Sir W. W. Follett moved for a rule, calling on the town-council of the City and borough of Bath to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue commanding them to award compensation to Thomas Harvey under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, s. 66, for his (a) See the next ease. 7 AD. (SE.740. EX PARTE HARVEY 649 loss of the office of assistant chamberlain. The following facts appeared by an affidavit of Mr. Harvey. On October 6th, 1794, it was resolved by the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citizens of Bath, in common hall assembled, " That John Mayer be continued and employed by and under this corporation in doing the various business relative to [740] the water-works, &c., belonging to this corporation, under the direction of the water committee; and that the said John Mayer do attetid the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Council of The Borough of Manchester
...11 A. & E. 9; Regina, v. The Mayor, &c. of York, 3 Q. B. 550; Regina v. The Corporation of Pooh, 7 A. & E. 730; Exparte Harvey, 7 A. & E. 739. On the nature of the office of clerk to the justices at Petty Sessions, and to the stipendiary magistrate: Com. Dig. Courts (P, 9); Harding v. Pollo......
-
The Queen against The Mayor Aldermen and Burgesses, of the Borough of Carmarthen
...have been held during good behaviour: it is abolished by the Act; and the present office of town clerk is totally new." Ex parte Harvey (7 A. & E. 739. 3 N. & P. 159), is in point, and shews that this is not an office for which compensation can be claimed. The entries in the corporation boo......
-
The Queen, at the prosecution of Joseph Holmes, v The Town-Council of The Borough of Drogheda
...The Queen v. The Mayor of Sandwich 2 Q. B. 895; S. C. 10 Q. B. 563. The Queen v. The Mayor of Manchester 5 Q. B. 402. Ex parte Harvey 7 A. & E. 739. Ex parte Lee 7 A. &E. 139. The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of Poole 4 Myl. & Craig, 17. The Queen v. The Mayor of Norwich 3 Q.B. 285. ......