The King against Alexander John
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Date | 01 January 1795 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 88 E.R. 101
COURTS OF KING'S BENCH, CHANCERY, COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER
[132] case 89. the king against alexander john. Formerly, the Court would grant an information quo warranto to try the right by which a corporator held his office, although he had been sixteen years in quiet possession of it.-Post, 166. Upon a motion in Trinity term last, a rule was made for the defendant to shew cause why an information in the nature of a quo warranto should not be granted against him, to shew by what authority he came to be Mayor of Lestwithiel, in the county of Cornwall. 102 TRINITY TERM, 9 GEO. 1. IN B. R. 8 MOD. 133. In Hilary term following cause was shewn, that by the charter of incorporation a mayor is always to be elected out of the capital burgesses, to continue in hia office until a new mayor be duly chosen; that the defendant, the present mayor, was never a capital burgess, and consequently could never be duly chosen mayor out of those burgesses ; and therefore is no mayor. The answer was, that he was chosen a capital burgess in the year 1697 ; that as many of the inhabitants as are now living saw he was duly elected, excepting one John John, who now complained against him; and that having so long acquiesced under that election, it shall not now be brought in question, it being a standing rule in cases of this nature, that they shall not be examined in such remote degrees ; for if they should, then they might enquire whether the defendant was a freeman before he was a burgess, and whether he was a burgess before he was a capital burgess, which would be very inconvenient; [133] that the defendant was chosen mayor in the year 1706 ; and that the corporation, for some differences arising amongst themselves, did not proceed to any election of capital burgesses since that time : so that this borough wanted a sufficient number of such burgesses to elect a new mayor, and for that reason the defendant had continued mayor ever since. Pratt, Chief Justice, was of opinion, that the fact was plain that the defendant had been mayor of this place for sixteen years together, which is a sufficient cause for an information (a); so that the rule was made absolute, and the parties were left to try the right upon this information (b); though one of the Judges was of opinion, that a mandamus to elect a capital burgess and a mayor had been a good and proper method. Afterwards a trial was had upon this information, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grafton's Case
...fine a freeman for not taking-up his livery, and recover it by action of debt.-S. C. 2 Keb. 955. S. C. March. 179. 1 Sid. 288. 6 Mod. 132. 8 Mod. 132. 12 Mod. 269, 665. Comyns, 22. Ld. Bay. 1566. 1 Term Rep. 118. Grafton, one of the Company of Drapers, was brought into Court by habeas corpu......