The King against John Heaven
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Date | 27 November 1788 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 416
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
the king against john heaven. Thursday, Nov. 27th, 1788. This Court will not grant an information in nature of a quo warranto against a corporator for non-residence until he has been amoved by the corporation. This was a rule calling on the defendant to shew cause why an information in nature of a quo warranto should not be exhibited against him, to shew by what authority he claimed to be an alderman of the borough of Bedford. The affidavit, on which the rule was obtained, stated, that the borough of Bedford was a borough and corporation by prescription, governed by a mayor, recorder, and an indefinite number of aldermen, two bailiffs, and 13 common council-men. By the custom of the borough, every burgess, duly elected to and serving the office of mayor, becomes, at the expiration of that office, an alderman ; and by the ancient usage and custom of the borough, the office of alderman can only be held by persons resident within the borough ; and every alderman removing from the borough, and no longer continuing to reside therein, thereby vacates his office. The defendant, who had before been a burgess, was duly elected to, and served, the office of mayor from Michaelmas (a) Abs. Buller, J. 2T.R.77S. THE KING V. HEAVEN 417 1768, to Michaelmas 1769, from which time he exercised the office of alderman; and about 13 years ago he removed from the borough, and has not since resided therein ; by which he forfeited his office of alderman. In January 1787 he was appointed receiver of certain estates in Middlesex, under an Act of Parliament for enlarging certain charitable uses for the poor of Bedford; and, by a clause in that Act, the receiver is required to reside on the said estates. It also stated that the defendant nevertheless continued to use and exercise the office of alderman, and doth now use and exercise the same. The defendant in his affidavit denied the usage and custom alleged, that an alderman vacated his office by removing from the borough; and that there never was an instance of a removal on that account. And he stated that since he left the borough he has kept apartments at the house of Mr. Chapman, one of the aldermen, for the greater convenience of attending [773] to the meetings and business of the borough ; that he has regularly attended the principal meetings three or four times every year, and has upon all occasions been ready to attend at the borough when his presence there was necessary. And that the members of the corporation always appeared satisfied with such his attendance and discharge of his duty, and never required him to attend in any other manner. Partridge and Wigley shewed cause against the rule. The ground of this application, which is for non-residence within the...
To continue reading
Request your trial