The King against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Bridgewater
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 27 January 1837 |
| Date | 27 January 1837 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 112 E.R. 129
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
S. C. 1 N. & P. 466; 6 L. J. M. C. 78. Distinguished, R. v. Pooles Corporation, 1838, 7 Ad. & E. 737; Ex parte Harvey, 1838, 7 Ad. & E. 743. Followed, R. v. Norwich Corporation, 1842, 3 Q. B. 291. Distinguished, R. v. York Corporation, 1842, 3 Q. B. 559. Approved, but not applied, R. v. Brighton Council, 1857, 7 El. & Bl. 256. Applied, R. v. Local Government Board, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 151. Referred to, R. v. Armagh Urban District Council, [1901] 2 Ir. R. 33.
the king against the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the borough of bridgewater. Friday, January 27th, 1837. Before and until the Corporation Act (5 & 6 W. 4, e. 76), T. was common clerk, prothonotary, and clerk of the peace of the borough of B. during good behaviour; and acted as clerk to the justices of the borough, as by usage the common clerk had always done, either, as T. alleged, incidentally to the office of common clerk, or as was alleged in answer, by appointment of the justices; the office of clerk to the justices not being mentioned in the charters or muniments. After the Act passed he was appointed town clerk; and afterwards, upon a separate commission of the peace being granted to the borough, another person was appointed clerk to the justices, by the justices under that commission. Held, that T. was entitled to compensation under sect. 66, for the loss of the emolument derived from the place of clerk to the K. B. xli.-5 130 THE KING V. THE MAYOR, ETC., OF BRIDGEWATEB 6 AD. & E. 84ft justices. Although, after the appointment of the new clerk to the justices, a Court of Quarter Sessions was granted to the borough, and T. was appointed clerk of the peace. Semble, that, if the Lorda Commissioners of the Treasury order compensation to a party not holding an office which falls within sect. 66, this Court will not enforce the order by mandamus to the corporation. But they will grant such mandamus where the Lords Commissioners have ordered compensation to a (iG3aJ.iKB.237. party holding such an office. [S. C. 1 N. & P. 466; 6 L. J. M. C. 78. Distinguished, H. v. Pools Corporation, 1838, 7 Ad. & E. 737 ; Ex parte Harvey, 1838, 7 Ad. & E. 743. Followed, R. v. Norwich Corporation, 1842, 3 Q. B. 291. Distinguished, R. v. York Corporation, 1842, 3 Q. B. 559. Approved, but not applied, R. v. Brighton Council, 1857, 7 El. & Bl. 256. Applied, R. v. Local Government Board, 1874, L. R. 9 Q. B. 151. Referred to, R. v. Armagh Urban District Council, [1901] 2 Ir. E. 33.] Sir W. W. Follett had obtained a rule in this term, calling upon the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the Borough of Bridge water to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to prepare and execute a bond under the common seal of the borough, conditioned for the payment to John Trevor of the yearly sum of 1011. 2a. 4d., the first of auch yearly payments to be made on the 15th of February next. The rule was obtained upon Trevor'a affidavit to the following effect. On the 1st Auguat 1833, he was duly elected and sworn common clerk, prothonotary, and clerk of the peace of the borough of Bridgewater, under the charters of the borough, and entered npon the [340] office, and undertook its duties. The office of clerk to the justices of the borough was incident and appurtenant to this office, and had been usually held in conjunction therewith and attached thereto; and the average of the annual emoluments of the office of clerk to the juaticea, for five yeara, was 1521. 8s. 8d. Trevor continued to hold all the offices till 26th December 1835, when a new town council was elected, under stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76. On 1st January 1836, he was appointed town clerk. On 22d January 1836, a separate commission of the peace for the borough was granted to four persona. On 15tb February 1836, another person was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Pet Far Eastern (M) Sdn Bhd v Tay Young Huat and Others
-
The Queen against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newbury
...within the Act, has always ordered the corporation to give security for the amount awarded ; as in Bex v. The Mayor, &c., of Bridgewater (6 A. & E. 339), (where the Lords determined that the party was entitled to compensation, which the town council had altogether refused), and in Begina v.......
-
The Queen against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of The Borough of Cambridge
...defendants state on the record that he was removed : he could not be removed unless he held. In Rex v. The Mayor, &c., of Bridgewater (6 A. & E. 339), it was decided that the word " office" was not to be narrowly interpreted, but might be taken in the popular sense. But, further, it does no......
-
The Queen against Hayward
...J. referred to Regina v. The Corporation of Ipsvrich (2 Ld. Raym. 1233): and Mellor J. referred to Bex v. The ^(U|m of Bridgewater (6 A. & E. 339).] The clerk of the peace of [590] a county is removable by the Quarter Sessions of the county; Harcourt v. Fox (4 Mod. 167; 1 Show. 426, 556; 12......