The King against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Common Council, of London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 November 1787 |
| Date | 26 November 1787 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 100 E.R. 96
IN THE COURT OF KING'S BENCH
8 T. R. 209.
the king against the mayor, aldermen, and common council, of london. Monday, Nov. 26th, 1787. A mandamus refused to restore to the office of clerk of the Bridge-House estates in London, though the party was irregularly suspended ; it appearing on his own shewing that there was good ground for the suspension, if the proceedings had been regular. [8 T. R. 209.] This was a rule calling on the defendants to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, directed to them, commanding them to restore P. Roberts to the office of clerk or comptroller of the Bridge-House estates. It appeared from the [178] affidavits on which the rule was obtained, that the office is an ancient office for life, quamdiu se bene gesserit, in the disposal of the Court of Common Council. The duty of it is to superintend and take care of certain estates which are appropriated by the corporation to the support and repair of London Bridge ; some of the estates having been granted to them for that express purpose. Roberts was admitted and sworn into this office in 1749, on paying 40001. to the predecessor, and 6001. for an alienation fine. In January 1785, the auditors of the city accounts reported that Roberts was a defaulter in his accounts for five years preceding, and that there appeared to be a very large balance in his hands; on which the corporation made an order that his accounts should be laid before a committee appointed for that purpose in two months, and that the balance should be paid to the chamberlain. On the same day the committee of the city lands reported that Roberts was a defaulter in his accounts as city remembrancer, and that there was a considerable balance in his hands in respect of that office. It likewise appeared upon his own shewing, that repeated applications were made to him to deliver in his accounts, and frequent indulgences granted to him by the committee, till the 19th May 1786, when he delivered in a brief account without producing the proper vouchers, by which it appeared that he had a balance of about 20001. in his hands in respect of the first-mentioned office. But he claimed to deduct 15001. out of that sum in respect of certain demands which he made as city remembrancer, which were not allowed upon this account. That after a peremptory order to produce the vouchers and pay the balance, which he acknowledged to be due, and to explain several parts of his accounts, he neglected to pay the balance, and wrote the following letter to the committee : " Having by your directions received a copy of the report to the Court of Common Council, bearing date 13th February last, with the order made thereon, and having fully considered the same, I must decline answering any question upon the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen on the Prosecution of Kay Dinsdale, - Plaintiff in Error; The Wardens and Assistants of the Saddlers' Company, - Defendants in Error
...effect that, under such circumstances, a peremptory mandamus ought not to be granted. One of the cases, The King v. The Mayor of London (2 T.R. 177), is somewhat similar to the present. Mr. Justice Vaughan Williams.-As to the first of your Lordships' questions, I am of opinion that the by-l......
-
The King against The Mayor and Aldermen of the City of London
...issue a mandamus to restore the party, Pees v. Mayor, &c., of Leeds (Str. 640), Rex v. Axbridge (2 Cowp. 523), Rex v. Mayor of London (2 T. R. 177). If this return is good, and the lord mayor and aldermen have an exclusive right to decide, their decision in favor of an election would be an ......
-
The King against G. Gaskin, D. D
... ... Benedict Gracechurch and Saint Leonard Easteheap, in London, having been called upon by a mandamus, to restore John ... Sex v. The Mayor, &c. of London (a), where the Court refused to grant a ... ...
-
Termination of Appointments to Public Offices
...ofProcedureinCivil Proceedings 1986 (Vic), 056 r38.04.RvAxbridgeCorporation(1777) 2Cowp523;98ER 1220; RvLondonCorporation(1787) 2TermRep; 100 ER 96; Montague vVanDiemen'sLand(Lieutenant-Governor)(1849) 6MooPCC 489; 13 ER 773. Later cases reveal differencesofjudicialopinionoverwhetherremedyf......