The Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Borough of Sandwich against the Queen
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Date | 01 January 1847 |
| Court | Exchequer |
English Reports Citation: 116 E.R. 218
IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
218 THE MAYOR, ETC., OF SANDWICH V. THE QUEEN 10Q. B. 571. [571] in the exchequer chamber. (error from the queen's bench.) the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of the borough of sandwich against the queen. 1847. For note, see p. 563, ante. Error was brought on the above judgment. There was the common assignment of errors, and it was also assigned for error that judgment ought to have been given that the plea was not sufficient; and that the residue of the return in the demurrer of the prosecutor waa sufficient; that the writ waa not sufficient; and that the prosecutor could not plead to a part of the return and demur to the residue. Joinder in error. Peacock for the plaintiffs in error (a). The mandamus recites that, in September 1836, the claimant preferred his claim for compensation, and the town council disallowed the same; that a writ of mandamus issued in 1842 to the town council commanding them to assess compensation to the claimant, and to secure the amount thereof by bond; that they did accordingly award him 601. a year; that he then appealed to the Lords of the Treasury, who awarded him 1121. a year that in that sum nothing was included for the office of attorney to the mayor as returning officer, or for the" office of treasurer of the liberty rate, or of clerk to the [572] magistrates; and that the claimant abandoned his claim thereto. The return, first, denies that some of the offices mentioned in the writ, viz. those of the treasurer to the bridge fund and harbour fund, and of attorney to the mayor and jurats aa trustees of the harbour, were incident to the office of town clerk, or that the town clerk had performed the duties thereof according to immemorial usage. Secondly, it supplies an intermediate fact, omitted in the writ, that, between the times of the disallowance by the town council in 1836 and of the issuing the recited mandamus of 1842, the claimant (in 1837) appealed to the Lords of the Treasury againat that disallowance, and thai they awarded him 601. a year as compensation. To the former part of this return there is a plea of estoppel, on the grounds, that the town council have already, in compliance with the mandamus of 1842, assessed compensation in respect of the very offices which the present return deniea to have been incident to the office of town clerk, and also that they returned, to that former writ, that they bad assessed such compensation. To the latter part of the return there is a demurrer. There is also a demurrer to the plea of estoppel. The plaintiffs in error contend that the present writ is bad ; that the return is good, because the Lords of the Treasury had jurisdiction to entertain the first appeal, and their award of 601. a year was conclusive, within stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, a. 66; and that the plea of estoppel is bad for duplicity, uncertainty, and other informalities. First. The writ is bad. It does not state that the several offices mentioned were offices of profit in respect of which compensation could be claimed within sect. 66. The only office so described is the office of [673] town clerk : and yet in the mandatory part of the recited writ of 1842, on which the present writ is founded, the corporation are commanded to assesa compensation for the aeveral offices which the claimant held. As a matter of law compensation can be claimed for the office of profit only ; and the incidents to that office constitute no part of the title to...
To continue reading
Request your trial