The Queen against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newbury
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 22 May 1841 |
| Date | 22 May 1841 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 1319
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. G. & D. 388; 6 Jur. 365. Applied, R. v. Mayor of Sandwich, 1842, 2 Q. B. 907.
[751] the queen against the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of newbury. Saturday, May 22d, 1841. Mandamus to a corporation suggested that B. was town clerk before the passing of stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76 ; that, under that Act, he ceased to be town clerk, was reappointed, and afterwards removed by the town council for a cause other than such misconduct as would warrant removal from an office held during good behaviour: that he claimed compensation from the town, council, who disallowed hia claim; whereupon he appealed to the Lords of the Treasury, who awarded him an annuity of a given sum; and that the corporation, after notice of the order, and demand, refused to execute a bond for securing the annuity: which the writ commanded them to do, or shew cause, &c. The return set forth certain proceedings of B., and alleged that the town council had resolved that, B.'s misconduct therein being such as would warrant his removal from any office held during good behaviour, they dismissed him; and it stated that for these reasons they disallowed compensation; and that the Lords, on the appeal, had been apprised of the ground of refusal. Held, that the Lords, nob having, under sect. 66, jurisdiction to enquire into the propriety of the removal, but only into the amount where the title to some compensation is undisputed, had no power to order the annuity; and that such order did not entitle B. to a mandamus. Though the Court was not satisfied that the return (which accused the prosecutor of misconduct as town clerk and solicitor to the corporation) disclosed proper grounds for removing a town clerk. After argument and judgment on return to a mandamus, the Court will give costs to the party succeeding, under stat. 1 W. 4, c. 21, s. 6, unless very strong ground of exemption be shewn on the other side. [S. C. 1 G. & D. 388; 6 Jur. 365. Applied, B. v. Mayor of Sandwich, 1842, 2 Q. B. 907.] Mandamus (a). The writ recited that Robert Baker, gentleman, was town clerk of Newbury before the passing of stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76 ; that under the provisions of that Act he ceased to be town clerk; that he was reappointed, and afterwards removed by the town council for a cause other than such misconduct as would warrant removal from an office held during good behaviour; that he claimed compensation from the town council, delivering the proper statement, and that the claim was disallowed, whereupon he appealed to the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury ; "and that such proceedings were had and taken in the matter of the said appeal, that the said Lords Commissioners of our Treasury, on or about the 23d day of January in the second year of our reign, made an order," &c., that the prosecutor should receive an annuity of 1071. as eom-[752]-pensation, &c.; that prosecutor, after a reasonable time, requested the mayor, &c. to prepare, execute, and deliver to him a bond for securing payment of such annuity ; but that they refused. The writ commanded them to prepare, execute, and deliver such bond, or shew cause to the contrary. Return. That prosecutor was removed by the council for such misconduct as would warrant removal from any office held during good behaviour, and that the circumstances of such misconduct were as follows, viz., that the corporation were, down to 31st December 1835, trustees of Kendrick's Charity, and visitors, having control over the revenues, of Cowslad's Charity, in Newbury. That in Hilary term, 1830, an information was exhibited against them in the Court of Chancery, praying an account of the sums received by them in respect of the funds of Kendrick's Charity, existing, or which, but for their wilful neglect and default, might have been received. That the relators insisted on carrying back the account to one of certain remote periods, (a) See Ilegina, v. The Corporation of Newbury, 10 A. & E. 386. 1320 THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR, ETC., OF NEWBURY 1 Q. B. 783. the earliest being 1688, the latest 1813; that the corporation opposed this; and the Vice Chancellor decreed that a Master should take an account of the rents, profits, and expenditure from June 24th, 1825 ; which decree the Lord Chancellor affirmed on appeal: and the Master afterwards (in 1836) reported. That a like information was exhibited as to Cowslad's Charity, and a decree made for an account from a later period than that (1715) proposed by the relators, and that, on appeal, an account was ordered from June 24th 1825; and the Master reported. That, on December 31st, 1835, the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses ceased to be trustees of Kendriek's Charity, and new trustees [753] were appointed under the Act, and made defendants in the Chancery suit. That B. Baker was reappointed town clerk on June 21st, 1836. " That the said E. Baker, during all the time of his holding the said office of town clerk " " down to the said 31st day of December in the sixth year," &c., " held and exercised, together with the said office of town clerk, and as such towti clerk, the office and employment of attorney and solicitor to the Corporation of Newbury, and that, upon such reappoint-ment of the said E. Baker as in the said writ and hereinbefore mentioned, the said E. Baker, as such town clerk so reappointed as aforesaid, and by virtue of such his reappoiutraent, was, and continued from thenceforth until his said removal from the office of town clerk to be, attorney and solicitor to the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of the said Borough of Newbury; and that the said E...
To continue reading
Request your trial