The Queen against The Mayor and Assessors of Rochester the Parish of St Nicholas
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 January 1857 |
| Date | 26 January 1857 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 119 E.R. 1489
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
the queen against the mayor and assessors of rochest-er. (!n the matter of the parish of st. nicholas.) For note, see ante, p. 910. Mandamus tested 26th January, 1857. Suggestions that the parish of St. Nicholas was a parish within the borough of Rochester: that, on 15th September 1856, one William Lucas was inserted in a burgess list for the city and borough : that twenty persons named were persons whose names were included in the burgess list for the parish of St. Nicholas, which had been duly made out according to stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76. That Lucas objected to those persons; and, after 5th September, and before 15th September 1856, "gave to the town clerk of the said borough notices of such his several objections in writing according to the form No. 3, in Schedule (D.) to" (stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76), "or to the like effect, by leaving the same with the man servant of the said town clerk at his, the town clerk's, then residence situate in the said borough," and gave notice to each of the parties objected to. That a court was duly holden by the mayor and assessors for revising the list for the pariah of St. Nicholas. That the list was produced by the town clerk; and, at the [921] same time, the written notices of objection by Lucas were produced by the town clerk: and that it was objected "that the said notices of objection were bad and invalid because they had not been delivered personally to the said town clerk: "that therefore the mayor and assessors " then wholly refused to hear or consider the objections of the said William Lucas:" by means whereof the names objected to remained on the list and got on the burgess roll. The mandatory part of the writ was, that " you do, without delay, hold a court and revise the list of the burgesses of the said city and borough, so far as relates to the names arid votes of" (the several names were set out), " being persons objected to as not being entitled to be enrolled on the list of burgesses of the said city and borough for the parish of St. Nicholas." Return by the mayor: that he was not mayor at the time the Court was holden, but first became so on 9th November 1856, and was willing and desirous, if by law he could do so, to hold a court and revise the list (a)2. Demurrer. Joinder. Return by Thomas French, one...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S v Kapweja; S v Mika; S v Haufiku
...v. Fazzie and Others, 1964 (4) S.A. te bl. 684A-C. Appellant was 'n betroubare lands-burger in die verlede. S. v. Ntombela, 1973 (3) S.A. te bl. 920-H; S. v. Shangase, 1972 (2) S.A. te bl. 423. Appellant het berou getoon. Hy het die F diamante probeer herwin. R. v. Mvelase and Others, 1958 ......
-
Union and National Insurance Co Ltd v Coetzee
...van sy verlies, nie vervul nie. Van der Westhuizen v Du Preez, 1928 T.P.D. te bl. 49; Goldie v City Council of Johannesburg, 1948 (2) SA te bl. 920; Moehlen v National Employers' Mutual, 1959 (2) SA te bl. 320; Naidoo v Auto C Protection Insurance Co. Ltd., 1963 (4) SA 798; Corbett & Buchan......
-
Union and National Insurance Co Ltd v Coetzee
...van sy verlies, nie vervul nie. Van der Westhuizen v Du Preez, 1928 T.P.D. te bl. 49; Goldie v City Council of Johannesburg, 1948 (2) SA te bl. 920; Moehlen v National Employers' Mutual, 1959 (2) SA te bl. 320; Naidoo v Auto C Protection Insurance Co. Ltd., 1963 (4) SA 798; Corbett & Buchan......