The Queen against The Lords Commissioners of HM Treasury. ( Tibbits.)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Date | 01 January 1839 |
| Court | Court of the Queen's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 113 E.R. 143
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
S. C. 2 P. & D. 498.
[374] thb queen against the lords commissioners of her majesty's treasury. (!n the matter of tibbits.) 1839. A town clerk, who was in office at the passing of stat. 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76, but who had been re-appointed afterwards, and subsequently dismissed by the council, applied for compensation, which the council refused. He then appealed to the Lords of the Treasury by memorial, and prayed therein to be heard by himself, his counsel, agents, or witnesses. The council sent in a memorial in answer, and the town clerk another in reply. The council, in their memorial, alleged that they had dismissed him for conduct which, they stated, warranted removal. This the town clerk denied. The Lords of the Treasury, without hearing the parties further than by taking the memorials into consideration, awarded that the town clerk was entitled to no compensation ; stating as their reason, that they thought the council had made the removal in the bona fide and justifiable exercise of the discretion vested in them. On application for a mandamus to the Lords, commanding them to hear the appeal, Held, that it could not be granted; for that, if the Lords had jurisdiction (and semble, that they had not), they had already heard and decided. Although the Court considered that the dismissal was not warranted by the town clerk's conduct. [S. C. 2 P. & D. 498.] Cresswell obtained a rule, in Michaelmas term, 1837, calling upon the Lords-Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to shew cause why a mandamus should not issue, commanding them to hear and determine the merits of the appeal of James Tibbits, on his claim to be allowed compensation for the loss of the office of town clerk of the borough of Warwick: notice to be given to the Solicitor for the Treasury, and the mayor and town clerk of the borough of Warwick. The affidavit of Tibbits contained the following statements. On 7th May 1827, he was appointed town clerk (a)1, and he so continued until and at the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act, 5 & 6 W. 4, c. 76. [375] Under the provisions of that Act, he ceaaed to hold the office on 31st December 1835. On 1st January 1836, he was re-appointed town clerk by the new town council. On 6th October 1836, he was removed by them from the office. Shortly after the Act passed, a minute was made and promulgated by the Lords of the Treasury, dated 10th September 1835, and headed, "Compensation to Town Clerks," which referred to stat. 11 G. 4 & 1 W. 4, c. 58, and concluded as follows (a)2. (a)1 The affidavit also contained a statement of a claim for compensation made by Tibbits in respect of the offices of clerk of the peace and clerk to the justices, as to which the Lorda of the Treasury awarded a gratuity; but, as the argument and judgment related exclusively to the office of town clerk, so much only as relates to that office it stated in the text. (a)3 The minute began thus. " My Lords read the 66th clause of the Act for the reform of municipal corporations, by which compensation is provided for all corporate officers whose office shall be abolished, or who shall be removed from office under the provisions of the Act, or who shall not be reappointed as aforesaid; and in 144 THE QUEEN V. THE LORDS OF THE TREASURY 10AB.fcE.376. " My Lords consider that the principle adopted by the Legislature in the fore-cited Act may fairly be applied [376] to the cases of the town clerks, and they are of opinion that in all cases where such officer holds his office for life, or where the usage has been such as to raise a just expectation that the office should continue for the life of the holder, a compensation of not less than two thirds of his profits may be granted to such officer, estimated upon the principles stated in the commencement of this minute, and calculated upon an average of his just emoluments for the five years previously to the 1st January, 1835." About 1st January 1837, Tibbits delivered to the new town clerk and the treasurer of the borough a statement of his claim for compensation, in which he alleged that the appointment of town clerk had been always considered in the borough as an appointment for life, and gave an estimate of his annual emoluments on an average of the last five years, claiming in respect thereof 12001. On 22d February 1837, he received a notice from the then town clerk, stating that the council had wholly disallowed his claim, and inclosing a report of a committee appointed by...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
The Queen against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Newbury
...is, whether this be the proper course to enforce compensation. In Begina v. The Lords of the Treasury (In the Matter of Tibbits) (10 A. & E. 374, 384), the Court did indeed express a doubt whether the Lords of the Treasury had any jurisdiction where the town council had altogether refused c......
-
The Queen against Hayward
...of the misbehaviour of a clerk of the peace a judicial matter? Mellor J. referred to Begina v. The Lords of the Treasury, Be Tibbits (10 A. & E. 374).] It is exercised out of Court. Begina v. The Recorder of Hull (8 A. & E. 638) was decided on peculiar grounds. Secondly. The replication she......
-
The Queen against The Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgesses of Sandwich
...even if involving matter of law. A contrary doctrine was suggested by this Court, in Regina v. The Lords of the Treasury, In re Tibbits (10 A. & E. 374), and was established in Eegina v. The Mayor, &c. of Newbury (1 Q. B. 751). Now it is argued that that decision applies only to disputes wi......