The Queen on The Prosecution of Kay Dinsdale against The Wardens or Keepers and Assistants of The Mystery or Art of Saddlers of The City of London
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 09 June 1860 |
| Date | 09 June 1860 |
| Court | High Court |
English Reports Citation: 121 E.R. 360
IN THE COURT OF QUEEN BENCH, AND THE COURT OF EXCHEQUER CHAMBER ON ERROR FORM THE COURT OF QUEEN'S BENCH.
the queen on the prosecution of kay dinsdale against the waedens or keepers and assistants of the mystery or art of saddlers of the city of london. Saturday, June 2nd, Saturday, June 9th, 1860. The charter of The Saddlers' Company empowered the Wardens, or Keepers, and Assistants of the Company to elect Assistants from the Livery; such Assistants to take specified oaths before admission to the exercise of their office. It made the Assistants removable from office by the electing body, for ill government, ill conduct, or any other just and reasonable cause. It imposed certain general restrictions on the eligibility of the members of the Livery as Assistants, and declared that all elections contrary to its directions and restrictions should be void. It then gave power to the Wardens &e. to make such bye-laws as should seem to them salutary, honourable and necessary for the good government of the Company, its members and officers.-By the usage of the Company, persons elected Assistants were eligible to further offices in a routine ending with the office of Warden. The Assistants did not receive or take charge of the Company's funds: but the Renter Warden (whose office was the first in order to which an Assistant was eligible) did, being in fact the treasurer. The Wardens &c., in 1799, duly made a bye-law " That no person who has been a bankrupt or become otherwise insolvent, shall hereafter be admitted a member of the Court of Assistants of this Company, unless it be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that such person, after his bankruptcy or insolvency, has paid and satisfied his creditors the whole of their debts, or shall have established a fair and honourable character for seven years subsequent to such his bankruptcy or insolvency, to the satisfaction of tha Court or the majority of them."-D., a member of the Livery, but in insolvent circumstances, was elected, in manner pursuant to the charter, an Assistant of the Company. Afterwards, before be knew of his election and before his admission to the office, he made a representation to the clerk of the Company, false to his awn knowledge, that he was solvent. He was then sworn in and admitted, and acted in the office. Being afterwards adjudged bankrupt, and his false representation of bis circumstances having been communicated by the clerk to the Wardens 3EL.ftEL.fi. THE QUEEN V. SADDLERS* COMPANY 361 &c. of the Company, the latter, at a meeting duly held, but of which they gave D., and of which he had, no notice, removed him from his office.-These facts having been found by special verdict, at the trial of issues raised on a mandamus commanding the Wardens &c. of the Company to restore D. to the office : Held, that D. was entitled to a peremptory mandamus, both on the ground that the bye-law of 1799 was bad, first, as imposing an unreasonable disqualification on eligibility to the office; and, secondly, as limiting the disqualification imposed to admission, instead of extending it to election, to the office; and also on the ground that, assuming D.'s misrepresentation to have amounted to a corporate offence, which would justify his amotion, he could not be removed without notice and without being heard ; nor could his title to the office be tried by a proceeding other than a quo warranto.-Judgment reversed in the Exchequer Chamber ; where held that the bye-law was good in substance; for that the disqualification of a bankrupt or insolvent for office in the Company was not unreasonable, having regard to the nature and constitution of the Company ; and that the disqualification did not violate the charter by unduly restricting the class from which the Assistants were eligible. Held, further, that the bye-law was good in form; for that, properly construed, it invalidated the election, no less than the admission, of a disqualified person. Held lastly, that granting that D., if in his office, could not have been removed unheard from it for a corporate offence, the facts that he was from the beginning disqualified by the bye-law for the office, and that he procured his admittance to it by fraud, shewed that he never was properly in, and had no right to be restored to, it. [Reversed in Exchequer Chamber, 3 El. & El. 72 : restored in House of Lords, 10 H. L. C. 404; 11 E. R. 1083.] Mandamus to "The Wardens, or Keepers, and Assistants of the Mystery or Art of Saddlers of [43] the City of London," reciting at length letters patent of King Charles the Second, dated 24th December, in the thirty-sixth year of his reign, being the charter of incorporation of The Saddlers' Company; that, on 20th October, 1849, there being then a vacancy in the office and number of Assistants of the said Company, the prosecutor, Kay Dinsdale, then being a freeman and liveryman and one of the eommonalty of the said Company, and duly qualified in that behalf, was, at a meeting or assembly of the Wardens, or Keepers, and Assistants of the said Art or Mystery, duly held and convened by the said Wardens, or Keepers, and Assistants, duly elected and nominated and constituted one of the Assistants of the Mystery or Art aforesaid; and, being so elected, duly took the oaths and made and subscribed the declaration and paid the fees by the said letters patent and the laws of the realm and the laws and ordinances of the said Company prescribed in that behalf, and was thereupon duly admitted to the office of, and became and was and acted as, and duly executed the office of, one of the Assistants of the Mystery or Art aforesaid, and continued to be and to act as such Assistant from thence until the removal thereinafter [44] mentioned; and that afterwards, on 20th December, 1849, although he had not ill-eoiiducted himself, and although he was then duly in and entitled to hold his said office, and no just or reasonable cause existed for his removal therefrom, the defendants wrongfully, unlawfully and against his will, contrary to the tenor of the said letters patent, and without any just or reasonable cause in that behalf, removed, expelled and dispossessed him from the said office, and had from thence hitherto wrongfully, unlawfully and against his will kept him so removed, expelled and dispossessed, and had prevented him from filling or executing his said office, and deprived him of all the liberties, privileges, franchises and benefits to the said office pertaining. The mandamus then commanded the defendants to restore the prosecutor to his said office, or shew cause to the contrary. The return alleged that the said letters patent were not fully or truly set forth in the writ, but that divers material portions thereof were omitted, and that in the said letters patent it was contained and provided that every election of any Assistant of the said Corporation, contrary to the directions and restrictions in the said letters patent in that behalf contained, should be void and of no effect; that the prosecutor was not duly qualified to be elected ; that he was not duly elected, nominated, or constituted one of the Assistants of the Company ; that he had ill-conducted himself and was not duly in, or entitled to hold, his said office ; that there was just and reasonable K. B. L.-12* 362 THE QUEEN V. SADDLERS' COMPANY 3 EL. ft EL. 45. cause for his removal, and for which he was removed ; and that the defendants did not wrongfully or unlawfully, or contrary to the tenor of the said letters patent, or without just or reasonable cause in [45] that behalf, remove and keep him removed. That the Company, at the time of the said charter and ever since, have had considerable property and effects, real and personal, and have had the management and care of diver* chanty and other estates, and the distribution for charitable and other purposes of divers moneys; that, since the granting of the said charter, the Wardens of the Company had been and were elected annually, by ballot, by the Court of Assistants, and from the members constituting that Court; that, by the uaage of the Company, a member of that Court was elected in ordinary course to the following offices, namely, first, that of Renter Warden, after serving which for one year he falls back upon the Court of Assistants, and is then successively elected to serve the offices of Quarter Warden, Key Warden, and Prime Warden, or Master, his promotion being regulated by his seniority. That in the Courts the Prime Warden, usually called Master, presides, and has a casting vote in cases of equality of votes. That the Key Warden has the care of the common seal and archives of the Company. That the Quarter Warden acts as receiver of the quarterage, which he pays over to the Renter Warden. That the Renter Warden is the acting treasurer of the Company, performs this duty in person, and receives into his hands and has the sole custody or charge of all the rents, dividends, moneys, plate, linen, goods, chattels and effects of the Company, and its charity and trust estates; having to account to the auditors appointed by the Court of Assistants. That the Assistants attend to the general affairs of the Company, and have the uncontrolled spending of its moneys, the granting of pensions and relief to its decayed members, and the general government of the Corporation and the trade, and have [46] and exercise the right of search for deceitfully wrought wares appertaining to the trade of a saddler, and to seize and destroy the same. That the election of new members of the Court of Assistants, when vacancies occur, is made by the Court of Master, Wardens and Assistants, from the Livery, according to seniority, if in a atate of solvency, and of good character and repute; and they hold office for...
To continue reading
Request your trial