Yates his Case and Others
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1658 |
| Date | 01 January 1658 |
| Court | Court of the King's Bench |
English Reports Citation: 82 E.R. 876
UPPER BENCH COURT AT WESTMINSTER
the protector and the town of kingston upon thames. yates his case and others. Mich. 1655. Bane. sup. Upon the retorn of a writ of restitution to freemens places in Kingston upon Thames. Yates and four or five other persons, freemen of the town of Kingston upon Thames, being disfranchised by the baylifs, &c. of that corporation, moved for a writ of restitution to be restored to their freedoms and places in that town, and had it 8TYLE,*B. MICH. 1655 877 granted, which writ was accordingly directed to the bailifs, &c. of that corporation, who thereupon do make retorn of the [478] writ, and therein set forth at large there charter and privileges of the town, and the cause of the disfranchisement of Yates and the others, and reasons why they were not to be restored. And by the retorn the matter of fact for which they were disfranchised appeared to be in substance this, viz. that there was a difference amongst those of the corporation about making an attorny of their Court, at a Court held for the town, that there was like to be a tumult and uproar about this matter; whereupon the baylifs that held the Court did adjourn tbe Court, and commanded all persons there to depart, and then they with the rest that were of their party went away. But the other parties on the contrary side, whereof Yates and the rest that were disfranchised were a part stayed still in the town-hall, and said, the Court was not dissolved, and did affirm they were a Court, and did thereupon make divers orders or acts of Court, and caused them to be entred in the Court-book where all the orders used to be entred. To this retorn many exceptions were taken, and first by Serjeant Twisden, 1. That here was no sufficient matter of fact retorned to be done by Yates and the others, to cause them to be disfranchised. '2\y. That the retorn did not shew, that the customs of their corporation did warrant them to disfranchise any for such offences, or did shew that any person had at any time been disfranchised for such offences. Sly. The retorn mentions that the persons disfranchised had broken their oaths as freemen of the town, but doth not set forth thia oath at large as it ought to be. 41y. They do not shew in the retorn that they had any authority to hold that Court which they dissolved, nor before whom it was held. 51y. It is not shewed in the retorn that Yates and the others were at all con-vented to answer their offences, and so they are condemned without hearing of them, which is illegal. To these exceptions Green of councel to maintain the retorn made thia answer, for the first he held, there doth appear a sufficient fact to be done by Yates and the rest to cause them to be disfranchised, viz. their tumultuous going into the Court, and staying there after it was dissolved...
To continue reading
Request your trial