Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/1082
decree therein complained of, should be reversed; and that the appellants should have the £3000 and their full share of the orphanage part, without bringing the said £3000 into the orphanage part in hotchpot. (Jour. vol. 18. p. 694.)[1]
[463] Case 2.—Peter Bolton, and Another,—Plaintiffs; Robert Jeffes, and Another,—Defendants (in Error) [27th February 1718].
[Mews' Dig. vi. 257; vi. 213.]
On the 21st of December 1717, the defendants were, among others, chosen Common Council-men, to serve for Tower-Ward, in London, for the year ensuing and were sworn, returned, and admitted accordingly.
The plaintiffs pretending, that they, and not the defendants, were elected for that service, applied, on the 6th of February following, to the Common Council by petition for redress, in order to have the right of being Common Council-men, there examined and determined.
Accordingly the Common Council appointed a committee to examine the allegations of the petition, and to make a report thereof, with their opinion; and they ordered the issuing of such money as the committee should appoint, for advice, and other necessary expences in this matter.
On the 27th of June 1718, the defendants moved the Court of King's Bench, for a prohibition, to stay the proceedings in the Common Council, alledging, that the examination of the election of Common Council-men, did not appertain to the Common Council: and upon hearing counsel on both sides, the court, on the 2d of July following, granted the prohibition; and the plaintiffs in the prohibition were ordered to declare thereupon, in order to give the defendants an opportunity of maintaining the jurisdiction of the Common Council in this matter, if they could.
Declarations were accordingly delivered, which severally set forth, that the plaintiffs were, on the 21st of December 1717, duly elected and admitted Common Council-men for Tower-Ward, within the city of London, for the year then ensuing; and that the defendants, intending to draw the examination of that election into the Common Council, did exhibit a petition concerning the same, to the Common Council, with design to amove the plaintiffs from their places: "Whereas in truth, the Common Council of the city of London have not any cognizance, authority, or jurisdiction whatsoever, to hear, determine, judge, or examine, concerning the election of any person to be one of the Common Council-men of the city." And that according to the immemorial custom of the city, the cognizance and examination of such elections, belonged to the King's Court of Record, held before the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, and not to the Common Council of the city. And that although the [464] plaintiffs offered to prove these things to the Common Council, yet the Common Council compelled them to appear there, and answer concerning their election, and unjustly proceeded to deprive them of their offices, in contempt of the King and his laws, and to the damage of the plaintiffs.
To these declarations, the defendants severally pleaded, that within the city of London there has been, time out of mind, a court, called The Court of Common Council, held before the Mayor, Aldermen, and Commoners of the said city, duly elected and
- ↑ None of the authors, who have reported this case, take any notice of there having been an appeal; a circumstance which, as the decree was reversed, renders those reports of the case useless, if not dangerous.
1066