Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/433

he was no party, in direct opposition to positive proof? more especially, as he himself long after he was in possession of a copy of the schedules, went into the proof of this matter of maintenance, and examined Lady Rachel as to that very question, how long she maintained her daughter Mrs. Jones. It was therefore submitted, that he ought to be bound by Lady Rachel's evidence, which was positive and decisive, unless he could repel it by other proof.

[62] After hearing counsel on this appeal, it was ordered and adjudged, that so much of the order of the 30th of April 1783, complained of in the cross-appeal, as over-ruled the second exception of the appellants in the cross-appeal to the master's report of the 13th of July 1782, should be reversed; and that the said exception should be allowed, in so far as related to the sum of 2865l. 10s. part of the sum of 18,570l. 2s. 6d. and to the master's certificate that the said sum of 2865l. 10s. was paid on account of the rent-charge of 2000l. per ann. and also so far, that only 16,824l. 11s. 4d. was due for the said rent-charge, instead of 19,690l. 1s. 4d. which appeared to be due for the same. And it was further ordered and adjudged, that the said master's report should be varied accordingly; and that in consequence thereof, the decretal order of the 4th of August 1784, also complained of in the cross-appeal, should be amended, by leaving out, after the words to compute interest in the sums of, the words 16,824l. 11s. 3d. and inserting instead thereof, 19,690l. 1s. 4d.; and that the said order should also be further amended, by leaving out from the words for or in respect of the said, to the words into the Bank, and inserting instead thereof, 19,690l. 1s. 4d. And it was furthered ordered and adjudged, that, with these amendments, the several orders complained of in the said appeals should be affirmed. (MS. Jour, sub anno, 1785, p. 561.)

On the 6th of December 1701, writs were issued for summoning a parliament, to be holden at Westminster, on the 6th of February then next ensuing; one of which writs was delivered to Robert Weedon, esq. the then sheriff of the county of Bucks, to be by him executed.

On the 30th of the same December, the sheriff sent his precept to the defendants, who were then constables, and the proper returning officers of the borough of Aylesbury, in that county, to chuse two burgesses to represent the said borough in the ensuing parliament; and, by virtue of this precept, the defendants appointed the 6th day of January following for the election.

Some short time before, the overseers of the poor of Aylesbury warned the plaintiff out of the parish as a poor indigent person, [63] unless he would give security to save the parish harmless; and, for that purpose, they applied to the justices of the peace for an order to remove him; but while this matter was in agitation, the election for members came on; when the plaintiff, offering himself to be polled as a burgher duly qualified, the defendants thought proper to reject his vote; alleging, that he was no settled inhabitant of the borough, and had never contributed either to church or poor.

Hereupon the plaintiff brought his action on the case, against the defendants; and, upon the trial, obtained a verdict with 5l. damages; but, upon the defendants moving in arrest of judgment, the court of King's Bench, after several arguments,