Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/969

Foot to be Mayor, who was himself also a good Alderman, notwithstanding the said Aldermen were elected some years before; for though there was a power given by the charter to elect Aldermen annually, yet it was insisted, that this clause was only directory in that respect; and that the office of Alderman was not, by virtue of that clause, to determine at the end of the year after his election; but that the person who was legally elected and sworn into the office, continued until another was chosen in his room, or until his death or removal, in the same manner as a person elected into the office of Mayor. That the clause in the charter, appointing and naming the first four Aldermen, had a reference to the clause for electing the Mayor, as well with respect to the time and manner of electing Aldermen, as their continuance in office; and as it appeared that no other person had been chosen into the office of Alderman in the room of Foot, Ennys, or Plint, they ought more especially to be esteemed good and sufficient Aldermen. The opinion therefore of the Court of King's Bench, that there were not two Aldermen present at Mr. Foot's election to be Mayor, that Foot himself was not a good Alderman, and that his election into the office of Mayor was void, and the verdict given thereupon, and the judgment founded on that verdict, were apprehended to be erroneous; and that Foot having good reason to bring a writ of error, the judgment of the King's Bench was rightly reversed, and that judgment of reversal ought to be affirmed.

Accordingly, after hearing counsel on this writ of error, it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment given in the Exchequer Chamber should be affirmed; and that the record should be [294] remitted, to the end execution might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought into the House and it was further ordered, that the plaintiff should pay, or cause to be paid to the defendant, the sum of £50 for his costs sustained by reason of bringing the said writ of error. (Jour. vol. 22. p. 622.)

King James II. by his letters patent, dated decimo septimo Martii, anno regni suo primo, did grant and declare, that the borough of Penryn, in the county of Cornwall, should be and remain for ever, a free borough; and that the Burgesses and inhabitants of the said borough and their successors, should be a body corporate and politic, by the name of the Mayor and Burgesses of the borough of Penryn, in the county of Cornwall, and by the same name should have perpetual succession; and that there should be in the said borough, one of the most discreet Burgesses, who should be Mayor of the said borough; and that there should be in the said borough, twenty-four capital Burgesses, who should be aiding and assisting to the Mayor for the time being, in all matters concerning the said borough and the government thereof. And the said King, by his said letters patent, appointed and created James Kemp, to be the first Mayor of the said borough, to continue in the said office of Mayor from the date of the said letters patent, unto the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle, then next following and from thence until another of the said borough should be elected, appointed, and sworn into the said office. He also appointed Richard Arundel, Baron of Frerise, and twenty-three other persons therein named, to be the first capital Burgesses of the said borough, to continue in their offices during their natural lives; unless they, or any of them, by the Mayor and capital Burgesses of the said borough for the time being, or the major part of them, should be amoved for mal-administra-