Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/984

elected, and not sworn or admitted into the [316] office of a Burgess, viz. John Ponsonby and Benjamin Burton, rejoined, that they had not due notice of their elections; and tendered an issue on that fact. And the seven other defendants, who had been elected, sworn, admitted, and acted in the office of Burgesses, rejoined severally, that they had at all times attended the duty of their office.

The Coroner thereupon demurred in law; and assigned for special cause of demurrer, to the replication of the defendant John Ponsonby, and the other non-acting Burgess, that by the plaintiff's replication notice was charged in general; and that those two defendants, by their rejoinders, bad not answered that charge directly, nor was the issue tendered by them a direct answer thereto, but a negative pregnant; and for that, whether the notice was due notice or not, was a matter of law and not of fact to be tried by a jury. And to the replication of the defendant Richard Ponsonby, and the six other acting Burgesses, the plaintiff assigned for special cause of demurrer, that these defendants by their rejoinders had not traversed, or confessed and avoided the Coroner's replication.

The defendants severally joined in demurrer. And upon arguing these demurrers in Michaelmas term 1749, the court unanimously gave judgment against all the defendants as follows: viz. that the rejoinder of the defendant John Ponsonby was not sufficient in law to maintain the allowing and adjudging unto him his said claim of the said office, privileges, and franchises of a free Burgess of the said borough; it was therefore considered by the court, that the said John Ponsonby should not in any manner intermeddle with, or concern himself in and about the said office, privileges, and franchises of a free Burgess of the borough of Newtown aforesaid; but that he should be absolutely forejudged and excluded from ever exercising or using the same, or any of them; and that the said John Ponsonby, in order to satisfy the Lord the King on account of his said usurpation, should be taken, etc. And that the said Hamilton M'Clure, the relator, should recover against the said John Ponsonby £21 3s. 7d. for his costs, according to the statute. The like judgment was given against the defendant Burton, the other Burgess, who only claimed, and had not been sworn into or acted in the office. The judgment against the defendant Richard Ponsonby was, that his rejoinder was not sufficient in law to maintain the allowing and adjudging to him the office, privileges, and franchises of a free Burgess of the said borough; it was therefore considered by the court, that the said Richard Ponsonby should not in any manner intermeddle with, or concern himself in and about the said office, privileges, and franchises, of a free Burgess of the said borough of Newtown; but that he should be absolutely forejudged and excluded from ever exercising or using the same, or any of them for the future; and that the said Richard Ponsonby, in order to satisfy the Lord the King on account of his said usurpation, should be taken, etc. And that the said Hamilton M'Clure, the relator, should recover [317] against the said Richard Ponsonby, £20 17s. 3½d. for his costs, according to the statute. And the like judgment was given against the other six defendants.

The defendants conceiving themselves aggrieved by this judgment of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, brought a writ of error therefrom, returnable into the Court of King's Bench in England; and having removed the record, the defendants assigned the general errors, and the plaintiff rejoined that there was no error.

Upon arguing the cause in the Court of King's Bench in England, in Michaelmas term 1755, all the Judges of that court were of opinion, that the judgment of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland was erroneous, and therefore reversed the same.

But to reverse this judgment of reversal, a writ of error was brought in parliament; and on behalf of the plaintiff in error it was contended (T. Sewell, A. Wedderburn), that this, as well as the other charters granted at the same time, plainly appeared to have been granted with a view to supply the towns in the north of Ireland with Protestant inhabitants; and for that end, all the inhabitants for ever, and none else, were incorporated by the name of Provost, free Burgesses, and Commonalty of the borough of Newtown; and although, for particular purposes, the Provost and free Burgesses had a power given them to admit foreigners into the commonalty, yet none but an inhabitant could exercise, or claim to exercise the office of a free Burgess. That the office of free Burgesses, according to the power given them by the charter, required residence, inasmuch as they were to assist in making bye-laws, and with the Provost were vested with the sole power of admitting Freemen, of amov-