Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/987

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
PIPPARD v. DROGHEDA (MAYOR OF) [1759]
II BROWN.

to be joined together in one information. Their rights and their defences being separate, it tended to perplex the pleadings, and confound the judgment of the court. All joint indictments against several persons, for several offences are held to be bad. In this instance, the statute 9 Ann, adopted in Ireland 19 Geo. II. makes no difference; for though it is provided by that law, that it shall be lawful for the court to give leave to exhibit one information for the trial of the several rights of different persons, to the same or similar offices, or franchises, in cases where it may be proper; yet the legislature did not intend to authorise the practice, where not only the offices are distinct, but the situation and rights of the parties must be judged of upon different premises of fact and law.

After hearing counsel on this writ of error, the Judges were directed to deliver their opinions upon the following question, viz. "Whether the non-residence of a free Burgess within the borough, is a sufficient ground for an information in the nature of a quo warranto against such free Burgess, without a previous amotion, or some other proceeding previously had against [321] him for such non-residence?" And the Lord Chief Baron having conferred with the rest of the Judges present, they all agreed in opinion, and held the negative of the question: whereupon it was ordered and adjudged, that the judgment of the Court of King's Bench in England, reversing the judgment of the Court of King's Bench in Ireland, should be affirmed; and that the record should be remitted, to the end such proceeding might be had thereupon, as if no such writ of error had been brought into the house. (Jour. vol. 29. p. 240.)


Case 6.—Henry Pippard,—Appellant; The Mayor of Drogheda, and Others,—Respondents [10th May 1759].

[In Hilary term 1686, an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, was brought in the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, against the Corporation of Drogheda and in Easter term following judgment was given against them, and their liberties, &c. seised into the King's hands. Held, that this information would not lie in that court, and that therefore the judgment was void.—In consequence of that judgment, King James II. created a new corporation by charter, who made a reversionary lease to J. S. of some lands belonging to the old corporation. The charter being declared void by an act 1 William and Mary, sess. 2. c. 9. the lease is void also.]

The town of Drogheda is an ancient town, incorporated by the name of the Mayor, Sheriffs, Burgesses, and Commons of the town and county of the town of Drogheda, and as such, used and enjoyed several liberties, franchises, privileges, and immunities, and had lands belonging to them as a corporate body, which were originally granted to the corporation by letters patent from the Crown.

John Stoker, and several other members of the corporation, being seised in fee of the lands aftermentioned in trust, and having full power to demise the same for the use of the corporation, did, by indenture of lease, dated the 27th of December 1678, demise to Christopher Pippard Fitz-George, his executors, administrators, and assigns, all that the house or hospital of St. James, without St. James's Gate of Drogheda, with all the messuages, houses, windmill, lands, tenements, hereditaments, and appurtenances thereunto belonging; to hold from Easter day then next, for the term of sixty-one years, at the yearly rent of £8 10s. payable to the trustees, to such uses as they then stood seised of the premises. With a covenant from Pippard to repair, maintain, and keep the mansion-house, windmill, and all other edifices upon the premises, staunch and tenantable, and to leave the same so at the end of the term. And by virtue of this demise the lessee entered, and was possessed of the premises.

Among other undue prosecutions against corporations in Ireland, in the reign of King James II. for depriving them of their ancient liberties and franchises, an information in the nature of a quo warranto, was, in Hilary term 1686, brought in the Court of [322] Exchequer there, by the then Attorney General, against the Mayor, Sheriff's, Burgesses, and Commons of the said town of Drogheda, to shew

971

This article is issued from Wikisource. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.