Page:The English Reports v1 1900.pdf/992

tion to both. That the reversionary lease being declared void, the account of rents and profits decreed since the expiration of the former lease was of course; but the allowance ordered the appellant for improvements, was more than he seemed entitled to upon all the circumstances of the case; and though that was acquiesced in with respect to his own improvements, there was no sort of reason for carrying it back to those made by his father and brother half a century ago, and of which they had ever since had the benefit, while the corporation had received only a very small rent the father at least, if not both the sons, was too well acquainted with the invalidity of the reversionary lease, to have made improvements on the faith of it. That the appellant's objection to the respondent's suing in a court of equity, was waived by his filing a cross bill, and came too late, after his acquiescence under the first decree. The corporation were well founded in an equitable suit, the legal estate not being in them, but in trustees; and the appellant's holding over his term, in breach of the trust between landlord and tenant, well warranted the Court of Chancery in entertaining the suit. The dismission also of the cross bill with costs was right, as it was brought without occasion, or the least merits to support it. It was therefore hoped, that the decree would be affirmed.

On the day appointed for hearing this appeal, the counsel were called in, and directed in the first place to speak to this point, viz. "Whether an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, will lie in the Court of Exchequer." And having been heard thereon, and the judgment given by the Court of Exchequer in Ireland, in the year 1687, upon an information in the nature of a quo warranto, brought against the corporation of Drogheda, being read, it was declared, that the said judgment was a void judgment. The counsel being acquainted with this determination, were then heard as to the account directed to be taken by the decree; and after due consideration of what was offered on either side, it was ordered and adjudged, that the appeal should be dismissed, and the decree therein complained of, affirmed. (Jour. vol. 29. p. 509.)

An information, in nature of a quo warranto was, in Easter term 1769, filed in the Court of King's Bench, by James Burrow, Esq. the Master of the Crown Office, on the behalf of his Majesty, at the relation of William Wood, against John Hoblyn, of the borough of Helston, in the county of Cornwall, John Rowe, Thomas Arundell, John Plomer, James Bonetto, and Henry Higgs the younger, all of the same place; stating, that the borough of Helleston, otherwise Helston, in the county of Cornwall, is an ancient borough; and that the Burgesses of the said borough then were, and for the space of ten years then last past and upwards, had been, and were one body corporate and politic, in deed, fact, and name, by the name of Mayor and Commonalty of the borough of Helleston, in the county of Cornwall; and that within the said borough there were, or ought to be, and for and during all the time aforesaid there had been, or ought to have been, a Mayor, four Aldermen, and an indefinite number of Burgesses and Freemen of and for the said borough; and that the office of a Burgess and Freeman of and for the said borough, for and during all the time aforesaid, had been, and then was a public office, and an office of great trust and pre-eminence within the said borough, touching the rule and government of the said borough, and the administration of public justice within the said borough; and that the said John