18)6. versus TURLEY with the like plea; these actions were tried before Lord ELLEN BOROUGH, C. J. at the sittings at West- STRACHET minster after Michaelmas term 1805, when a verdict was given for the plaintiffs, in each cause, for the and Others, respective sums therein demanded, subject to the opinion of the court on the following case: At the last general election, Sir Henry Strachey, Mr. Giles, and Mr. Frost were candidates for the borough of East Grinsted in Sussex, and the two former were returned duly elected. On the 29th of November, 1802; A petition was presented to the House of Commons, signed by Mr. Frost alone, and not by any of the other defendants, complaining of that election and return; which petition stated, that at the last election for the borough of East Grinsted, &c. on the 7th of July last, the petitioner,Sir Henry Strachey, and Mr. Giles, were candidates to represent the same in parliament. That the right of voting is in the inhabitants paying scot and lot, and the freeholders of the borough, That G. B. the bailiff acted as returning officer for the town and borough aforesaid, with gross partiality, &c. that a considerable shew of hands appeared in favour of the petitioner; yet that G. B. declared the shew of hands to have been in favour of Sir H. S.and Mr. Giles; and on a poll being demanded, &c. and taken before the said bailiff, a majority of legal votes was polled for, or tendered in favour of the petitioner, over the said Sir H. S. and Mr. G., and the petitioner was duly elected and ought to have been returned one of the burgesses, &c, but that the bailiff admitted several illegal votes in favour of Sir H. S. and Mr. G. and rejected many legal votes tendered in favour of the petitioner, and returned Sir H. S. and Mr. G. as duly elected, &c. And after alleging corrupt practices against the sitting members, it concluded with praying that the house would take the premises into 4 C NO. XXXVI. N. S. 1806. ersus TURLEY consideration and grant him relief, &c. and Mr. Frost. STRACKLY entered into a recognizance to the king in 2001. with two sureties in 1001. each to appear before the and Others. House of Commons at the time fixed by the house for taking his petition into consideration; and also to appear before any select committee appointed for the trial of the same, &c. The House of Commons ordered this petition to be taken into consideration, upon the 8th of February. On the 1st of December, 1802, a petition was presented to the house, signed by J Burt and J. Turley and the other defendants in the first action, and several others, stating in like manner the constitution of the borough and right of voting therein, and alleging partiality, &c. in the returning officer; and that he permitted many persons to vote who had no right, and rejected the votes of the petitioners and others who were duly qualified to vote, &c. and praying relief in the premises; and J. Burt (one of the defendants), entered into such recognizance for the trial of the same petition as is by law required, in 2001, with two sureties in 1001. each. Mr. Frost did not sign this petition; the House of Commons ordered this petition to be taken into consideration, at the same time with the petition of Mr. Frost, and the select committee was duly ballotted and appointed on the 17th of March, 1803, for trying and determining the merits of both parties. On the 4th of April, 1803, the chairman of the committee reported to the House that the said committee had determined, that Sir H. S. Bart. and D. Giles, Esq. were duly elected burgesses to serve for the said borough, and that the petition of J. Turley, J. Burt, &c. were frivolous and vexatious. These determinations were entered on the journals of the house, and an examined copy of such entry was produced in evidence. On the 15th of June, 1804, the speaker signed the following certifi cate which was produced in evidence; "Whereas N. Smith, Esq. one of the masters of the high court of Chancery,J. H. Ley, Esq. clerk assistant of the House of Commons, who were duly authorized and directed by me according to the statute 28 Geo. III. entitled, &c. to examine and tax the costs and expences of Sir S. H. Bart. and D.Giles, Esq. incurred by them in opposing the petition of J. Frost, Esq. and also in opposing the petition of several persons in behalf of themselves and others, electors of East Grinsted, &c. presented to the House of Commons, complaining of an undue election and return of them the said Sir H. S. Bart. and D. G. Esq. as burgesses, &c. have reported to me the amount of such costs and expences. Now I do hereby certify that the said costs and expences allowed in the said report amount to 7061. 3s. 10d. Dated 15th of June, 1804, (and signed) Charles Abbot, Speaker. A copy of this certificate was served upon the defendant Frost, and payment of the costs therein certified to be due was demanded of and refused by him. On the 7th of May, 1805, the plaintiff's made a further application to the speaker to ascertain how much of the costs and expences allowed in the certificate amounting to 7061. 3s. 10d. was incurred by the plaintiffs in opposing the said two petitions as they were jointly prosecuted, and how much thereof was incurred by them in opposing each of the said petitions separately prosecuted, who thereupon granted the following certificate, which was produced in evidence: "Whereas N. Smith, Esq. one of the masters, &c. and J. H. Ley, Esq. assistaut, &c. who were duly authorized and directed by me, according to the statute 28 Geo. III. entitled, &c. to examine and ascertain how much of the costs and expences allowed by them in their report to me, dated the 12th of June last, was incurred by Sir H. S. Bart. and D. G. Esq. 1806 STRACHIY versus TURLEY and Others. 1806. STRACHEY versus TURLEY or either of them, in opposing the petition of J. Frost, Esq. and also the petition of several persons whose names thereunto subscribed on behalf of themand Others. selves and others the electors of the borough of East Grinsted, &c. severally complaining of an undue election and return of them the said Sir H. S. and D. G. for the said borough of East Grinsted, as the said two petitions were jointly prosecuted, and how much thereof was incurred by them or either of them in opposing each of the said two petitions as separately prosecuted, have made their report to me thereupon. Now I do hereby certify conformably to the said last mentioned report, that the costs and expences incurred by the said Sir H. S. and D. G. in opposing the petition of J. F. separately prosecuted amount to Isl. 2s. and in opposing the petition of the several electors of the Borough of East Grinsted aforesaid, separately prosecuted amount to 131. 2s.; and that the expences of the said Sir H. S. and D. G. in opposing the said two petitions jointly prosecuted amount to 6791. 19s. 10d. which said three last mentioned sums make up the sum of 7061. 3s. 10d. as allowed in the said former report made to me on the 12th of June last, and certified by me on the 15th of June last accordingly. Dated 13th of June, 1805, (Signed) Charles Abbott, Speaker. Payment of these several costs was respectively demanded of and refused by the defendants. Whereupon these three actions were brought,one against Turley and others the defendants in the first action, for 131. 2s. in which action Frost is not a defendant; one against Frost for 131. 2s; and the third against Frost, Turley, and others, for 679l. 19s. 10d. The question for the opinion of the court, was whether the plaintiffs were entitled to recover in all or any of the said actions? If in all, then the verdict to stand, if not in all, but only two or one, in such two or one, if not 6 entitled to recover in all or any, nonsuits to be entered accordingly. WOOD, for the plaintiff. At the time of the trial two objections were made, first, that the costs could not be taxed jointly; secondly, as the speaker had made one certificate there was an end of his authority and he could not make another. This action is founded on the statute 28 Geo. III. c. 52, s. 18, which refers to two former acts; statute 10 Geo. III. c. 16, and 11 Geo. III. c. 42; and the 28 Geo. III. c. 52, s. 19, provides that whenever any committee shall report to the house, that a petition is frivolous and vexatious, the party against whom the petition isshall recover from the parties who signed the petition or any of them, such costs as he incurred in opposing the same. Such costs are to be taxed by the speaker under s. 22, which is as folJows: "that in the several cases before mentioned, the costs and expences of prosecuting or opposing any such petition shall be thus ascertained; that on application to the speaker by any petitioner or petitioners, &c, for ascertaining such costs and expences he shall direct the same to be taxed by two persons, who are thereby required to examine the same, and report the amount thereof to the speaker, who shall, on application, deliver to the party or parties a certificate signed by himself, expressing the amount of the costs and expences allowed in such report, &c." These costs if not paid may be recovered by action of debt. And in section 24 it is enacted that "in every case where the amount of such costs and expences shall have been so recovered from any person or persons, it shall and may be lawful for such person or persons to recover in like manner from the other persons or any of them, 1806. STRACHEY versus TURLEY and Others, 1 |