on payment of the penalty; and that therefore it was not competent for him to make this objection. The learned Judge rejected the evidence, and the plaintiff obtained a verdict. And now Denman moved for a new trial, on the ground that the learned Judge had improperly rejected the evidence; and contended that the plaintiff ought not thus to have been permitted to take advantage of his own wrong ful act. Per Curiam. The evidence was properly rejected. It is the duty of the parties to an agreement to take care that when it is executed it is properly stamped; and it is one of the risks attendant upon an omission to do this, that if any accident happens to the agreement before the stamp is affixed, there is no remedy upon it whatsoever. It is not possible now to say, whether or not the commissioners of stamps, in the exercise of their discretion, would have permitted this agreement, if it had remained in existence, to be stamped on payment of the penalty. Rule refused. 1819. RIPPINER against WRIGHT. IN The KING against TREVENEN. N this case Gaselee had obtained another rule nisi for a quo warranto against the defendant, to shew by what authority he claimed to be mayor of Helleston a It is in the dis cretion of the Court to grant quo warranto information or not: and un relator, the Court der circumstances tending to throw suspicion on the motives of the will not grant such application where the consequence will be to dissolve a corporation. upon 1819. The KING against TREVENEN. upon and from the 16th day of November, 1813, until the 25th September 1814. The rule was obtained under the same circumstances as have been already (a) stated. The present application was made on the affidavit of Christopher Wallis an attorney, resident at Helleston, who stated that he was a freeman of that borough, and that he had not concurred in the election either of Thomas Grylls to the office of mayor on the 26th September, 1813, nor in that of the present defendant or any subsequent mayor. He further swore that he intended to prosecute the quo warranto, if granted, at his own expense, and that the present application was made at his own instance and expense, and without any agreement or promise of any person or persons for his being reimbursed, nor did he expect to be reimbursed the expenses, or any part thereof, by any person or persons whomsoever. The affidavits on the other side set forth the same facts and declarations of Sir Christopher Hawkins, that he would dissolve the corporation, &c., as in the former application, and added, that Mr. Wallis, the present relator, was a partizan of Sir C. H. at the last election; that he lent him. his house, voted for his interest, and was the partner of Mr. Roberts, his avowed law-agent on that occasion. Warren shewed cause. It is to be observed that the applicant only means, that there is no agreement or expectation entertained by him that he shall be reimbursed. It is quite consistent with this, that he may have already received the money for this purpose. Besides, what proper motive can a freeman of this (a) Ante, p. 339. The relator not filing additional affidavits, the rules were discharged. corpor corporation have in dissolving the corporation? for that is to be the consequence of the present motion. In R. v. Stacey (a), Lord Mansfield puts it on this ground: he says, "The Court is bound to guard the quiet of corporations, and the stat. 11 G. 1. c. 4. was passed in order to insure them security and tranquillity." And besides the circumstances in which the present relator stands are strongly demonstrative of the fact, that this is a continuation of the same attempt before made by Sir C. Hawkins; for the present relator is nearly connected with him, and is the partner of his avowed law-agent, and an active friend to his interest. Here nearly six years have already elapsed before any objection has been taken. Gaselee, contrà. If the Court is to be astute in inquiring into the motives of parties, there will soon be an end of quo warranto informations. It is hardly to be supposed that any person on the opposite interest to Sir C. Hawkins will come forward to object to these defects. But it is quite enough if, as here, all connection with that person, as to this motion, is denied by the relator. He swears that it is made at his own expense, and there may be many legitimate motives why he may wish this corporation to be dissolved. For he may hope to have a fresh charter more favourable to the general interest of the town. All that is necessary is, that the relator should apply bonâ fide, and that is sworn to be the case here. In Rex v. Cudlip (b) the Court on a second application granted the rule, and judgment of ouster was afterwards obtained. (a) 1 T. R. 1. Yet the (b) 6 T. R. 503. circum 1819. The KING against TREVENEN. 1819. The KING against TREVENEN. circumstances there were in all respects similar to the present. ABBOTT C. J. Where a corporation acts contrary to the franchises which have been granted to it, and invades the rights of the crown, the Attorney-General, of his own authority, and without any application to this Court for leave, may exhibit an information against them. But in the case of individual members of the corporation the case is different; for then it is wholly within the discretion of this Court to say, whether such an information ought to be granted or refused. The Court, undoubtedly, have, in some cases, permitted these informations to be filed, where the effect has been thereby to dissolve the corporation; but that has been where strong cases have been made out. Here, all that appears is this, that about five or six years ago, the select body in this corporation nominated two persons for the office of mayor, one of whom happened to have filled the inconsistent offices of recorder and alderman at the same time. That union of offices, it appears from some other cases which have been before the Court, had existed in other neighbouring boroughs, and was not known or supposed at the time to be illegal. The objection, therefore, to the title of the defendant is not one which the Court would be inclined to favour. Then, when we consider, in addition to this, that this application is made at the instance of an acknowledged partizan of Sir C. Hawkins, and that this latter person has expressed a determination, that in order to obtain parliamentary influence, he would dissolve this corporation, I think we shall best exercise the discretion vested in us by discharging the present rule. Rule discharged. 1819. The KING against The Inhabitants of POLES Wednesday, WORTH. The TWO Justices, by their order, removed James Barwel, Sarah his wife, and their four children, from the parish of Kingsbury, in the county of Warwick, to the parish of Polesworth, in the same county. sessions, on appeal, confirmed the order, subject to the opinion of this Court on the following case. The pauper was hired by Mr. Hay of Polesworth, at Polesworth statutes, a fortnight before Michaelmas, 1799, as waggoner's lad, at 37. 10s. wages for a year, commencing from the day after Falseley fair, the Tuesday after Michaelmas-day. The pauper remained in the service at Polesworth till a fortnight before Michaelmas in the following year, when he went to Middleton statutes, having previously asked his master's leave, who refused to let him go there. The following day the pauper asked his master what work he was to do; the master told him that he might go where he had been the day before, and that he would not employ him any more. wages, The and said if asked the master to pay his pauper if he did, he would go. The master refused, and said he would obtain a summons, which he did; but neither of them attended the magistrate on that summons. The pauper left his master's house on the day the summons was served two days afterwards, the pauper called at his master's house; and the same day they both went to Polesworth statutes, when the pauper hired himself to a new master, from the day after the next Falseley fair. On the day after Polesworth statutes, the pauper summoned May 5th. |