The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-04-05 00:00:00

NORTHERN CIRCOIT—Yoga, Aran. S.

(Define Mr. JUitite BAYLEY gird s Common Jury.]
siovnintow v. LEATHAM.
Mr. MIL s; g a opened the pleadings, and Mr. SCARLETT stated
the hbel.

Thedefendant pleaded Not Guilty.—The damages were laid at
1.0111.

The following are the leading points of the case :
The plaintiff is an attorney in very respectable practice at Pon-
tefraet, and possessiog a private fortune.
The defendant is the son of the late John Leatham, Esq.
banker. In June, 1625, the plaintiff was, against his inclination,
elected en Alderman of the borough of Pontefract. The Mayor is
the returning officer nt process for the borough. Previously to the
time of electing the Mayor for the last year (Sept. 14), it had been
intimated to the plaintiff that the party espousing the interest of
Lord Pollington, at the head of which was the defendant, intended
to get the plaintiff elected Mayor, and by that means prevent
his interference on the part of a Mr. Ilouldsworth. To avoid
this, the plaintiff called upon Reverel of the burgesses, and
stated, as a ground for their not electing him, his being the avowed
agent of Air. Ifouldsworth and that it' they did elect him. however
impartially he might act, he could not give satisfaction to all parties.
The defendant, together with a Mr. Aluscroft (a new made Alder-
man ) immediately commenced a canvas*, and urged the burgesses
to elect the plaintiff: On the 12th of September the plaintiff left
Pontefract for Durham, and on the 14th he was elected Mayor.
Notices of his election, and requiring him to attend on the 29th to
take the oaths, were left at his house. In a few days afterwards a
paragraph appeared in the provincial papers, stating that the plain.
tiff had left lionie for Scotland, to avoid a public duty. On the
23d of September the plaintiff returned, and on the Mt' he wrote
a letter to the then Mayor, informing him that it was not his in.
tentiuu to attend on the 29th to be sworn in Mayor, being advised
that he was not liable to serve the office. In Alichaelmax term
last the Court of King's Bench was moved against the plaintiff;
fur a rule to chew cause why he did not take upon himself the office
of Mayor, which lie showed cause against, ufteging `• that lie wax
not qualified. not having taken the sacrament within 12 months oldie
time of his election," with which the Court was satisfied,and issued a
mandamus to the burgesses, directing them to proceed to a new elec-
tion. (In the 91 h December last the burgesses held an aggregate meet-
ing at the Rotation Office, to agree upon the Alderman tote elected
Mayor, and some of them were deputed to give the Alderman chosen
notice that he might prepare a collation for the corporation on the
following day. The defendant on that occasin took the chair, and
opened the outlines, of the meeting by reading the mandamus, and
afterwards, in a long speech, observed in strong language on the
conduct of the plaintiff in refusing to become Mayor, and proposed
that he should be re-elected, offering to subscribe MI. towards
compelling him to take the office ; but the burgesses negatived the