The Sun.
London, England, 1837-11-13 00:00:00

QUEEN'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

( Sittings in Banco. )
THE QUEEN V. FORD.
Sir F. PoLt.oex acitiregSctl th! Court at its sitting, and said
that it gave him great pleagire to be rte'};• to state that circum-
stances had transpired with respect to the fttl,!: (which had
hcen obtained in this case, for a criminal information against
the defendant, a gentleman of the name of Ford) which ob-
viated the necessity of further proceedings in the matter. On
behalf of Mr. Ford, he ( Sir F. Pollock) had been instructed
to state that he ( Mr. Ford) was most anxious to make every
reparation in his power for the injury which he had been in-
duced to inflict upon Sir Charles Clark. Mr. Ford had also
made an ample apology in a letter addressed to the attorney cf
Sir Charles Clark, in which he admitted that the statement
which he had made reflecting upon the character of Sir C.
Clark, was wholly without foundation, and had been made in
a moment of extreme irritation. The letter further stated
that the writer (Mr. Ford) was most desirous to make every
reparation in his power, and to pay all the ccsts that had been
incurred on the part of the prosecution ; and that he had given
directions that his apology should be made in the most public

manner.
Sir WILLIAU FOLLETT said that when he applied for the
rule, Sir Charles Clark considered it to be his imperative
duty to bring the matter before the Court ; but as it was now
stated that the charge made against Sir Charles, by the de-
fendant, was altogether without foundation, he was sure that
their Lordships' would consider Sir Charles justified in not
pressing the case further, as it had been his only object to
have his character vindicated.
Lord DENMAN was satisfied that such had been the only
object of Sir Charles Clark in bringing the matter before the
Court, and as that object was fully attained, the rule might be
discharged, upon the payment of costs by the defendant.

THE QUEEN V. POOLE.
In this case, Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT had obtained a rule
nisi for the issuing of a writ quo warranto, calling on the de-
fendant to show by what right he exercised the office of Town-
clerk in the borough of Carnarvon.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL this day appeared to show cause
against the rule. His affidavits set forth that the defendant,
Mr. Poole, had been appointed Town-clerk of the borough of
Carnarvon by the old Corporation in the year 1823, and that
he held that office up to the passing of the Corporations' Re-
form Bill, under which Act he was re-appointed to the office
of Town-clerk to the new Corporation on the Ist of January,
1836. But it had been argued by the other side, in applying
for the rule—first, that no appointment of a Town-clerk for
the borough of Carnarvon did really take place under the Re-
form Bill ; and, secondly, that all the appointments made by
the Town Councillors of Carnarvon on the Ist of Jan., 1836,
were null and void, those Town Councillors themselves
not having been duly appointed. To the latter part of his
Learned Friend's (Sir W. Follett's) argument, he (the At-
torney-General) replied, that all the irregularities of the Cor-
poration proceedings on the Ist of January, 1836, in Carnar-
von and other boroughs similarly situated had been rectified,
and the acts of the Town Councillors on that day, legalised
and confirmed, by an Act passed in the last Session of Parlia-
ment, and entitled the Corporations' Reform Act Amend-
ment Act. To the allegation, that no appointment of Mr.
Poole to the office of Town-clerk of Carnarvon, under the
Corporations' Reform Act, had taken place, he replied, that
no formal re-appointment was necessary, inasmuch as the 65th
Section of the Act provided that Bailiffs, Treasurers, Cham-
berlains, and all Ministerial officers' appointed under the old
Corporations, should continue to discharge the same duties
under the new Corporations, until they were removed from
office by the Town Council .
Mr. Justice COLERIDGE—BUt it has been argued in this
case that the office of Town Clerk is not ministerial, but de-
liberative, and sometimes judicial. It has been argued that
before the Municipal Reform Act, he was the legal adviser of
the Corporation, and that he in some cases acted as a Judge.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL submitted with all deference,
that the office of Town Clerk was at present simply minis-
terial, and as the duties were in part at least ministerial at the
time of Mr. Pool's appointment, in 1823, he was entitled to
continue to discharge those duties under the new Corporation,
according to the provisions of the 65th section, until removed
by the Town Council. As he had not been removed by the
Town Council, the recognition of his continuance by the
Town Council was a virtual re-appointment. On these grounds
the Learned Attorney submitted that the application of his
Learned Friend could not be allowed, and that the rule must
be discharged.
Sir WILLIAM FOLLETT, in support of the rule, said that the
objections to the Town-clerk in this case were the same as
against others in whose cases the Court had already within
the present term made absolute rules fot writs quo warranto.
It might be true that Mr. Poole had acted as Town-clerk under
the old charters of Carnarvon, but the Learned Attorney..
General had not shown that the duties of that office
were such as he could continue to discharge since
the passing of the Municipal Reform Act. The of-
fice of Town-clerk under that Act was quite differcnt
from the office which existed under the same name in the old
Corporations. By many of the old charters, as for instance
in Bristol (where the town-clerks even delivered the gaols,
and sat in session viith the justices) the office of Town
Clerk was clearly a judicial and not a ministerial office. In
the case of Carnarvon it was to be presumed that the
office was a corporate office, held by charter, and the
sixty-fifth section of the Reform Act, upon which the
Attorney-General relied, gave no power to remove the
Town-clerk, the Recorder, or any other corporated or char-
tered officer. Those officers determined on the passing of
the Act, and the 58th section expressly required that on the
9th of November, after the passing of the Act, every Town
Council should appoint a Town-clerk who should hold office
during pleasure. That section allowed the Council no dis-
cretion as to the removal of the old Town-clerks, or
the allowing them to continue in office. It was express
and absolute as to the new appointment. In his affidavit
the defendant rested his appointment upon the Act, and the
affidavits on his ( Sir W. Follett's) side, had proved that no
appointment took place. But if the 65th section did, as the
Attorney-General contended, apply to the case of the Town
Clerk, it ought to have been shown, that the duties of the
office which he held from 1823 were such as lie could continue
to cxtsreise under the Act.
Mr. j,-,`,,sensitos followed on the same side, and was stopped
by the Court.
The Lord Cnts:..* JUSTICE—It will be sufficient at present
1 to make the rule absolte.