The Sun.
London, England, 1840-05-18 00:00:00

PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CORONER

OF BOLTON.
It appears that a rule quo warranto had been ob•
tained by Mr. Rutter, the county Coroner, calling upon
Mr. John Taylor, the Coroner appointed by the corpo-
ration of Bolton, to show by what right he held that
office. This rule came on for argument before the
Court of Queen's Bench on Tuesday last, when, after
hearing Mr. Crompton against, and Mr. Cresswell and
Mr. Peel in support of the application of Mr. Rutter, the
Court discharged the rule, on grounds which, as our
readers will see, apply with great force to the action
now pending against the Coroner for this borough. We
shall repeat the judgment entire, calling attention to
the passages which we have marked with italics :
Lord Denman, C. J.—When we find a public
officer in possession of a very important public office,
it is said that it is a reason why he should not
possess it, unless he has been well appointed to it ; but
I think it is a reason why we should not allow it
to be questioned upon any light grounds. It seems to me
it is quite novel to attack a charter of the Crown through
the medium of a pet son appointed under it : and when
we find him in possession of an office which has been
deliberately granted to him by an act of the Crown,
and when there are direct means of questioning
that, it is a novelty which ought not to be encouraged.
I cannot think that we ought to grant a quo warranto
to call upon the Coroner to defend an act of the Crown
in granting that charter which puts him in the situation
he now fills.

Mr. Justice Littledale—l am entirely of the same
opinion. The object of this proceeding is to call in
question the validity of a charter. That charter has
been granted by the Crown, and the person against
whom this application is made has acted under it ;
and I think we cannot suffer that charter to be ques-
tioned in this way. There are means of trying the validity
of the charter in other ways ; but this has never been
done before.

Mr. Justice Patteson—This is not like the case of a
corporation which is admitted to exist, and where a
person comes before us to desire a quo warranto infor-
mation to be filed against some person who is an officer
of that corporation, or part of that corporate body, to
show by what authority he exercises any right in a body
admitted to exist ; but this is an application to us,
setting before us a charter, which, it states, has been
recently granted by the Crown, and desiring us, in the
name of the Crown, to grant an information at the suit
of a private person, to set aside a charter of the Crown
itself now recently granted. This seems to me to be so
novel a proceeding, that we should not be justified in so
doing, whatever other methods there may be of question-
ingit.

Our readers will, no doubt, recollect that we have
always maintained that the legal proceedings instituted
by the Manchester Anti-Corporators, and the whole
course of their opposition to the charter, were founded
on an improper basis ; that they would involve both
sides in a most serious amount of expense, would pro-
duce great inconvenience to the public, and would very
probably end in leaving the main question in d:spute ex-
actly where it was at first. That the expense and in-
convenience have already been incurred, our readers are
already pretty well aware ; and it :lox seems as if they
had been incurred to no purpose, and that the pending
litigation must altagether fail in determining the validity
of the charter. It will be teen, that all the Judges,
in discharging the rule obtained by Mr. Rutter
against the Bolton. borough Coroner, proceed upon the
ground that they cannot permit the validity of a charter
of incorporation to be questioned by any proceedings
instituted against an officer appointed by the Corpora-
tion ; and as the pending action of Rutter v. Chapman
is a proceeding instituted against an officer appointed
by the Corporation, and instituted expressly and avow-
edly for the purpose of questioning the validity of the
Manchester charter, it follows that, if the other Judges
who will constitute the Court of Error should agree in
opinion with those of the Court of Queen's Bench, there
must be a judgment for the defendant in that action :
in which case, the•enorinous costs incurred in the trial
will have been entirely thrown away, and the question
as to the validity at the charter will remain wholly un-
touched.

But this is not all that may be collected from the
language used by th a Judges in giving their decision on
the Bolton case. V ire think it will be apparent to those
of our readers who arc in the habit of attending to
legal proceedings, and carefully considering the import
of judicial dicta, tha t there is an evident disinclination
to allow charters to be questioned in any indirect man-
ner ; and that the on ly proceeding which the Court will
countenance will be that which the law has expressly
provided for the purpose, namely, a writ of quo war-
ranto against the tI syor or some member of the Cor-
poration. If the Ju( lges will not try the validity of a
charter upon:the apr ointment of an officer by the Cor-
poration, it seems to follow, by a parity of reasoning,
that they will not tr 3 it. upon any other act done by the
Corporation, upon ti ,e imposition of a rate, for instance ;
and if the obstructive policy pursued by the Manchester
Anti-Corporators sl .ould be persisted in, we feel fully
persuaded that they will, in the end, find themselves in
a grievous error.—al fanchester Guardian.