The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-11 00:00:00

BAIL COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Sittings in Banco, before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
THE QUEEN V. THE MAYOR AND ASSESSORS OF THE BO-
ROUGH OF ST. ALBAN'S.

Mr. WELLSBY moved for a rule quo warranto against
the Mayor of St. Alban's, and a person named Joseph
Russell, and called on them to show by what authority
the said Joseph Russell claimed to exercise the office of
town councillor of St. Alban's. The Learned Council
stated that the motion was made upon two grounds.
The first was, that Mr. Russell, the party elected, had
not a majority of votes, and that the numbers had been
incorrectly taken at the poll ; and the second was,
that one of the assessors, who acted as deputy for Mr.
Harrison, was incompetent to act. The facts were simply
these :—The offices of four town councillors of the bo-
rough having become vacant, an election took place be-
fore the Mayor and assessors, one of whom (Mr.
Wingrave) acted for Mr. Jacob Harrison. On
the 2d of November, the day of the election, the
candidates were Messrs. Lowe, Kent, Russell, Kinder,
Shrubb, and Lewis. Two gentlemen acted as p,ll clerks
for some of the candidates, and took a correct list of all
the votes, and their numbers were, for Mr. Lowe 272,
for Shrub 247, for Kent 246, and for Mr. Gibson 243.
The votes were examined that evening in the Town-
hall, in presence of the mayor, assessors, and town-clerk
(Mr. Blagg), and the next day the numbers were de-
clared, for Lowe 277, Kent 254, Russell 248, and Shrubb
245. The deponent stated, that having great doubts as
to the correctness of this return, Mr. Williams, one of
the poll-clerks,
satnayteedxtthraacttthoer
wTehnet ttoowtnh_eeletorkwnr-celfeurskedtotoinaslpleeewt
tthhee
voting papers.
eyl,,o2ulvdootenr
votes, whereas
i
e paperso tobe be
made. s ee n
jut or g. evvt ht el
lri,a
mosr
comparisonsvoth)
voting
pap
number of them
four votes each, makng a
was 473,
the mayor returned 1,904 votes as having been
polled,
who acted as iven
. total of.
othf
Mr. Wingrave,
of Mr. Jacob Harrison, could not
act legally, as the Act state
making the number 12 more than could pos-
sibly have been g
de-
puty assessor, in place
unless in case of sickness,
appointed for an assessor,
having been given. In
rd. that no deputy should be
and then only upon proper noticethe present M
instance r. Harrison was absent upon his
own private business, and no proper notice bad been
given.—The rule was granted.
d for a rule absolute for a
Mr. WELLSBY then moved
enry
and to allow him to have a
Williams the voting papers,
mandamus calling on the town• clerk to produce to H
HE JUSTICES OF WORCESTER.fuII inspection of them.—Rule granted.
THE QUEEN V. T
Mr. GRAVES applied for a rud' directed to two
le to show cause why air
writ of mandamus should not issue,
magistrates of the county of Worcester, to compel them
t-
to grant distress warrants against two pa
clined paying the poors'-rate. The Learres who de-
nied Counsel
stated that the facts of the case (which were some-
what peculiar) were these:—On the 10th of July
a rate was made by a competent number of the
churchwardens and overseers of the parish of Broadway
in the county of Worcester. On the Sunday following
notice of the rate was affixed to the church door, accord-
ing to the provisions of the Act. The notice declared
a poor-rate of 6d. in the pound, and was signed by two
of the churchwardens. Au attorney in the parish re-
fused to pay the rate. On being summoned to show
cause for his refusal, he objected that the rate was null
and void, as the notice was not a good one. His clerk
and son both made the same objection. The case came
before the magistrates, and it was argued that as the no-
tice was signed by John Justin for J. Poole and Charles
Mosley, it was void on two grounds; first, that no church-
warden had any power to sign by deputy, and, secondly,
that the notice was not signed by a majority of the
churchwardens and overseers. The objection was held
good, and the rate became null and void.
On the 12th of September following a rate similar to
the former one in amount was declared, and the parties
again refused to pay. On being summoned they ad-
mitted the perfect regularity of the proceedings in this
instance, but contended that the first rate was a good
one, and held good until it had been regularly quashed
at the quarter sessions, and that the last rate being a
concurrent rate could not be valid. The magistrates
who were puzzled by these proceedings refused to grant
a distress warrant, and the parties wer e compelled to
„Inv to this Court to compel them. The first rate was
iuost certainly null and void by the Act ,7th Win. IV.,
and Vic. 1., chap. 45, and therefore th. second rate
must necessarily be legal, as all due fox ms had been
complied with.
Mr. Justice FATTEBON-N-TAket a rule.