Star.
London, England, 1814-11-08 00:00:00

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, NOV. 7•

This being the first day of Michaelmas Term, the
usual returns were made of the state of the convicts
at Woolwich, Langston Harbour, Portsmouth, Sheer-
ness, &c. and the Governors certified most favourably.
Ordered to be entered on the files of the Court.
BOROUGH 01.-LIVERPOOL-.

• THE KING V. LEYLAND.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved fur a Rule; to
chew cause why a Writ of Mandamn: should not issue,
directed to a gentleman of the name of Leyland,
commanding him to take upon hmself the office of
Mayor of the Borough of Liverpool. The success
of this application would depend on the construction
which their Lordships should put on the governing
Charter. There were forty-one Common Could!.
men in the Borough, and the Charter directed that a
Mayor should be annually elected from among such
Common Councilmen : and it provided further, in
the event of the Mayor dying, being removed, or
" refusing to stand," that then tke Corporation should
proceed to the election of a new Mayor. In the pre-
sent case Mr. Leyl.tud had been regularly n minated,
and duly elected ; and unless that Gentleman ought
to be excused, for the reasons which he should here-
after state, he ought now to fulfil the duties of that
office. There was nothing hostile in this application,
its sole object was to ascertain whether any Common
Councilman of that Borough could, under the go-
verning Charter, granted by 'King William, 46 refuse
to stand for the office of Mayor." Previous to the
election, it was intimated to Mr. Leyland thathe would
be put in nomination for the office of Mayor, in con-
sequence of which he communicated to the electing
body, that baring already filled the office of Mayor
once, that of Coroner, and being a Magistrate, he
should " refuse to stand," to use the language of the
Charter. At present, however, the question was, not
the validity of Mr. Leyland's objections, but whe-
ther he was justified in retusing to stand for not-
withstanding Mr. Leyland's refusal to stand for the
office, the Common Councilmen proceeded to the elec-
tion, and elected Mr. Leyland. Being largely en-
gaged in banking concerns, and alledging that he
could not satisfactorily discharge the duties of the
office, that Gentleman still continued to refuse to act
' as a Mayor, and such refusal was productive of many
inconveniencies to the Borough, as the late Mayor
was compelled to continue the efficient Chief Magil-
-1 Wane. The f.,.t to be ascertained was, whether !dr.
'.4loe)lassd

could refuse to stand ? The words of the

natter were, that the Common Councilmen should
proceed to a new ejection,- “ should the Mayor die,
be removed from his office, or reuse to stand."

Mr. TOPPINti observed, that Mr. Leyland did not
the honours, comforts, and AdvAntages result-
ing from being a Ceinmon AU he oil'
continues I !.:ein'oer of the Council, .:!'hough he had
refasuti to till the (ince of Mayor.
Lord ELtexaoltovon remarked, that the nature of
the refusal which should be received, did not appear
to be defined in the Charter; but, as Mr. Leyland
continua a Commoi Cuuncilman, the point merited
more deliberate investigation, and therefore the Court
would giant the Rule.
It would be athisable that the Court should be pro-
vided with copies of the original Charter, which was
in LAM, on the motion to make the Rule absolute.
Rule Nisi granted.