borough cannot maintain an action against the corporation for fees in respect of the performance of the duties imposed upon him by the Reform Act or the Municipal Corporations Act; although he receives no stated salary as town clerk, and although the then corporation, in several years before the passing of the Municipal Corporations Act, made payments to him for the performance of the duties imposed on him by the Reform Act. Jones v. Carmarthen (Mayor, &c.), 8 M. & W. 605. Salary in Lieu of Fees.]—An agreement between a municipal corporation and their town clerk, that he shall receive a fixed salary in lieu of the fees payable under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 124, and that, to carry out such agreement, he shall pay over to the borough fund so much of the amount received for fees as exceeds that salary, is illegal. Liverpool (Corporation) v. Wright, 1 Johnson, 359; 28 L. J., Ch. 868; 5 Jur., N. S. 1156. A town council resolved, "that one hundred guineas be fixed as the salary of the town clerk, for his attendance on the business of the council and committees, and that he be paid the usual charges in defending and bringing actions." On motion to review the taxation of the town clerk's bills-Held, that the master proceeded on the right principle, in considering the salary as a remuneration for all business, except bringing and defending actions. Thomas v. Swansea (Mayor, c.), 2 D., N. S. 470; 12 L. J., Ex. 73. "Expenses Incurred."]-By 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, the town clerks of boroughs are directed to prepare the list of persons entitled to vote for the election of members of parliament; and by s. 55, the expenses incurred by them in carrying the act into effect are to be repaid :-Held, that the words "expenses incurred are confined to costs out of pocket, and that a town clerk is not entitled to any further remuneration for the time and labour he may devote to the performance of the duties imposed on him by the act. Reg. v. Kingston-on-Hull (Governors and Guardians), 2 El. & Bl. 182; 22 L. J., Q. B. 324; 17 Jur. 914. Under 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 48, the town clerk of a borough is bound, incidentally to his office, to cause the lists of voters to be copied and printed, and to have the names arranged and numbered; and if he hires a person to do this for him, to make copies for the printer, and to superintend the printing, he is not entitled to be reimbursed the expense by the parish officers under s. 55, unless he cannot, by the reasonable labour of himself and his ordinary assistants, perform the duty without extra aid. But he is entitled to be reimbursed for the expense of printing. Reg. v. Allday, 7 El. & Bl. 799; 26 L. J., Q. B. 292; 3 Jur., N. S. 961. posing actions or suits, and all travelling and other expenses out of pocket :-Held, that he was entitled to be paid his charges for documents prepared and attendance given as a solicitor, upon instructions of the council, in order to obtain legal advice as to the validity of a borough rate, against the enforcement of which the council was threatened with litigation; for that such charges were either, within the meaning of the resolution. charges for conducting or opposing an action or a suit, or they were charges for business done upon request, wholly without any of the terms or consideration of the resolution, since the duty of the town clerk, as such, as specified in the resolution, was, in such a case, only to advise to the best of his ability, and not to guarantee the legal accuracy of his opinion. Reg. v. Prest, 16 Q. B. 33; 20 L. J., Q. B. 17; 15 Jur. 554. Lien as a Solicitor.]-A town clerk has a lien on papers of the corporation with respect to which he has done work as an attorney or a solicitor, but not on such as he holds merely as town clerk. Rex v. Simkins, 5 A. & E. 423. Incompatible Offices.]-Where a town clerk's accounts were allowed by the aldermen, or where a town clerk acted ministerially, under the aldermen, who were judicial officers, the offices were incompatible, and the appointment of an alderman to be the town clerk vacated his former office. Rex v. Pateman, 2 T. R. 777. : A justification in an action stated, that by custom a court of record had, from time immemorial, been holden before the steward and portreeve of a borough, or their sufficient deputy or deputies; and that a court was holden according to such custom before A., being the deputy of B., who was then steward and portreeve of the borough Held, that upon this plea the two offices must be taken to have been compatible, and that the steward and portreeve might be united in the same person; and that the appointment of the deputy by the person holding both offices was sufficient. Green v. Daries, 3 B. & A. 60. In a borough, by charter, the mayor, burgesses and commonalty were to elect a town clerk, who was also to be clerk of the peace, clerk of assize and prothonotary; and the mayor, recorder and town clerk were to hold pleas of certain actions. The mayor, recorder and a common council were to enact bye-laws for the good order and govern ment of the borough. None of the common council held any judicial office in any court where the town clerk officiated. His accounts were audited by a committee, named by the mayor and burgesses in common hall. No fixed salary was allowed by the corporation; but he was remunerated by certain fees of right payable to him :— Held, that the offices of common councilman and town clerk were not incompatible. Rex v. Jones, 1 B. & Ad. 677. The common clerk of a borough was appointed by the mayor, aldermen and bailiffs, removable at their pleasure, and with a salary variable at their pleasure; and it was his duty to attend the corporate meetings, and take minutes of the proceedings. The office of such common clerk, and that of alderman, are incompatible; and the acceptance of the former vacated the latter. Rev. Tizzard, 4 M. & R. 400; 9 B. & C. 418. Where a town clerk was appointed to his office upon a resolution of the council, fixing his salary, as town clerk, at 2507, a year, and setting out the duties of his office as town clerk to be, among other things, to prepare all precepts, orders and other documents required for levying borough rates, to abide by and see all orders of the council properly carried out, and all necessary documents prepared for so doing, and to act as the professional adviser of the mayor and council in the business of the council, but with the proviso. that he be paid the usual professional charges for conducting or op- | v. Thatcher, 2 T. R. 81. A jurat of the corporation of Hastings might be elected town clerk of the corporation. Milward 2. CLERKS TO BOROUGH JUSTICES. But the two offices were incompatible, and the the council, but not otherwise." He gave a acceptance of the latter, though an inferior office, bond with sureties for the discharge of the vacated the former. Ib. duties of his office. The bond recited the election, and was conditioned for the due accounting by M. for all such moneys, &c., "as 1, M., shall or may recover, or receive, in virtue of my appointment as treasurer as aforesaid, during the whole time of my continuing in the said office, in consequence of the election, or under any annual or future election of the had been given, the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 89, was passed. council to the said office." After this bond The 6th section repealed the 58th section of the previous statute, and directed that, instead of hold his office during the pleasure of the the treasurer being annually elected, he should council for the time being." M. was re-elected in November, 1843, after the passing of this latter statute; no fresh bond was taken:Held, that under the original bond, the sureties continued liable; that the election in November, 1843, was a future election, within the true intent Nature of Appointment.]-A clerk to the justices of a borough, appointed under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102, holds office only during the pleasure of the justices, and therefore a quo warranto will not lie for his office. Reg. v. Fox, 8 El. & Bl. 939; 27 L. J., Q. B. 151 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 410. Interest in Prosecutions.] Where a person is interested in the prosecution of parties committed for trial by the justices of a borough, this does not disqualify him from being appointed clerk to the justices, nor is the office avoided if, after such appointment, he becomes so interested. He is only liable under 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76, s. 102, as having acted illegally. Ib. Acting as-Penalty.]-By 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102, the penalty of 1001. is confined to those persons who, being aldermen or councillors or clerks of the peace of the borough, shall act as clerks to the justices of the borough, and at the same time be employed in the prosecution or defence of any prisoner committed by such-Ex. Ch. justices, and is not extended to all persons who shall act as clerks to the justices, and at the same time be employed in the prosecution or defence of any prisoner committed by such justices. Coe v. Lawrence, 1 El. & Bl. 516; 22 L. J., Q. B. 140; 17 Jur. 1115. Interest in Prosecutions - Indictment.] - A clerk to the justices of a borough which had no separate quarter sessions was in partnership with P., who was clerk of the peace for the county, and who was entitled to receive fees upon the arraignment and trial of all prisoners at the quarter sessions of the county. By arrangement between him and P., the former was entitled to receive, and did receive, one-half of the fees taken by P.-Held, that such clerk was liable to an indictment under s. 102, being interested in the prosecution of offenders within the proviso to s. 102. Reg. v. Fox, 1- El. & El. 729; 28 L. J., M. C. 157; 5 Jur., N. S. 1241-Ex. Ch. Held, by the Queen's Bench, that 18 & 19 Vict. c. 126, s. 18, providing compensation to clerks of the peace for the diminution of their fees, did not affect the operation of 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 102. Ib. peace Removal.]-The removal of clerk of the of a borough for misbehaviour is vested by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 105, in the recorder; such power of removal being given by 1 Will. & M. sess. 1, c. 21, s. 6, to the quarter sessions in counties, and the town council has no power to remove. Reg. v. Hayward, 2 B. & S. 585; 31 L. J., M. C. 177; 9 Jur., N. S. 45; 6 L. T. 285; 10 W. R. 558. 3. TREASURER. Appointment-Bond for Discharge of Duties.] -The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 58, required that the council of a borough should annually elect the treasurer of the borough. While that act was in force, M. was elected treasurer for "the year ending 9 November, 1842, if it should so long please and meaning of the bond; and that M. continued in the office of treasurer within the true intent and meaning of the bond. Oswald v. Berwickupon-Tweed (Mayor, Sc.), 5 H. L. Cas. 856; 25 L. J., Q. B. 383; 2 Jur., N. S. 743. Affirming 3 El. & Bl. 653; 23 L. J., Q. B. 321; 1 Jur., N. S. 395 bond dated the 8th October, 1839, after reciting Change in Tenure. -A condition of a borough under the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, was, that that P. had been appointed treasurer of a he should account for and apply all money which should come to his hands as treasurer In an action "(whether by virtue of his present or any subse- Dartmouth Year of Office.]-The condition of a bond, after reciting that S. had been appointed 76 (which by s. 58 required the treasurer of treasurer of a borough, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. every borough to be appointed every year), was, that he should faithfully, and according to the provisions of the act, and of such statutes as might thereafter be passed relating to the office, conduct himself in the office, and perform all the duties thereof:-Held, that the bond did not extend beyond the year of office for which S. had been appointed at the time of the execution of the bond. Cambridge (Mayor, &c.) v. Dennis, 27 L. J., Q. B. 474. Payments by.]-The treasurer of a corporation paid to their former clerk (the defendant) his year's salary, both parties believing him author ized to make the payment. In fact he had no such authority, and the corporation afterwards repudiated the payment, and discharged the defendant from his situation. The defendant kept the money, treating it as having been paid on behalf of the corporation. The plaintiff having. as the present clerk to the corporation, brought an action to recover a sum of money paid to the defendant on account of the corporation, and the defendant having pleaded as a set-off the sum so paid to him for his salary, the plaintiff relied on the payment of the salary as an answer:-Held, that the payment was an answer to the set-off, the corporation being entitled to ratify the act of their treasurer at the time of trial. Simpson v. Eggington, 10 Ex. 844; 24 L. J., Ex. 312. Before the Municipal Corporations Act.]-By the Gravesend Pier Act, 3 & 4 Will. 4, c. 101, s. 18, the corporation is empowered to appoint clerks, treasurers, collectors and such other officers or assistants as they may think necessary for the purposes of the act. By s. 19, it shall not be lawful for the corporation to appoint the person who may be appointed the clerk in the execution of the act, the treasurer for the purposes of the act; and a penalty is imposed on any person being the clerk, or his partner or clerk, who shall in any manner officiate for the treasurer:Held, that by the latter section, the corporation was prohibited from appointing the clerk to such officer as assistant treasurer; but, where the corporation had so appointed the clerk, and he had discharged some of the duties of the treasurer, it was a question for the jury, whether he did so bonâ fide, and in the belief that he was legally appointed by them as an independent officer, or colourably and in evasion of the act; and, in the former case, he would not be liable to the penalty for officiating for the treasurer, but in the latter he would. Hawkins v. Newman, 4 M. & W. 613; 1 H. & H. 471. 4. ASSESSORS. Salary-Action for.]—The judge and assessor of a borough court, who has been appointed by the borough council with a salary, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, cannot maintain an action against the corporation for the amount of such salary. Addison v. Preston (Mayor, &c.), 12 C. B. 108; 21 L. J., C. P. 146; 16 Jur. 643. Election of.]-Mandamus to the mayor, aldermen and burgesses of a borough, named in Schedule (A.) of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, and divided into wards, recited that no election of assessors to revise the burgess lists with the mayor in place of the last assessors, had been made on or since 1st March, 1844, by reason whereof the offices were still vacant; and the writ commanded the mayor, aldermen and burgesses to meet and elect such assessors. Return. that they did meet, and were ready to elect and to deliver and receive voting papers, but there was not, at the time of such meeting, nor has there been thence hitherto any assessor of the borough, wherefore they could not elect. On demurrer to the return, for not stating how and under what circumstances it happened that there was no assessor for the borough-Held, first, that the return was bad for that reason. Reg. v. Weymouth (Mayor, &c.), 7 Q. B. 46; 14 L. J., Q. B. 353; 10 Jur. 67. Held, secondly, that the mandamus did not in itself shew that the election could not be proceeded with. Ib. Held, thirdly, that any omission to appoint assessors might be remedied by an election under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 26, which extends to officers eligible under that act and the 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76, the provisions of the 11 Geo. 1, c. 4. §. 1, 2. Ib. 5. CORONER. Appointment.]-Quære, whether a coroner in a borough, under the 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76, can regularly be (by s. 62) appointed before the grant of a court of quarter sessions has passed the great seal, though within ten days after her Majesty's pleasure to make the grant has been notified to the council. Reg. v. Grimshaw, 10 Q. B. 747; 16 L. J., Q. B. 385; 11 Jur. 965. But a coroner having acted under such appointment, and been recognized in his office by the council, for several years :-Held, that the office was full, and that an information, in the nature of a quo warranto, lay to oust a subsequently appointed coroner. Ib. Election.]-A coroner cannot be elected at a meeting of the council, held by adjournment from a quarterly meeting, no summons or notice having been previously served upon the members of the council stating that such business was to be transacted. Ib. Illegality-Costs of Relator.-Previously to 5 & 6 Will. 4. c. 76, a mayor, by virtue of his office, was coroner of the borough. On the passing of that act, a separate court of quarter sessions was granted, and a coroner was ap pointed by virtue of s. 62. Upon an informatión for exercising the office of coroner, judgment having been given for the crown :-Held, that the relator was not entitled to costs under 9 Anne, c. 20, the office not being a corporate office within the meaning of that statute. Reg. v. Grimshaw, 2 B. C. Rep. 146 ; 5 D. & L. 249 ; 12 Jur. 134. 6. OVERSEERS. Appointment.]-The mayor or head officer of towns corporate and boroughs has the sole appointment of overseers by virtue of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 8, and 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 6. Reg.v. Preston 12 Q. B. 391; 3 New Sess. Cas. 312; 18 L. J., M. C. 10; 13 Jur. 7. A person appointed to act as overseer for collecting a borough rate in a portion of a parish under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 81, s. 3, is not one of the borough officers who are to be appointed in every year under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 58. Birmingham (Mayor, &c.) v. Wright, 16 Q. B. 63 ; 20 L. J., Q. B. 214. 7. OFFICERS TO GAOLS. Chaplain.]-Prior to 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76. the city of Bath was incorporated by the name of the mayor, aldermen and citizens of the city of Bath. The charter contained the grant of a gaol and a limited criminal jurisdiction, to be exercised by the recorder and the corporate justices, but not extending to felonies. It also authorized the The appointment, therefore, of a surgeon of a gaol of a corporation is vested in the justices of the borough, and not in the recorder or town council, and they are to make the appointment at a quarterly sessions, and at a subsequent sessions to direct a reasonable sum to be paid to him as a salary, and also sums of money for medicines and other articles. Ib. mayor, aldermen and citizens annually to elect enumerated in Schedule (A.) of that act, so as two of themselves to be bailiffs of the city, and to affect them by the provisions of that act, and directed that the bailiffs for the time being should by all subsequent enactments relative thereto. be keepers of the gaol thereof. After the passing Hammond v. Peacock, 1 Ex. 41; 16 L. J., M. C. of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, the new corporation 154. received the grant of a separate court of quarter sessions, with power to try felonies, and persons were appointed justices for the city by commission; but the corporation continued to elect one bailiff, who continued to be the keeper of the gaol, and appointed the gaoler. In 1842 a new gaol and house of correction were built under 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, to which the town council appointed a chaplain :-Held, that the right to appoint the chaplain of the new gaol and house of correction, under 2 & 3 Vict. c. 56, s. 15, was in the town council, by virtue of their authority to appoint the keeper of the prison, and not in the borough justices. Reg. v. Bath and Wells (Bishop), D. & M. 173; 5 Q. B. 147; 12 L. J., Q. B. 324; 7 Jur. 766. Keeper of Gaol.]-By 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 38, all the powers of regulation which before 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, were possessed by the justices having the government of any gaol, shall be exercised by the justices, "provided that no order made by the justices in pursuance of these powers, which shall require the expenditure or payment of any money, shail be of force until confirmed by the council of that city or borough :"-Held, that the proviso gave to the council a control over the amount of the salary of the keeper of the gaol. Reg. v. York (Mayor, &c.), 1 El. & Bl. 588; 22 L. J., M. C. 73; 17 Jur. 667. 8. CONSTABLES. Special.]-The 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, is not repealed with respect to the appointment and remuneration of special constables within boroughs by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 83. Reg. v. Hulton, 13 Q. B. 592; 19 L. J., M. C. 32; 13 Jur. 1093. A borough newly incorporated under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, is (in respect of its liabilities under ss. 114, 117) a town contributory to the public rate for the county within the 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 13; and its justices, therefore, may order the county treasurer to pay the recompense and costs of the staves of special constables appointed by them under the latter act. Ib. The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 83, empowering borough justices to appoint special constables once a year, and to pay them out of the borough fund, does not supersede the general authority given to justices of any town, &c., by 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 41, s. 1. to appoint special constables on information that a riot may be apprehended. lb. In a borough there had been a prison for temporary confinement without a residence for a gaoler, and the corporation appointed him. That being inadequate, a second prison and house of Power to Vote.]-The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, correction, with residence for a gaoler, were built which does not cancel the old charters, by s. 58 under local acts, and the power of appointing the enables the new governing body of a borough to gaoler thereto was vested in the justices of the re-appoint such of the old officers as they may borough in quarter sessions. That being also in- think necessary; and by s. 76 a watch committee adequate, a new prison was built as a substitute is to be appointed, which is to elect constables, to for it, under the Gaol Acts from 4 Geo. 4, c. 64 be sworn in before a justice of the peace. The to 2 & 3 Vict. c. 56. By 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 25 corporation of a borough, under its charter, ap(which did not extend to the borough), the jus-pointed four serjeants-at-mace, who acted as tices in quarter sessions are empowered to appoint the keepers for every prison within their jurisdiction, except the keeper of the common gaol Held, that the power of appointing a gaoler to the new prison was conferred on the justices of the borough by the operation of 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 38, which enacts, that all powers of regulation, and all things in relation to the regulation of gaols and houses of correction, should be exercised by the justices of the borough, or by the operation of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 56, s. 1, which extends to all gaols and houses of correction the provisions of 4 Geo. 4, c. 64. Reg. v. Lankaster, 10 Q. B. 962; 16 L. J., M. C. 139; 11 Jur. 735. Held, also, that this prison was not a common gaol, within 4 Geo. 4, c. 64, s. 25; and that the appointment of a gaoler relates to the business of a court of criminal judicature, within the exception in 6 & 7 Will. 4, c. 105, s. 8. Ib. police constables and conservators of the peace. After the passing of the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, the number was reduced to three, who were appointed by the corporation, and sworn in as before, being paid by the treasurer to the corporation, and also performed the same duties as those appointed before the act. There was also a police force appointed under s. 76, who performed all the ordinary duties of police constables :-Held, that the serjeants-at-mace were appointed under the charter, and not under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, and were therefore not disqualified, as constables appointed under that act, from voting at the election of members for the borough by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 69, s. 9. Le Boinville v. Arnold, 1 C. B., N. S. 3; 26 L. J., C. P. 65; 3 Jur., N. S. 642. Assaulting.-A person was summoned, under 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 81, for assaulting a constable in the execution of his duty. The justices dismissed the charge for assaulting the officer in the execution of his duty, but convicted him of a common assault :-Held, that the justices had exceeded their jurisdiction. Reg. v. Brickhall, 33 L. J., M. C. 157; 10 Jur., N. S. 677; 10 L. T. 385; 12 W. R. 826. The summary remedy provided by 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 60, of committing to gaol town clerks or other officers appointed by a town council. who wilfully refuse to account or deliver up books to the council, is in the nature of civil process : and an arrest under a warrant of commitment upon a Sunday is illegal. Eggington, Ex parte, 2 El. & Bl. 717; 2 C. L. R. 385; 23 L. J., M. C. 41; 18 Jur. 224. See Eggington v. Lichfield (Mayor, &c.), 5 El. & Bl. 100; 24 L. J., Q. B. 360; 1 Jur., N. S. 908. Superannuation.]-The 11 & 12 Vict. c. 14, s. 2. | paying over moneys, does not take away the right authorizes the establishment of a police super- of action which the corporation has against such annuation fund in boroughs, which is to be officer for the breach of duty imposed by that applied in paying superannuation or retir-section. Lichfield (Mayor, &c.) v. Simpson, 8 ing allowances to police constables, as fol- Q. B. 65; 15 L. J., Q. B. 78; 9 Jur. 989. lows-If a constable has served fifteen years he is entitled to retire on a superannuation allowance equal to half his pay; but if he is then able and willing to continue to serve, he shall then receive one-third also, and no more of the above-named allowance from the superannuation fund. By s. 3, no police constable shall be entitled to superannuation who is under fifty, unless reported unfit for service :-Held, that a policeman who had served fifteen years and continued in the force, but who was under fifty, was not entitled to receive the reduced A person so arrested cannot be legally detained allowance under s. 2. Hobson v. Kingston-upon- | under a second warrant, subsequently lodged against him, which has been issued at the instance of the same parties, though not in their capacity as town council, but as commissioners under a local act. Ib. Hull (Mayor, &c.), 4 El. & Bl. 986; 24 L. J., See also POLICE. | But a detainer under a ca. sa., subsequently issued by a third party, and without collusion, is 9. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST OFFICERS FOR MIS- a valid ground for refusing to discharge the CONDUCT. Though a corporation may have by statute a power to remove one of its officers holding a freehold office, the Court of Queen's Bench will see that that power is exercised in a lawful manner, and will interfere if it should not be so. But if exercised in a lawful manner that court will refuse to interfere, on the mere ground that the power has not been wisely or discreetly put in force in the particular case. Osgood v. Nelson, 5 L. R., H. L. 636; 41 L. J., Q. B. 329. In the case of removal from office of an officer of the corporation, upon an accusation of inability or neglect of duty, if there has been such evidence, given as in an ordinary trial would justify the judge in leaving it to a jury to say, as a matter of fact, whether the accusation was made out, the court will not interfere with the decision arrived at by the corporation. Ib. Grounds for.]-A refusal by the town clerk to deliver up to the town council certain corporation documents, and the corporation seal, and an opposition by him to a petition by the council to obtain the appointment of charity trustees, do not constitute sufficient cause to warrant his removal from an office held during good behaviour. Nor is such cause furnished by his acting in concert with another person, who addressed abusive language to an alderman and magistrate of the borough in a public part of the borough. Tibbits. In re, 2 P. & D. 498; 10 A. & E. 374. Refusing to Account or deliver up Documents.]-The 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 76, s. 60, which gives a summary remedy against a corporate officer who refuses to comply with the provisions of the act, as to giving up to the town council of the borough all documents in his custody, and prisoner. Ib. Delegation of Powers.]-A corporate body having the power to dismiss one of its officers holding a freehold office on complaint against him, referred to a committee of its own body the task of examining into the complaint, and receiving evidence upon it and reporting thereon. The committee performed this duty. The report and evidence were duly furnished to the inculpated officer, who was then called on for his defence. being heard, and counsel was heard for him, but He was afforded the opportunity of the corporate body itself did not rehear the evi dence. He was ordered to be dismissed from his office:-Held, that this was not a case of delega tion of lawful authority, but was a due exercise of that authority by the corporate body itself. Osgood v. Nelson, 5 L. R., H. L. 636; 41 L. J.. Q. B. 329. Where a board constituted by an act of parliament is authorized by it to delegate any of its powers to a committee, the powers so conferred upon the committee must be exercised by them acting in concert; and it is not competent to the duties so delegated to them; and one of them the committee to apportion amongst themselves acting alone, pursuant to such apportionment. cannot justify his acts under the act of parliament. Cook v. Ward, 2 C. P. D. 255; 36 L. T. 893; 25 W. R. 593-C. A. Affirming 46 L. J.. C. P. 554; 25 W. R. 350. When waterworks company R. had the necessary powers to supply water within the district of a local authority but no water, and company S. had the requisite supply of water but no powers within the district, and company R. sold its plant to company S., and certain members of company S. bought all the shares in company R. with the intention of allowing company S. to exercise the powers of company R.: -Held, that the powers could not be so delegated, and that neither company was able and willing within the meaning of the act, and consequently that neither was entitled to notice under the Public Health Act, 1848, s. 75, or under the Public Health Act, 1875, s. 52. Rich. mond Waterworks Company and Southwark and Vauxhall Waterworks Company v. Richmond |