1835. The KING v. Justices of the County of CARNARVON. J. Jervis, on shewing cause, objected that the affidavits could not be read, on the ground that they did not contain the proper additions of the deponents, Jones and Evans, pursuant to Reg. H. T. 2 Will. 4, No. 5, which directs that "the addition (a) of every person making an affidavit shall be inserted therein." Archbold, contrà, urged that Robert Williams was properly described, and that enough of the matters in the affidavit were deposed to by him to enable the Court to decide the question intended to be raised. Lord DENMAN, C. J.-The affidavit is not in the form required by the rule of court. We cannot go through it to see how much Robert Williams has deposed to. Per Curiam. Rule discharged (b). The affidavit having been amended and re-sworn, the Court granted a second rule. J. Jervis in this term showed cause upon an affidavit, which stated, that upon the hearing of the case at the sessions, the overseers being called upon to prove their notice of application, put in a paper purporting to be a notice or a copy of a notice to Williams, but not signed. There had been no notice to produce any original notice. It was objected that this evidence was insufficient; but the sessions overruled the objection. He was stopped by the Court. Archbold, contrà, contended that the party must, by his appearing in pursuance of the notice, be considered (a) Vide 2 Inst. 665. (b) And sce Lawson's case, 3 Tyrwhitt, 489. a as having waived any right to object that the notice was insufficient; that the paper which was put in was mere copy of the notice; and that it lay upon the party, defendant, to produce the real notice, and shew that it was insufficient. Lord DEN MAN, C. J.-It is quite clear that the notice was insufficient. The objection was taken, and was never waived. We cannot enter into the other question. 1835. The KING υ. Justices of the County of CARNARVON. Et per Curiam. Rule discharged, without costs. The KING v. RAMSDEN and others. ants of an district are di IN Easter term a rule had been obtained, calling upon By a local act, Mr. Ramsden, and several other gentlemen, to shew the inhabitcause why an information in the nature of a quo war- incorporated ranto should not be exhibited against them, to shew by rected to elect what authority they respectively claimed to exercise the governors and office of governor and director of the poor of that part poor,-who of the parish of St. Andrew, Holborn, which lies above Bars, in the county of Middlesex, and St. George the directors of the are authorized to make orders and regula tions respecting the poor and the poor-rates,are to make out a list of sixteen inhabitants or occupiers, from which list justices at a petty session are to elect four to be overseers of the poor, are empowered to appoint watchmen and beadles, (who are to be sworn in as constables, and act as such whilst in execution of the powers of this act, and who, together with the constables duly appointed, are to be under the direction and control of the governors and directors,) clerks, collectors, treasurers, inspectors, assistant overseers, and all such other officers as they may think fit,-to dismiss them, and pay them such salaries as they may think proper,-are to ascertain and settle the sum to be assessed for parochial purposes, (for which sum poor-rates are to be made by the inhabitants,)—are to have vested in them all houses &c. used for the accommodation of the poor, and of the watchmen and beadles, and all other property purchased for those purposes, and are to sue and be sued, and to prosecute by indictment or information. Held, that the office of governor and director is not such an office that an information in the nature of a quo warranto will lie for an usurpation of it. 1835. The KING บ. RAMSDEN and others. Martyr, in the same county,-on the ground that their elections were invalid, not being in accordance with the provisions of 6 Geo. 4, c. clxxv (a). By this statute it is enacted, sect. 5, that on 25th March in each year, the rated inhabitants within the above district should elect twenty-five gentlemen and twenty-five tradesmen, who, with certain official persons, were constituted the governors and directors of the poor of the district for the ensuing year, with power to make orders and rules for the government, relief &c. of the poor, and for the ascertaining, charging, collecting, managing, and regulating of the poor-rate, and for the appointment of watchmen and beadles, and for the regulation of the constables. By sect. S it is enacted, that the governors &c. shall, on the Wednesday next after their election, meet together and make out a list of sixteen inhabitants or occupiers, of whom justices at a petty session are to appoint four, to be overseers of the poor of the district for the ensuing year. By sect. 10, all the messuages &c. occupied or used for the accommodation of the poor, and the watchmen and beadles of the district, and all moneys and rates, fixtures, furniture, &c. were vested in the governors &c., who were thereby empowered to bring and to defend suits or actions, and to prefer indictments or lay infor mations, laying the property as the property of the governors and directors. By sect. 12, the governors &c. are to meet in August and in February, or oftener if necessary, to ascertain and settle the amounts to be assessed for the relief of the poor, and for defraying the expenses of the watch and beadles. (a) Repealing 39 Geo. 3, c. xli. By sect. 13, the inhabitants and occupiers present at any meeting to be held for that purpose, within twenty days after the several sums of money shall have been so ascertained as aforesaid, are directed to make two distinct rates, one to be applied towards the relief of the poor, and the other towards defraying the expenses of the watch and beadles. By sect. 32, the governors &c. are authorized to appoint watchmen and beadles, who are to be sworn in as constables, and to act as such whilst in the execution of their office, and who, together with the constables, duly appointed, are to be under the direction of the governors, &c. By sect. 36, the governors &c. are empowered to repair, hire, rent, purchase, or erect watch-houses. By sect. 38, the governors &c. are authorized to appoint and remove a clerk, collectors, a treasurer, overseers, and inspectors, and other officers and servants, and to pay them such salaries as they shall think proper. Sir F. Pollock, Merewether, Serjt., Thesiger, and Comyn, now shewed cause. A quo warranto will not lie in this case. It is a high prerogative writ, which issues only where the crown is interested. In this case no office or franchise under the crown has been invaded. The governors &c. in this case, have only such duties to perform as are usually discharged by the churchwardens and overseers; and it was determined in Rex v. Danbeny (a) and Rex v. Shepherd (b), that no quo warranto lies for the office of churchwarden. Nor are the parties without a remedy; for the validity of the election of the (a) 2 Stra. 1196; S. C. 1 Bott, 288, pl. 326. 1835. The KING v. RAMSDEN and others. 1835. The KING V. RAMSDEN and others. governors &c. may be tried in an action of trespass, property being vested in them by the act. There is no case similar to this. In Rex v. The Corporation of the Bedford Level (a), it was held, that a quo warranto information did not lie for the office of registrar, an officer whose duty it was to register the titles to land within the Level, and who was bound to take an oath of office. [Patteson, J. That decision proceeded on the ground that the registrar was the servant of the corporation. Here, the question will turn on the nature of the office.] A quo warranto does not lie against the clerk of the commissioners of land-tax; Rex v. Thatcher (b). In one case (c) it was held to apply to the office of steward of a courtleet, but not to that of steward of a court-baron; the former being a court of record, which the latter is not. In Rex v. Highmore (d) it was held, that a quo warranto would lie for exercising the office of bailiff in a borough which was not a corporate town. But there the bailiff was the returning officer. Rex v. M'Kay (e) is open to the same observation. Formerly, where a private right was in question, and a franchise had been usurped, the practice was to refer the matter to the Attorney-General, who might file an information. The rule now is, that the Court will not grant an information unless the public are interested. In this case there is no encroachment on the crown, and the public at large are not interested. The office is created by statute, and the operation of that statute is confined to the limited district. [Patteson, J. In Rex v. Badcock (f), in which an information (a) 6 East, 336; 2 Smith, 535. (b) 1 Dowl. & Ryl. 426. 621: (d) 5 Barn. & Ald. 771. (e) 8 Dowl. & Ryl. 393; 5 Barn. & Cressw. 640; 3 Dowl. & Ryl. Mag. Ca. 263. (ƒ) Cited in 6 East, 359. |