Neglect of attendance. his is not a placeof profit, but of freedom and government of the city, and every alderman ought to be a citizen and inhabitant of the city, where he is an alderman, and if he remove he ceases to be a citizen; but he may continue to be a freeman, though he want that qualification which enables him to be an alderman. 657. Non-residence which has caused a neglect of duty, by which some person is injured in his corporate franchise, is cause for amoving an alderman; but unless residence be required by the charter, it is sufficient that the corporator at reasonable times attend to the corporate business, although he reside at some distance from the town. 658. Non attendance at several corporate meetings after having received proper notice, if by reason of his neglect the business of the Corporation have been impeded, is sufficient cause for amoving a recorder. 659. So is the temporary absence and a less frequent non-attendance of an officer, whose duty calls upon him to be constantly present, such as a mayor 660. Continued absence of about five years, and general neglect of attending when courts are to be held before the mayor, aldermen and recorder, or two of them is sufficient cause for amoving a recorder, although no particular mischief has arisen to the Corporation from his neglect. Semb. (657) R. v. Portsmouth, 3 B. C. 156. S. C. 4 D. R. 775. 11 Mod. 75. R. v. Trueboy, (658) 1 Hawk. P. C. 166. s. 1. R. v. Wells, 4 Bur. 2004. Lord Bruce's Case, 2 Str. 819. et notis. R. v. Ipswich, 2 Ld. Ray. 1233. S. C. Salk. 443. (659) 3 Atk. 184. Case 56. Bul. N. P. 206, 7. (660) Lord Hawley's Case, 1 Vent. 145. 661. So is non-attendance at one corporate meeting, appointed by himself where his presence is proper, though not absolutely necessary, he being in the neighbourhood and able to attend, although he did not receive notice at the time of the meeting.-But it may be observed, that other charges were brought against this recorder. 662. So is ignorance of the law, manifested by particular acts, as formerly by trying an accessory before the principal, or denying benefit of clergy to one convicted of bigamy. But a general averment of ignorance of the law, cannot be sustained. Semb. counting. 663. Not accounting for rents by him received in Not achis official capacity, and charging for payments never made, is a sufficient cause for amoving a chamberlain ; but it ought to appear that he has been called upon to account. books. 664. Razing of genuine and true entries in the public Razing books, to falsify them and injure the Corporation; but a general allegation that he razed or altered the books is insufficient, for the razure or alteration may have been to correct an entry originally erroneous. 665. Being so poor as not to be capable of paying Poverty. the taxes for which he is liable in the municipality, is sufficient cause for amoving an alderman. (661) R. v. Ipswich, 2 Ld. Ray. 1237. R. v. Wells, 4 Bur. 2004. 1 Hawk. P. C. 66. s. 11. (662) Lord Hawley's Ca. 1 Vent. 146. (663) R. v. Doncaster, 2 Ld. Ray. 1566. S. C. 1 Barnard. 265. sed vide R. v. Chalke, 1 Ld. Ray. 226. (664) R. v. Chalke, 5 Mod. 257. S. C. 1 Ld. Ray, 226. V. tit. (665) R. v. Andover, 3 Salk. 229. S Drunkenness. Disturbing corporate business. Bribery. 666. Habitual drunkenness is cause for amoving an alderman, on account of the evil example to others, and his consequent insufficiency to discharge the duties of a magistrate. 667. Disturbing the election of the mayor, or preventing corporators from assembling and proceeding in their business in the corporate assembly, although attended with riotous conduct, and the amotion may be before a conviction for the riot. 668. Bribing a corporator to vote for a particular candidate to fill an office in the Corporation, such as that of mayor, or to vote for a candidate at the election of members of parliament, but there should be a previous conviction by a jury. (2.) Insufficient Cause. The causes which will be now enumerated are such as having been relied upon in returns of an amotion, were held by the Court to be insufficient. Original 669. That which only disqualified the person to be disqualification. elected, although it made the election voidable ab initio, is insufficient; for one so disqualified is not in law a corporate officer, and therefore cannot be amoved by the Corporation, but must be ousted by proceedings (666) R. v. Taylor, 3 Salk. 231. Taylor v. Gloucester, 1 Rol. 409. S. C. 3 Bulstr. 190. (667) Haddock's Case, T. Ray. 439. R. v. Derby, C. T. H. 155. V. tit. 644. (668) R. v. Tiverton, 8 Mod. 186. R. v. Derby, C. T. H. 155. V. tit. 641. (669) R. v. Doncaster, Say. 40. R. v. Miles, B. N. P. 203. R. v. Lime Regis, Doug. 85. Symmers v. Regem, Cowp. 502. V. tit. 728. et seq. in quo warranto. Of this nature is non residence, when required only as a qualification before election, or any irregularity in the election or admission.—And if a corporator so disqualified or illegally coming into office, have held it undisturbed for six years, being protected by the statute against an ouster in quo warranto, he cannot be amoved by the Corporation declaring his office originally void on this account, but he has acquired an indisputable title. cause. 670. But if non residence be not only a disqualifica- Continuing tion antecedently to the election, but residence is required as a continuing qualification during the possession of office, there is no reason for preventing an amotion for the subsequent offence, though the amoving body have precluded themselves from disputing his original title, either by concurring in his election, or his subsequent official acts, for as against them he is a legal officer. 671. Non-residence is not a sufficient cause of amo- Non-residence, tion, unless residence be required by the charter, or the when. non-residence be attended with some special injury to the Corporation or municipality. If the charter impose a penalty upon a mayor or other officer for not residing, unless it give also a power of amoving him for the of fence, it restrains the punishment to the penalty and does not warrant an amotion. 672. Departure from the borough and its liberties with his family, about five months before, and not hav (670) R. v. Miles, B. N. P. 203. Neglect of corporate ing returned at the time of the amotion, is not sufficient to warrant it, unless a special damage have been caused to the borough, by such absence. 673. Residing two or three miles from the borough, assemblies. and non-attendance at a meeting of the common council, is not of itself a sufficient cause; for it is not the imperative duty of a common-council-man to attend every assembly, and his conduct is not to be impeached if he render a general attendance in his place. 674. Absence of a portman from four occasional great meetings, one of which was on the charter day, he having received ordinary but no particular notice, when it does not appear that any necessary business was by that means impeded, is not sufficient cause. 675. Nor is absence of a recorder from a corporate meeting, not having received a special notice that his appearance was necessary, and the Corporation having received no public inconvenience from his absence. 676. Non-attendance of a burgess at the sessions where his presence is not necessary, so that he attend so often that by a similar regularity of attendance in the others, the corporate business would not be neglected. 677. Or saying that he would come no more among them, unless followed by generally absenting himself: (673) R. v. Doncaster, Say. 39. (674) R. v. Richardson, 1 Bur, 540. S. C. 2 Kenyon Ca. 120. (675) R. v. Wells, 4 Bur. 2003. (676) R. v. Pomfret, 10 Mod. 108. (677) R. v. Exeter, Comb. 197. |