The Queen, at the prosecution of Joseph Holmes, v The Town-Council of The Borough of Drogheda

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 23 April 1850
• Date: 23 April 1850
• Court: Queen's Bench Division (Ireland)

Queenƒ€™s Bench.

THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of JOSEPH HOLMES,

and

THE TOWN-COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF DROGHEDA.

Regina v. Mayor of YorkUNK 8 Dowl. P. C. 502.

The Queen v. The Mayor of York 3 Q. B. 550.

Rex v. ApplefordENR 2 Keble, 864.

The Queen v. the Mayor of Caermarthen 11 A. & E. 9.

The King v. The Mayor of Bridgewater 6 A. & E. 339.

The Queen v. The Mayor of CambridgeENR 4 P. & Dav. 294.

The Queen v. The Mayor of Sandwich 2 Q. B. 895; S. C. 10 Q. B. 563.

The Queen v. The Mayor of Manchester 5 Q. B. 402.

Ex parte Harvey 7 A. & E. 739.

Ex parte Lee 7 A. &E. 139.

The Attorney-General v. The Corporation of Poole 4 Myl. & Craig, 17.

The Queen v. The Mayor of Norwich 3 Q.B. 285.

440 CASES AT LAW. E. T. 1850. Queen's Bench THE QUEEN, at the prosecution of JOSEPH HOLMES, TM. TOWN-COUNCIL OF THE BOROUGH OF DROGHEDA. (Queen's Bench.) April 22, 23. An attorney WHITESIDE, on behalf of the prosecutor, had obtained a rule nisi for of a Corpora tion does not a writ of mandamus, directed to the Town-council of the Borough a4 such hold an officewithin of Drogheda, commanding the Council to assess an adequate com the Borough, for the loss of pensation to be made to the prosecutor for the loss of the fees, which he is emoluments and profits of the office, placeemployment , situation or employ entitled to compensation of attorney, law agent and solicitor of the late Corporation of Dro- under the 3 & 4 Vie. gheda, which the said prosecutor held at the time of the dissolution c. 109, s. 11. of the late Corporation, and from which he was removed by the Council on the 28th day of November 1842, under the provisions of 3 & 4 Vic. c. 108 ; and also commanding the Council to assess an adequate compensation to be made to the prosecutor for the salary, fees, emoluments, profits and perquisites of the office of Town-clerk, which he held under the late Corporation at the time of its dissoluÂÂtion, and from which office he was removed on the 28th of NovemÂÂber 1842 under the provisions of the said statute ; by adding to the amount already assessed by the Council on that behalf the sums followÂÂing :-4. 13s. 10d., 23. 9s. 2d., 106. 14s. 7d., 4. 13s. 10d.; and which several sums were contained in the written statement delivered by the prosecutor to the Council, pursuant to the requisition of the statute in that behalf, as part of the fees, emoluments, profits and perÂÂquisites received by the prosecutor in respect or by reason of his office of Town-clerk, and which were disallowed by the Council on their assessment of compensation, from the amount claimed by the proseÂÂcutor in his written statement : and also commanding the Council, with respect to the amount of the several sums already assessed and CASES AT LAW. 441 to be assessed by the Council in obedience to such writ of mandamus E. T. 1850. Queen's Bench to the prosecutor for compensation for the loss of the said offices THE QUEEN or places of profit of acting law agent and solicitor, and of Town- v. clerk ; and also of the office of Registrar of the Tholsel Court of BOROUGH OF Drogheda, which he held under the late Corporation, whether such DROGHEDA. sums be assessed in gross or by way of annuity, to secure to the proÂÂsecutor the payment thereof by bond, under the common seal of the borough, in a sufficient penalty, conditioned for the payment to him, his executors, administrators or assigns, of such several sums and all arrears accrued due thereof since the 28th of November 1842, when he was removed from said offices, and when said office of Registrar ceased pursuant to the statute. The affidavit of the prosecutor, on which the rule issued, stated, that by a resolution entered in the books of the late Corporation of Drogheda at an adjourned general quarter assembly on the 30th day of January 1829, he was elected...