1770. REX. V, "Whether the inhabitants of the West Ri "ding are obliged to rebuild the said "new bridge." Mr. Wainman argued, that they were: Mr, John Lee, YORKSHIRE that they were not. W. Rę 2597] See 1 Ro. Abr. 368. title "bridges." pl. 1, 2. 2 Inst. 701, (on the Statute of 22 H. 8. c. 5. concerning the repairing of decayed bridges in highways, and by whom.) Magna Charta, c. 15. Cro. Car. 365, 366. the case of Langforth Bridge, 13 Co. 33. 1 Salk. 359. Regina v. Inhabitan' Com. Wilts: (where it is said that Northey, "Attorney General cited a case wherein it was adjudged, "that if a private person build a bridge which afterwards "becomes a public convenience, the county is bound to repair it.") 9 G. 2. c. 29. for building Westminster Bridge (a), by the antepenult clause whereof, it is expressly provided that the counties of Surry and Middlesex shall not be subject to the repairing or support"ing of it." 6 Mod. 307. The COURT were all clear, that the RIDING was obliged to repair the new bridge. Mr. Justice ASTON observed, that this new bridge was not built in the same place where the foot (a) A like point with the present, had been argued, Pas. 15 G. 2. B. R. but was never, according to Serj. Hill's recollection determined, in the King against the inhabi tants of the West Riding of Yorkshire; therefore the law was not settled in the 9 G. 2. when the Westminster Bridge Act is mentioned to have been passed, whether counties were liable to repair new bridges, if of public convenience or not, and the doubt was a sufficient reason for inserting the clause; and therefore no inference can fairly be drawn from it; and it is well known that many clauses in Acts of Parliament are inserted ex abundanti cautela, in many cases unnecessarily, and merely out of anxiety, to satisfy scruples; but with respect to Westminster Bridge, there would have been more reason for doubt, than in the principal case, or that of Rex v. Inhabitants of the West Riding, because one argument relied on in that case for the defendant was, that the bridge was unlawfully erected, and therefore might be pulled down, and then consequently, there could be no obligation on any, to repair it; and as this argument could not have been used with respect to Westminster Bridge, the doubt might be conceived to be greater with respect to that than with respect to such as are built without any legal au hority. bridge stood; but at the distance of more than sixty yards above it. The inhabitants of the county are of common right bound to repair all public bridges; because they are for the benefit of the county. 1770. REX .V. * V. c. 15. By Magna Carta,* no town or freeman shall be distrained to make bridges, &c.; except those who were antiently and of right used to make them in the time of king Henry the Second. The inhabitants of Glusburne were + V. 2 İnst. 29. not bound to build this new bridge for carts and carriages; nor are they obliged to repair more than they were before bound to repair: and they never were bound to repair a bridge for carts, carriages, and horses. What they were bound by prescription to repair, was only a foot-bridge. They have built a quite different bridge, in a different place. This new bridge is for the common benefit and utility of the county: and the Sessions approved of it, and contributed towards it. The case in 1 Ro. Abr. 368. title "bridges," pl. 2.) see (Bac abr 3. about a mill erected for a person's own benefit, is a diffe rent case. That case is, that "it a man erects a mill sed vide R.v "for his own profit, and makes a new cut for the water he habitan "to come to it, and makes a new bridge over it, and the fert 2 all to "subjects use to go over this as over a common bridge "this bridge ought to be repaired by him who has the mill "and not by the county; because he erected it for his own "benefit" There, the private emolument continued to the person who erected it: and it was not reasonable for him to make the county contribute to it, whilst the private benefit continued to himself. But this bridge for horses, carts, and carriages, was for the common benefit, use, and utility of the county in general; and therefore is within the rule, that if a man builds a bridge, and it is is the true "becomes useful to the county in general, the county shall brikrin-1 Eas "repair it." The common law, therefore, attached 3488 Elle upon this bridge; and the county ought to repair it. appears, that the Quarter-Sessions approved of it, and even contributed to it. It Mr. Justice WILLES concurred in opinion with Mr. Justice ASTON. It seems to have been originally in The tended as a bridge for the common public utility of the [2598] Mr. Justice BLACKSTONE also concurred in the And When the ma- residents is not 823, 6 Durn. [ 2599] "nec liber Homo distringatur facere (a) Pontes, &c." It says nothing about repairing them.In the case cited from Roll's Abridgment, the person who erected the mill and made the bridge, continued to receive his original private benefit. Here, the benefit and utility were to the public: it was constantly used by every one who went that road. Lord MANSFIELD (who came into Court during the discussion of this case,) declared himself likewise to be clearly of the same opinion. The Riding ought to repair it, undoubtedly. The COURT thereupon directed, unanimously, that Judgment be entered for the KING. REX versus GRIMES, Capital Burgess of Yarmouth in the THIS HIS case came before the Court upon a very long special verdict upon an information. It was an information in nature of a quo warranto, against Thomas Grimes, to shew by what authority he claimed to be one of the chief burgesses of the borough of Yarmouth, in the Isle of Wight. Several issues were joined; and the cause went down to trial, and was tried at Winchester before Mr. Justice GOULD; and an extremely long and unnecessary special verdict was found, which now came on to be argued but the points debated in Court were contracted into a much narrower compass; and the argument in this Court turned upon these two issues, viz. first, "whether the defendant was duly elected," and secondly, "whether John "Leigh was mayor at the time when the defendant was "elected." The clause in the charter which directs the mode of electing a mayor is expressed in the following words"Quod Major et undecim capitalium burgensium burgi "prædicti pro tempore existen' vel major pars EORUM "(quorum majorem burgi prædicti pro tempore existen "unum esse volumus) de tempore in tempus perpetuis "futuris temporibus imperpetuum, potestatem et aucto"ritatem habeant et habebunt, annuatim et quolibet "Anno, in festo sancti mathæi apostoli, in le Guildhall (a) This word facere is to be construed in the sense of reparare or manutenere for other construction it cannot have, Callis 86. 66 «burgi prædicti sese assemblandi et congregandi et ibidem continuandi quousque ipsi vel EORUM major pars IBIDEM ADTUNC assemblat' eligerent & nominaverint unum "majorem, de semetipsis, pro anno sequin'; et quod eligere et nominare ibidem possint et valeant unum de seipsis qui erit major burgi præd' pro uno anno integro "ex tunc prox' sequen' et deinde quousque ipse vel ali quis alius burgens' de burgo predicto ad officium illud "debito modo elect' præfect' et jurat' fuerit; quodque "ille, postquam sic ut præfertur elect' et nominat' fuerit "in majorem burgi prædicti, antequam ad officium illud "exequend' admittatur, sacrum corporal' super sanc"tum dei evangelium annuatim in die lunæ prox' post "præd' festum sci mathæi apostoli, coram ultimo majore "prædecessore suo adhunc pro tempore existen', aut in "absencia ejusdem majoris, coram burgensibus burgi 66 prædicti qui tunc presentes fuerint vel majori parte "eundem pro tempore existen', ad officium illud rectè "benè et fidelitur in omnibus officium illud tangen' ex"equend' præstabit; et post hujusmodi sacrum sicut "prefertur præstit', officium majoris burgi prædicti pro "uno anno integro tunc prox' sequen' suscipiat et exequi "valeat et possit." Then follows a clause, that upon the death or amotion of a mayor, the burgesses for the "time being, or the major part of them, may elect unum "alium de seipsis, in tempore convenien' postquam ipse "sic obierit vel ab officio suo amot' fuerit; who is to "hold during the residue of the year, and to be sworn "in forma prædictâ." The special verdict finds the whole proceedings (at length) of an information in nature of quo warranto against John Leigh, who presided as mayor at the election of the defendant into the office of capital burgess; and the judgment against the said John Leigh thereupon. 1770. REX V. GRIMES. It also finds, that on 1st September 1759, and continually from thence until and upon 7th April 1760, there were and existed eleven chief burgesses of the said borough, namely, Benjamin Leigh, Henry Holmes, Barnabas Eveleigh, John Leigh, Thomas Lord Holmes, Maurice Bockland, George Bockland, Robert Warner, Dennis Clarke, Charles Holmes, and Thomas Throughear; and [2600] that upon the 21st day of September 1759, the said day being the feast of St. Matthew the Apostle in that year, the said Benjamin Leigh, the then mayor of the said borough, and three of the said chief burgesses of the said borough, namely Henry Holmes, Barnabas Eveleigh and John Leigh, only, then being the MINOR part of the then chief burgesses of the said borough, assembled themselves together, at the Guildhall of the said borough, in order to elect a mayor of the said borough for the year then 1770. REX V. GRIMES. next ensuing; and being so assembled did then and there, in the absence of the other chief burgesses of the said bo rough, being seven in number, namely Thomas Lord Holmes, Maurice Bockland, George Bockland, Robert Warner, Dennis Clarke, Charles Holmes, and Thomas Throughear, choose and elect the said John Leigh, then being a chief burgess of the said borough, into the office of mayor of the said borough for the year then next ensuing The verdict finds that the said John Leigh, being so elected as aforesaid, did afterwards take the oath of office; and took upon himself to execute the office of mayor of the said borough. The jurors further find, that the said John Leigh, be ing so chosen and sworn into the office of mayor, and acting and attending as mayor, together with five other chief burgesses, namely, &c. &c. on 7th April 1760, met and assembled together in the Guildhall, in order to elect a chief burgess in the room of James Blake, then dead; there being then five other chief burgesses not present at the said meeting. That at that time (of the said last meeting) no one of the eleven chief burgesses then existing was an inhabitant of the borough; and that no one of the said five chief burgesses not present at the said meeting, was then within the said borough. They find that notice in writing, "to meet on the said 7th of April, to elect a capital burgess in the room of "James Blake," was left at the dwelling-house of two who did reside in the island, but not in the borough ; and that two others dwelt within the island, but not within the borough; but no notice was left at their houses, nor were they then in the island. That from the year 1743, to the time of finding the verdict, the method of giving notice "to assemble," (except upon a charter or prescriptive day,) hath been and his," to deliver or leave 66 a notice in writing for each respective chief burgess "then living in the Isle of Wight, although not within "the borough; except such chief burgesses as espoused 2601]"the interest of Mr. Holmes and Mr. Leigh, being the "major part of the chief burgesses.” They find, that six chief burgesses, so assembled on 7th April 1760, elected the defendant Grimes into the office of a free burgess in the room of Blake; and that no other notice was given, except as above mentioned. THE COURT, after hearing two arguments, una nimously gave judgment for the king, against the defendant. An objection having been made, by the prosecutor's counsel, to the election of the defendant Grimes into the |