case the king against sparrow and other mandamus date the thirteenth of June  command the justice to appoint overseer be good although by the Elizabeth c  they be to be appoint within a month after easter and easter day in that year  be on the twentysecond of April SC stram SC Sess Cas SC Const pl a mandamus be  direct to the defendant be bailiff of Ipswich and as such act as justice of  the peace there command they to appoint two or more overseer of the poor of  the say place or to show cause to the contrary c the defendant return that  they have appoint three substantial householder therein mention accord to the  statute as by the say writ they be command the writ of mandamus in this cause  bear testae the thirteenth of June and easter be on the twentysecond of April  in the same year Mr solicitor general move that the writ of mandamus and the  return may be quash as not be make pursuant to the statute which appoint  overseer of the poor to be nominate in easter week or within one month after  easter and as this appointment be make without the month after easter the writ  of mandamus be felon de see and ought to be quash this court will take notice  of the calendar which be part of the law and have be so determine over and  over see the case of Harvey v broad salk Mod a in the case of hoile v Lord  Cornwallis hoile v Lord Cornwallis Trinity term Geo stram b the court judicial  take notice that the fifteen of June be modern er p on a Sunday and hold that  the calendar be part of the law of the land the commonlaw know no such officer  as a overseer of the poor mere as such the churchwarden be overseer ex duty  and therefore as it be a office create by statute the statute must be comply  with as where this statute require the overseer to be a substantial  householder be must be such or else he be incapable of the office and it have  be often determine so see Consts poor law I to where all the case respect the  form and manner of appoint overseer be collect and arrange c this be not like  the case where a court leet may be hold at other time than limit which be at  commonlaw if the month be to be pretermit the consequence be that the  churchwarden will be overseer in the mean time there be a penalty for not  comply with the time in the Act and it be no defence to a action bring for it  that they obey the Act after the time and the modern make a penalty show that  the legislature intend that they shall not exceed the time limit in the Act if  one month be to be omit another month may be omit and so on for ever if the  justice can exercise their authority after the time appoint by the Act a  mandamus of this court which be only to enforce a authority will not give they  a power to appoint the overseer after the time number of order have be quash  only because the session be not hold within the proper time saint Michael  Cornhill v saint Michael Ipswich easter term Geo king v fisher stram a here  the statute give the justice a alternative the appointment of overseer may be  either at one week or another videlicet either in easter week or a month after  but where a statute create a offence it must be strict pursue and affirmative  direction imply a negative that they shall not be exceed and therefore the  mandamus be after the proper time the writ and return ought to be quash for it  shall have be move for within the month which be the proper time Mr hollings  contra the Elizabeth c give the justice a power to appoint overseer but that  do not create any due power because the justice bad such a jurisdiction at  commonlaw and the time in this case be only directory when the time in the  statute be elapse there be no pretence to say the time be infinite because the  court can grant a mandamus the power of the justice continue the whole year  and there be no negative word in the statute as at no time after or the like  so that they be not strict tie up to time they may bind apprentice for a less  time than that mention in the five section of this statute which have be hold  to be only directoryRex v morris b and accord to my Lord coke one part of a  statute must be expound by another a quarter session may quash a rate make by  the church warden and make a new oneRex v saint Leonard Shoreditch salk SC  holt but the session can make a original rate king v Aberford ld ray see also  as to the power of the session on this subject dougl call term Rep term Rep  term Rep c where the statute of Elizabeth c appoint that the order concern  bastard shall be make by the justice in or next to the limit of the parish  where such child be bear that have be hold to be only directory salk d it have  be hold that a parish that be parcel of a rectory be within the statute  Elizabeth c and shall have overseer c cro car e accord to Plowden in explain  act of parliament the word be first to be consider and second the sense and  where a doubt arise it be to be consider what answer the maker of the statute  will have give to such a question the word void and null in statute have be  often hold only to mean voidable so though the James c order that notice shall  be give in write yet notice have in some case be hold good though not in write  suppose the justice have appoint overseer modern and they have die the last  day of the month can no appointment be make after suppose the justice make a  wrong appointment can a good one be make afterward if in the mean while the  time shall elapse if not great inconvenience must follow and therefore the  mandamus and return ought to be allow modern er p lee chief justice this be a  case of a good deal of consequence and I know of no determination that have  adjudge this statute to be only directory except in that clause which relate  to the bind of apprentice by the justice which be hold to be directory in the  case of the king v morris cite by Mr hollings the court must take notice of  the calendar Mod a there may be a difference between all officer at commonlaw  and a new officer who be make by statute for whether this court can construe  the power of such newcreated officer in other term than the statute have limit  it be what I be doubtful of in the construction of charter the rule be that  every affirmative clause imply a negative though in Hicks case roll Abr  corporation b it be hold only directory but the reason be that there be  impliedly a incidental power in the corporation to elect c in this case the  statute order the election to be yearly and the intention of the statute be  certain that it shall be so by impose a penalty in the case of the king v  Truro by the name of prowse v foot brown case in parliament c the word of the  charter be annuatin eligent c and the meaning be hold to be that the office  shall be annual and expire at the end of the year but the contrary be hold in  the exchequer and afterward in the lord and that it be but directory upon the  statute of the Henry c S of election my Lord coke hold that the time must be  observe and say Inst d that no election can be make of any knight of the shire  but between the hour of eight and eleven in the forenoon but if the election  be begin within that time it may be continue on after it and therefore  consider what may be the consequence arise upon this case I think it be proper  to consider further of it if the justice have not a power to appoint after the  time be pass to be sure the mandamus will be felon de see page justice I be of  opinion that this be only directory in the statute for if the officer bold  over be the statute to expire and be useless and be no new overseer to be  choose or suppose they die be overseer never to be choose in their stead  because the time be expire the Act punish the justice for exceed the time but  do not take away their power of appoint overseer probin justice the difficulty  with I be that here be a new authority and it be a rule that in such case it  must be strict pursue if the overseer shall die there will be a necessity for  choose another and then the court may carry the law into execution for the  necessity of it it seem to I that the cause modern ought to be pursue strict  accord to the statute that create it and the penalty show that to be the  intention of the legislature the court have hold the clause in the statute for  the bind of apprentice for seven year to be directory not that it be strict  accord to the statute but because it be the act of the party himself I will  consider further of this cause chapel justice a explanatory Act must be take  literal and not by intendment for it will be incongruous for a explanatory Act  to need a explanation accord to Inst leet shall be hold twice ayear but that  be to be accord to the accustom time and place which show the statute to be  declarative it be hold in salk that extraparochial place be omit out of this  statute and person there must subsist upon private charity as all poor do at  commonlaw before this statute the beginning of this statute require the  justice to be of the quorum and the word say justice relate thereto through  the whole Act if the maker of this Act be to be ask what the word so to be  nominate shall relate to what answer will be give but that they shall relate  to the time before mention in the statute but as this ease may be of great  consequence I shall give no positive opinion at present lee chief justice let  it stand over for further consideration it be afterward in the same term argue  as follow by the name of the king v fonnereau and other upon argue again the  rule to show cause why the writ of mandamus and return shall not be quash c  the question be whether overseer of the poor can be appoint after the time  limit by the statute Elizabeth c have expire Mr hollings insist that they may  for though I do admit that the mandamus modern er p can give a right where  there be none yet here the justice have a proper jurisdiction the will c  empower the justice upon a appeal to the session to allow cost and therefore a  mandamus to allow cost at another session be quash in Michaelmas term in the  five year of George the second because the subsequent session have no  jurisdiction to give cost by the Act so where a appeal be give to the next  session if the party let it lapse he be bar see Mr Consts poor law vol a but  there be a difference between not elect a mayor within the time prescribe by  the charter as in king v pool Geo Annally bar king b Cunn b and where a Act of  parliament appoint officer to be choose within a certain time which will be  frustrate if the time be elapse will make a appointment void the case in Inst  which be to prevent the election of member in parliament from be hold at  unreasonable time be different from modern this case statute of public  conveniency be to be equitable expound the statute Edward c extend to  administrator though executor only be name in it and a case be hold to be  within the equity of the statute Henry though not within the express word of  it Plowd a so although the statute of Gloucester Edward c give a action of  waste only against a tenant for life for year it be hold to extend to a tenant  for but one year c the statute Elizabeth c be make for the benefit of the poor  who ought not to suffer for the justice neglect and Pratt chief justice and  Raymond justice be of opinion that upon the justice neglect a appointment may  be make after the time because the parish ought not to suffer for their fault  and there be a necessity that overseer of the poor shall be appoint this  question be not whether the justice by appoint after the time have avoid the  penalty of the statute but whether such appointment be a absolute nullity and  void if so it will be in the power of the justice never to appoint overseer  for who can compel they to execute their authority within the time mention the  court will not grant a mandamus within the time for there be then no neglect  and the court will not presume that they will neglect to appoint within the  time suppose the quarter session after the time shall quash a appointment as  they may and order a new one can not a new appointment be make and if they can  obey such a order why not obey a mandamus of this court the statute Henry c  and other statute direct the quartersession to be hold at such certain time c  and yet accord to hale h pi Cr the quartersession be hold at various time c  the statute be only directory and in the affirmative wherefore the rule ought  to be discharge sir Thomas Abney contra the case cite from sir Matthew hale  can be law for since that there have be many hundred of case where the order  of session not be hold intra month have be quash lee chief justice there have  be the say of Lord Pratt and Lord Raymond upon the subject but no judgement I  have no objection if you desire it to let the question stand for further  argument afterward in Hilary term in the thirteenth of George the second it be  resolve by the whole court that the appointment be good