case the king against Nichols and Radcliff in what case the court will grant a  information quo warranto for usurp a power although it be no prior franchise  in the crown S c stram reeves move for a information in the nature of a quo  warranto against the defendant Nichols and Radcliff for execute the office of  trustee of the harbour of Whitehaven it be a public harbour for all ship and  be in decay for want of repair it be regulate by the statute Ann c by which  trustee be appoint to collect the duty assess for such repair they be appoint  after this manner the lord of the manor be to choose seven and fourteen more  be appoint by name in the statute for seven year and if any die within that  time the remainder of the fourteen be to choose new one at the end of the  seven year the inhabitant of modern report er p the place be to choose  fourteen for three year but the statute give no power to the remainder of this  fourteen to fill up vacancy by death and these two gentleman be choose by  twelve to fill up the place of two dead that this relate to the public be  evident for these trustee have a power of make bylaws and of levy money upon  the town for the repair and if these two be undue choose the act of the rest  will be invalid fazakerly I be to show cause against this rule for a  information in the nature of a quo warranto against the two defendant for act  as trustee of the harbour of Whitehaven in the year there be a election and in  last August there be another election since which two of the trustee die and  the twelve survive trustee have choose two new one the defendant and the  question be whether these be well elect that be whether it be such a franchise  as a information will lie for the usurpation of there be no instance that I  know of of a information in the nature of a quo warranto against private  trustee this power of elect new trustee to supply vacancy must be within the  intention of the statute for else it give Mr Lowther such a power as will not  be convenient Mr Lowther lord of the manor and seventeen more trustee be  requisite to make bylaws and to make any alteration in the harbour now if four  die the statute will be ineffectual as to the purpose it seem questionable  whether the power of choose new trustee to supply vacancy which be allow to  the first fourteen do not run through the whole and there be the same reason  if it be a franchise it be a necessary incident to they as such and they may  modern report by commonlaw supply such vacancy though no such express power be  allow they at their constitution Denton in reply this be make a public harbour  by the statute Ann a considerable revenue arise from it to the king the  statute make eleven of the trustee a quorum and presume that there will be no  need of elect new one often than once in three year that it be of such a  public nature that a information will lie against it be apparent reeves as to  the nature of the office the matter concern which they be trustee be of as  public nature as can be and their power be so too for they may make bylaws  concern the harbour assess money upon the inhabitant appoint a public officer  and administer a oath to he the manner of the election be appoint by the  statute no election can be good but what pursue it when the fourteen be  appoint by name in the statute for seven year it be reasonable to allow they  to supply defect and if it have be the intention of the parliament to allow  such a power afterward there can have be a clause for it where a corporation  be constitute by charter and no power of fill up vacancy allow by that charter  they have it by commonlaw but where the method of the election be prescribe by  the charter they must pursue it Bootle if such a power of elect new one become  necessary it will be rather in the inhabitant than in the survive trustee in  the case of the king v Stanton it be doubt whether a information will lie  against one for hold a courtbaron as to a courtleet it be not doubt but the  court hold that it will lie for hold a courtbaron if a statute contain  anything that relate to the revenue of the crown that make it a public law a  holland case cro Elizabeth a Pratt chief justice by commonlaw all port be in  the crown a subject indeed by prescription may be entitle to a port the  statute have appoint how this port be to be regulate and if any one act  otherwise than as the statute have direct it be a usurpation on the crown the  statute make this to be of a public nature and so it be by commonlaw and a  information will lie against they the courtleet and courtbaron be derive from  the crown and for that reason a information will lie against they corporation  may preserve themselves yet they must pursue their charter and for that reason  we rather suffer corporation to be dissolve than to authorize their  infringement on their charter these two be not duly elect and if any danger  arise they must apply to the parliament the information ought to go modern  report er p powys justice I be of the same opinion modern report Eyre justice  they be not well elect for the survivor have no power to elect they we can  supply a power and it be plain the statute never intend they shall have such a  power for they have grant it in one case and not in the other a information  ought to be because it be a public trust it be the same case whether the king  can grant such a power or no as in this case he can not there be reason enough  for a information and this can be determine otherwise fortescue justice a  information ought to be grant for it be a matter of right and there be no  remedy this be matter of more consequence than what most information be grant  for information be grant where it be not a franchise though all port be in the  crown by commonlaw though this power be enlarge by the statute yet what the  crown have be grant and so it be a franchise it be plain the statute intend to  vest no such power in they for it be a know rule that in statute make a new  law a affirmative imply a negative of whatever be not affirm a information be  grant a king v boil stram king v reenel stram king v William burr S c Bl Rep  king v Marsden burr king v Wallis and bar term Rep a