case the king against Powell and other S c bro p c and ed former fifteen year  possession of a corporate office will not prevent a information quo warranto  to try the mere right S c post S c stram S c bro p c a rule be make on the  defendant Powell and one Jones to show cause why a information in nature of a  quo warranto shall not go against they to show by what modern report er p  authority they claim to be capital burgess of the borough of Brecknock c and  the like rule on Mr price to show by what authority he claim to be recorder of  that borough it be object against the capital burgess that they be never duly  choose burgess and by consequence can not be capital burgess now admit that  matter to be true yet Powell be a burgess de facto ever since the year and  Jones be modern report another such burgess ever since the year it will be of  fatal consequence to this borough after so long a acquiescence to make all the  corporate act do by they during all that time void and probable these man may  be pursue a little far for the next step may be whether they be ever admit to  their freedom or whether they serve seven year apprenticeship which thing may  be very hard to prove upon a quo warranto as to the recorder he be elect the  twentyninth of April but find that election be not good he be reelect the  twenty of may follow and before he be swear into the office so that there be  no colour to extend this rule to he b contra the long acquiescence as suggest  on the other side can be no colour against this rule which be make on the mere  right and it seem a little surprise that it shall be offer against the rule  because length of time will never establish a right which be gain by  usurpation now it be plain that these man can never be capital if they never  be legal burgess see ante a it be true in case of not take the sacrament or  the oath of allegiance and supremacy the court will intend that they be duly  take after a long acquiescence see king v William stram king v newling term  Rep king v smith term Rep b but a right shall never be intend when the merit  of it be controvert as it be in this case and no collateral part dispute and  the court be of that opinion the rule be make absolute as to the capital  burgess the rule of the court be never to allow a information quo warranto  after a corporator have be twenty year in possession of his corporate  franchise burr burr Cowp term Rep but this be think too long a period king v  Stacey term Rep and as many information of this kind have be grant previous to  the make of the rule though considerable within twenty year term Rep the court  resolve to limit their own discretion in grant application of this nature to  six year term Rep and now by Geo c it be enact that to any information quo  warranto the defendant may plead in bar that he have hold the office or  franchise for six year precede the information and that no title derive under  any election shall be impeach by reason of any defect of title of the person  or person elect if such person or person be in possession de facto of his or  their franchise or office six year before the fill of the information a but  discharge as to the recorder because he do not rely on his first but on his  last election