case the king against hutchinson mayor and the alderman OF Carlisle if a  burgess of a corporation offer to bribe a freeman to vote for a particular  candidate for the office of mayor the corporation after summon he to appear  and answer this charge may on his refuse to answer disfranchise he although he  have not modern report er p be convict of this offence at commonlaw S c ante S  c fort S c stram mandamus to the mayor alderman and common Council of Carlisle  to restore one Simpson to the office of a capital burgess of the city of  Carlisle of which he have be deprive by they the return be that the  corporation have be time whereof c a corporation by prescription with power of  a motion and be incorporate by a charter in the time of Charles the second by  the name of the mayor alderman and twentyfour capital burgess who be to  continue for life unless they be remove by the mayor and alderman or the major  part of they that I Simpson be duly elect a capital burgess and take the oath  accord which be to regard the good of the corporation and not to disclose the  talk or word of any assembly that he the say Simpson and one Hutchinson intend  to violate his oathThe person for who the bribe be offer be not choose mayor  but another person note to the former edition a offer contrary thereto one  Harrison a freeman thereof sixty guinea as a bribe for his vote and interest  at the election of a mayor there and promise that they will get a place for  his son in the customhouse that by virtue of the say charter the mayor c have  power to remove c for any lawful cause provide the great part of the common  council agree to such removal that at a assembly of the mayor and nine  alderman he the say Harrison have exhibit a information in write of this  matter ad execution sequen c in open court that Harrison make oath thereof and  thereupon Simpson be summon to appear before they who after his appearance  Qure whether he appear b refuse to answer certain article in write exhibit  against he on this information of which I Simpson have a copy whereupon this  court of mayor c adjourn from time to time three whole day one after another  expect that he will comply before they disfranchise he but he not comply be by  another assembly adjudge guilty and remove pro male gest et knock against in  information et point of time superius mentionat c who causan c reeve for  Simpson except to the return and pray a peremptory mandamus there be two  question first no sufficient charge of a offence be lie for which he be remove  the information be inter alian ad effedum following and the article be ad  execution the same in information mentionat so that the article be relative to  the information will be uncertain if the information be so the information  ought to have charge the offence positive in hc word or at least the substance  of they for as much certainty be requisite in the return of a amotion as in a  indictment a indictment for a libel ad execution sequent be hold insufficient  but have it be secundum course it have be good for that imply a identity salk  a it be resolve by holt chief justice that such a indictment for a libel need  not show the very word of the libel but and show the substance thereof will be  good see Cowp b in any conviction before justice of the peace as for  deerstealing if the information be set forth ad execution sequent the  conviction will be void salk c question the offence be bribery be a offence at  commonlaw by which law the offender may be punish but it be against great  Charta to deprive a man of his freedom before he be convict of a crime by the  ordinary method which that modern report law prescribe for what security can  any man have from the insult of power if he may be remove from his freedom  before conviction or before a trial by the law of his country to which every  man have a equal right now if Simpson have be charge with perjury or forgery  which be crime of a worse nature than bribery yet he can not be remove before  conviction bag be case   d make the distinction that no member of a  corporation can be disfranchise by a corporation unless they have power by  charter or prescription if they have no such power he ought to be convict by  the course of the commonlaw before he can be remove a removal where they have  power by charter or prescription be within great ChartaMag car c e a judge  modern report er p mean per law terr and if he be first convict that be per  judgment Parium of oneself but that distinction have of late year be deny for  law lane fort Mod ld ray f be remove from the office of a alderman for a libel  by virtue of a express power give by the charter to remove but he be restore  there be no precedent conviction in the case of the king v the mayor of Wilton  Hilary term will g on a mandamus to restore chalk to the office of a burgess  of Wilton the corporation return that they be a corporation by prescription  with power of amotion and that they remove chalk for have alter a name in one  of the corporationbooks and it be adjudge by holt chief justice that he ought  to be restore first because the offence be forgery he be indictable by the  commonlaw and consequent not removable without a precedent conviction and  second here do not appear any prejudice to the corporation because the  alteration may be for their advantage and so he act neither against his duty  nor his oath in the case of the queen v perrott mich term whether h the court  be of opinion that the return be insufficient not show any conviction though  no peremptory mandamus be ever award and in that case holt chief justice say  that many thing in bag case be not law and particular that point where it be  say that if a layman be patron of a hospital he may visit it and depose or  deprive the master upon good cause but that if he be deprive without cause he  shall have a assize which be not law for no assize lie where a visitor be  appoint and this inconvenience will follow if such a removal shall be allow  videlicet if the court of king bench shall be of opinion that the removal be  good and the person shall be afterward try for bribery which no man will deny  but be may and upon such trial he shall be acquit then there will be a  contrariety of opinion and clash of judgement which shall be now foresee so as  to be avoid it be true these person be incorporate by charter but the king can  not give they a great power than he have to give for he himself can deprive a  man of his freehold before conviction therefore the charter give they a power  to remove c must be intend for a cause not cognisable at commonlaw videlicet  by do any thing in the corporation contrary to his office or by not do his  office as a justice of peace not attend the session or a officer of the  corporation be a common drunkard or guilty of any misdemeanour against the  duty of his office and which be no crime at commonlaw and there be a very  plain difference between do a unlawful act and not do the duty of his office  for the one be a crime the other be only a contempt but admit that Simpson  deny to answer the interrogatory yet that can be a sufficient cause to  disfranchise he the rather because it be not a matter regular before the court  for they ought to have return the information make by Harrison and the article  special and not ad ankle execution as be do in this return admit likewise that  what be return be a public offence yet if the corporation have receive no  damage by it they can remove the offender before conviction now it do not  appear by this return that the body corporate be in the least  damnifiedPattison for who the money be offer be not choose but Tate a it be  true the return be that Simpson intend to violate his oath beside a breach of  some part of his oath will be no cause for the oath be too general not to  disclose any talk whereas disclose talk upon impertinent affair can be no  offence but a bare intention shall not be prejudicial to he unless he have do  some act in pursuance of such intention and no man can tell whether bribery at  a election to promote modern report a particular man to be mayor will be  prejudicial oh the corporation or not it be object that this offence be not  indictable but certain it be for admit it to be a offence and prejudicial to  the corporation yet the person bribe ought not to be disfranchise but rather  to be indict upon the statute of Westminster the second c Inst b by which it  be enact that none shall disturb any by force malice or menace to make free  election in pain of great forfeiture and it be also against the commonlaw b  contra in answer to the chief objection that Simpson ought not to be remove  modern report er p from his freehold before conviction because the crime for  which he be charge be a offence at commonlaw this be admit to be true but it  be a crime relative to the duty of his office in the corporation and therefore  be may be remove before conviction it be a offence which will destroy the very  be of this corporation it be contrary to his oath of fidelity when he be first  admit to his freedom there be some case where man have be remove for offence  punishable at law even before any conviction as for instance a man be remove  for a not in the councilchamber king v Yates style a which be a offence  punishable at commonlaw yet the offender be remove before conviction and so be  sergeant Whitacre who have notice refuse to attend at the session of the peace  salk b for which cause he be turn out of the recordership of the borough of  Ipswich before conviction the like be often do in the college of both our  university side side Mod ld ray c and bag case which be the great Charta of  all case of this nature warrant this opinion and especial since the statute of  whether which give a traverse to the return of a mandamus and which Simpson  have refuse he have thereby implicit admit the crime for which he be charge  because if it be false he may have traverse the return and therefore he ought  not to be favour and as to his removal before conviction this be a condition  annex to his freedom in this corporation which he take subject to be remove  for any reasonable cause and his removal be the more just because he have all  reasonable opportunity allow he to defend himself if he can upon the whole  matter a return of a mandamus needs not so much certainty as a information or  indictment because if it be true no punishment ought to be inflict on that  account fortescue justice be of opinion that a return to a mandamus require  the usual certain even much great than a indictment for that may be traverse  but here the king can traverse fort note to the former edition but for the  certainty require upon this subject see king v lime king dougl to d reply  modern report the objection that they shall have set forth in the return the  information of Harrison in hc word and not ad ankle execution be not answer  now the reason why that information shall be set forth to a certainty be  because it be the very ground of the charge by which Simpson be remove and it  be not sufficient to say that so much certainty be not require in this case as  in a indictment and to allege for a reason that no punishment be to be inflict  upon that account because it be a great punishment for a man to lose his  freehold beside they have not set forth in this return that Simpson have do  any thing prejudicial oh this corporation and as to sergeant Whitacres case it  be no manner of authority in the present case it be true he be remove before  conviction but it be for not attend the session to direct the corporation in  proceed to administer justice which be a offence do to the corporation and  consequent a forfeiture of his office of recorder Pratt chief justice by the  return of this mandamus it appear that Simpson be duly summon and that they  who remove he have a authority so to do but it must be for a lawful cause  which do not appear by this return for the information and the article ground  thereon be not sufficient set forth to inform the court of the crime be only  return ad execution sequen now where word in a indictment for a libel be set  forth ad execution sequen that be hold insufficient in the case of the king v  bear salk Carth ld ray a and there be no reason why a indictment shall be more  certain than the return of a mandamus for in one case the party be to be  punish and so he be in the other videlicet by the loss of his freedom as to  the question whether a man can be remove from his freedom for a crime  punishable at law before be be convict of such crime Pratt chief justice hold  he can not but see the case of king v Tiverton post when Pratt chief justice  hold that bribery be a sufficient cause to remove a man from his office before  conviction b and that in the case of the king v the mayor of Gloucester it be  so modern report er p adjudge in point that bribery be a offence punishable at  commonlaw and that a just trial may he have in the court of Westminster than  by a mayor and commoncouncilman in a corporation who be general corrupt and  use arbitrary method in trial there so he be of opinion that a peremptory  mandamus ought to go modern report but the other three judge be of a contrary  opinion their reason be as follow it be agree on all hand that there be a  crime do and it sufficient appear that the corporation suffer by it for what  can be a great injury than corrupt member and it seem very reasonable that  where the immediate good of a corporation be concern that they shall have  power to remove he who act contrary to such good this corporation have such a  power by the very word of their charter videlicet to remove for a lawful cause  for otherwise those word be insignificant and it will be very hard if a  corrupt member can not be remove before conviction because in the mean time he  will have a vote in all corporate act which may be prejudicial to the  corporation where such a voter be guilty of so great a crime as bribery the  court as to the form of this return be equal divide Pratt chief justice and  powys justice hold it insufficient Eyre and fortescue justice hold it well  enough and therefore there can be no judgement against the return it be say S  c fort that as to the form of the return the whole court after some little  doubt hold it well because on the whole return there appear to be a good cause  of removal a