case the king against the mayor and alderman OF Carlisle queen whether a  corporation can remove a member for bribery until he have be convict of the  offence at law S c Mod S c fort S c stram mandamus to restore one Simpson to  the office of capital burgess of the city of Carlisle the return be a amotion  for bribery fazakerly the question be whether they can move without conviction  a mandamus issue to restore a capital burgess of newcastleupontyne and it be  return that he give several sum for vote for a member and hold though a  sufficient cause not good without conviction because it be a offence at  commonlaw Denton contra in neither of the case of king v bag a   a or king v  mayor of Gloucester do I find judgement give in that of Gloucester the  question be whether resignation by parole be sufficient for the capital  burgess consent to his amotion in bag ease there be a power to move give by  charter there may be a case where a person be removable but not indictable as  sergeant whitaker case for not attend at the session which it be his duty to  do the case of Gloucester be whether it be modern report such a bribery for  which he can be indict the offence modern report er p in the present case be  that he offer sixty guinea to a capital burgess to vote for a at the next  ensue election for mayor which be the business of a private election only  concern the corporation here appear a sufficient conviction whatever be the  law before Ann it be alter for thereby every material fact be traversable  style fazakerly it be a public offence for a corporation be a public concern  bribery have a odium in the law and in case of a corporation impose on the  crown by bring wrong person into office person be not to be under the odium of  commonlaw offence without a fair trial by the commonlaw here be no conviction  at commonlaw the conviction by the corporation be what we complain of Pratt  chief justice there be two question whether the offence be indictable at  commonlaw and if so whether the corporation can remove without a precede  conviction it seem to I that this be a offence punishable at commonlaw and if  so whether the king can empower any to proceed to conviction otherwise than by  the rule of the commonlaw if he shall grant such a commission it will be  against the rule of commonlaw and he surprise into it for be can derogate from  the commonlaw when the offence concern only his duty as a freeman if the  corporation shall not determine his power no other jurisdiction can punish it  powys justice of the same opinion Eyre justice corruption in election be a  commonlaw offence and be so declare to be by great Charta but it do not follow  that this member can be disfranchise before conviction they have power to call  he to a account for any offence against his duty and there be no reason that  because he be not indict for the offence at commonlaw they have no right to  punish he for act against his duty like the ecclesiastical and temporal court  they may both proceed in different respect Lord coke mention several case for  which they may be remove as erase the charter which be forgery but if he forge  a deed in which the corporation be not concern they can examine into it until  convict and then they may disfranchise he as a infamous person it be never  determine by any resolution fortescue justice lane case be on a judgement for  a libel which be not relative to his office duty or oath and there a  conviction be necessary this may be a misdemeanour for the commonlaw have give  this no particular name for bribery be by Lord coke define when a officer take  money the king may empower a corporation to disfranchise a member though not  to punish a party but by the rule of commonlaw a it be say that the court be  afterward unanimous of opinion that it be a good return S c fort and see king  v Tiverton Mod accord a