case the king against the mayor and alderman OF exeter a alderman who withdraw  himself and his family from the city and neglect to attend his duty there may  be remove from his office but before removal he ought to be summon to attend  the court in order that he may show cause against his removal and answer the  charge allege against he SC ante SC Mod SC comb SC holt SC Mod eyres justice  that no peremptory mandamus lie to restore he because they have return one  good cause of removal videlicet his own removal with his family to live at  Topsham it be the duty of his office to attend there to be resient there and  to be assistant at the council there a alderman be no place of profit but only  of freedom precedence and authority in the city which be all to he have and do  there to forfeit recognizance et to leave behind be a total desertion with his  family it be true we must intend every thing against the return for the sake  of freedom and so be Bulstr roll Rep king v mayor of Gloucester but shower KB  here it be plain and I be of opinion that though he do return again yet that  do not purge the forfeiture though he do return before the disfranchisement  for that cause in case of estate if a forfeiture be commit by a grant upon  condition though the estate be regain by force of the condition yet the lessor  may enter for the forfeiture as to contemptuous word and the like he ought to  be summon to answer they before he be disfranchise but in this case he need  not be summon for they be not bind to go out of the city to summon he a  Gregory justice of the same opinion that here be cause sufficient for to  remove he that he with his family leave the city then the ex cause pillage  relate to all dolbin justice doubt not that the leave the city be a good cause  of removal but that they do not say that he never return again for if he  return again he purge the offence and he ought to have be admit as a alderman  unless he be remove before holt chief justice there ought to go a peremptory  mandamus to restore he though I agree with my brother in every thing his  desertion of the city be cause of removal his frequent absence be a cause for  every alderman ought to be a citizen and inhabitant by the charter if be  remove with his family he cease to be a citizen a it be say SC Mod that the  court incline not to allow these deposition to be good evidence but SC Carth  say that after much debate the court be of opinion that they may be give in  evidence and with this SC salk seem to agree but see bull n p Cowp Goodright v  moss Cowp a the judgement be affirm SC Mod and the reason seem to be because  the word be in the plural number comprehend all the i in the parish run eject  a nonresidence though a good cause of removal do not Self facto determine the  office but there must be a judgement of amotion by the corporation before a  information in the nature of a quo warranto will lie king v heaven term Rep  shower KB er p though he be a freeman more to forfeit recognizance et to leave  behind be a absolute leave of the city and must be so understand but here be  no good summons for though he do commit never so many cause of forfeiture  there ought to be a reasonable summons for he to answer they and so be James  bag be case there be a summons for his attendance but it be not say that there  be any summons for he to appear to answer those particular matter now the  frequent absence can be no good cause unless summon for he may show sickness  or business of the king as good cause then if a summons be necessary upon a  dereliction I agree no summon be necessary out of the place and they be not to  summon he if out of the city but there be a possibility that he may return  again and if he do return again with his family before disfranchisement  possible it may reinstate he but undoubted if he be a inhabitant afterward  within the city and they may have summon he then they ought to have summon he  to have answer it and he may have give a excuse now this be a return it must  be certain to every purpose if in a plea this be well enough and we can intend  nothing else than that he continue extra freedom but be in a return where  there be no opportunity of answer it ought to be more certain b suppose shower  KB he have be a inhabitant when they remove he then a summons be necessary now  this return be true and consequent no action lie if that be the case and that  may be it for any thing that appear to the contrary and therefore a peremptory  mandamus ought to go say the other in contrar c