case the queen against Sutton the office of deputyrecorder be grantable by  parole and therefore the copy of a write appointment be not evidence unless it  be show that a original exist and be lose this be a information in nature of a  quo warranto against Sutton for usurp the office of a common burgess of the  town of the Devizes in Wiltshire upon a trial at bar upon this issue whether  Sutton be choose a capital burgess by the mayor recorder and capital burgess  the follow point arise the first question the recorder have make a  deputyrecorder by write under his hand and seal and afterward have revoke this  deputation by another write a copy of which be offer in evidence of the  revocation but this be hold not good evidence because it do not appear but  they may have produce the original the deputation of a office be in its own  nature grantable by parole and therefore though it shall happen to be grant by  write yet since it be in itself grantable by parole it may be revoke by parole  modern report er p the second question by the charter that incorporate this  town the mayor recorder and in his absence deputyrecorder and capital burgess  well major Pars the same be empower modern report to choose capital burgess  the question be whether upon these word of the charter act do by the mayor and  majority of the burgess without the presence of the recorder or his deputy be  good the court seem to incline that they be good because the word the same  refer not only to capital burgess but to mayor recorder and capital burgess  and yet the reason why the presence of the mayor be necessary to corporate act  be not because be be particular name but because be be the head of the  corporation and if this be not so the addition of these word in charter quorum  recorder unit will be useless and unnecessary a see bar king b king v Newsham  sayer king v Monday Cowp king v Grimes burr king v Varlo Cowp king v  Bellringer term Rep a the three question be whether suppose it not necessary  by the charter that the recorder shall be present yet the issue do not oblige  they to prove he present at the election to this it be say by the counsel that  concession the charter do not require the presence of the recorder the  question be no more than this whether they shall be oblige to prove a  immaterial part of the issue it be say far that by a parity of reason it may  be expect that they shall prove the presence of every one of the common  burgess that by the issue no more be mean than that the election be make by  those that have a power to do it that where major pars there totan videlicet  the authority of the whole and of this opinion be the court the four question  start be whether in a corporation that be by charter to consist of mayor  recorder common burgess c the same person may not be both mayor and  deputyrecorder b see king v Trelawney burr king v Jordon b r h king v Goodwin  dougl notorious facts king v Pateman term Rep Milward v thatcher term Rep and  see kid on corporation b the five question be upon the word of the charter  which appoint the swear of a common burgess to be do before the mayor recorder  common burgess or the majority of they tune there prsentium modern report  whether or no a majority of the whole body be by these word necessary to be  present at the swear or whether a majority of those that be present be only  requisite though they shall not be the majority of the whole it be say that  upon the reason of the thing it be not necessary that the swear in shall be do  with the same solemnity as the choose in for the choice be a voluntary  deliberate act the swear in on the contrary be what a person once choose may  challenge as his right and may by mandamus compel they to do and if this  construction do not prevail the word in this clause of the charter concern the  swear tunc there prsentiu which be not in the clause concern the election will  signify nothing as for the objection that it seem absurd to say a man must be  swear before a majority of those that be present since if they be present he  must avoidable be swear before they all the answer be that this clause be to  be understand of be swear in by the consent of a majority of those that be  present the six question be whether by a charter that require act to be do by  a majority of the corporation a person may not be remove by a majority of that  body exclude the person that be to be remove and can vote in their own cause  but the whole court be of opinion that a removal be a act of a odious nature  all clause concern it must receive a strict interpretation and that therefore  the word majority shall be understand of a majority of the whole corporation a  seven question raise be whether not summon to a meeting member de modern  report er p facto disfranchise though afterward upon reexamination it shall  appear they be still lawful member shall vacate act do modern report in those  meeting the court incline to think it will not vacate they some of these point  be direct to be find specialty