case the king against the mayor c OF shrewsbury a mandamus to restore a  alderman and a return that he be remove for absence S c barn SC b r h SC bro p  c a mandamus have be grant to restore Corbet Kynaston Esq to the office of  alderman a return be make to it in which among other thing this part of the  charter be set out which require every alderman to be resident either by  himself or his family within the borough or suburb unless in case of the  plague or other contagious distemper then the return set out that Corbet  Kynaston have not be resident either by himself or his family for three year  before the twenty of February though there have be no plague or other  contagious distemper in the borough or suburb that upon the twentythird of  February the mayor and majority of alderman and commoncouncil meet upon  corporation business and then take into consideration this nonresidence of  Corbet Kynaston and remove he from his office for such nonresidence Mr strange  object to the return modern first as to the merit that it be say there be no  plague or other contagious distemper in the borough or suburb whereas that  clause ought to receive a large construction that if there be a plague in  other part of the kingdom it shall excuse his nonresidence for it will be a  act of the great cruelty to require his continuance there till the plague be  get among they when possible he may be seize with it or find a reception in  any other place very difficult second it do not appear to have be a regular  assembly at which he be remove it be say only at a meeting of the mayor and  the major part of the alderman and commoncouncil duly assemble now as this be  not the common and ordinary that business of the corporation which be direct  by prescription or charter to be do upon a particular day a general summons of  all the resident member be necessary to make this a regular assembly in the  case of the king v Strangeways and bull Hilary term in the first year of  George the first it be hold that the majority of a corporation can proceed on  any such special business unless there be a general summons the word duly in  this case be not sufficient that be a matter of law the fact ought to have be  special state that the court may judge of the regularity of the meeting in  conviction it be not sufficient to say a b not be duly qualify kill game c but  the fact by which he appear not to be duly qualify must be set out three  though it do appear by the return that Corbet Kynaston be not resident and  therefore no personal notice requisite to be give in order to defend himself  yet there ought to have be some public notice or other in proceed by way of  attainder the party have always time give he to come in so in case of outlawry  there be always proclamation in dr Bentley case bar king b a want of summons  be hold fatal upon a return to a mandamus to restore he to his academical  degree in sergeant whitaker case salk b want of summons be indeed hold to be  cure by appearance but there be no pretence that the removal will otherwise  have be regular Mr Parker on the other side the return pursue the word of the  charter that there be no plague c in the borough c and that be sufficient the  word duly be a sufficient allegation be a matter traversable and must now be  take to be true No summons be necessary it appear that Corbet Kynaston be not  resident in the corporation and so it be determine in sergeant glide case show  and in this respect the principal case be distinguishable from those cite Lord  Hardwicke chief justice there can be no pretence that a plague in any other  part of the kingdom will excuse his absence in sergeant glide case Mod SC show  SC comb SC holt SC Mod SC ld ray c it be not pretend that any modern public  notice be requisite and though holt chief justice differ from the other three  judge in that case yet it be upon a matter of modern er p form only that it do  not sufficient appear he be absent so as not to be entitle to notice as to the  objection to the word duly in plead this will be sufficient and the special  manner of summon c will come in evidence and no case be cite to prove this  wrong in a return the only doubt with I be that it be say the mayor and major  part of the alderman c and it seem to I it shall have be the mayor alderman c  for the act of a mayor and a majority of a corporation be the act of the whole  and it shall have be set out not as it be in fact but accord to its legal  operation probin and lee justice concur with the chief justice in all but the  last point who seem to think the return good in that likewise