case the king against the mayor and alderman OF exon if a alderman withdraw  with his family from the city without a intention of return and to such a  distance as avoidable prevent he from discharge the duty of his office it be a  good cause of removal but he must be previous summon and have particular  notice to answer the cause of such removal and if either forwant of such  summons or in any other way he be illegal remove a mandamus lie to restore he  SC post SC Mod SC comb SC holt SC Mod mandamus at the instance of William  glide to restore he to the office of alderman c return that he depart from the  city and live at Topsham that there g cro car see ld ray term Rep h Edward pl  I cro Elizabeth king roll Abr l see the case of Russel v the man of Devon term  Rep m naturan narrow places shower KB er p be several court and he come not to  they though summon that he be thereupon remove for such his absence and  neglect of his duty videlicet such a day and further that he take not the oath  before the first day of August Treby attorney general except to the return  that there be no notice to he nor summons to be hear concern his absence for  the same may be upon reasonable cause and then it be no cause of removal and  he ought to have be summon to answer that particular thing and a general  summons to meet at the court be not sufficient then as to his not take the  oath it appear by the former part of the return that he be amoved by act of  court so that at this time he be not to take the oath for he be actual out of  the place the statute will mary c require that every man have a office shall  take the oath a now the question be if Mr glide have or hold this office at  that time the word have suppose possession as on the statute of Henry c of  will a will by a disseizee be void one that be remove by order of court though  illegal till restore be out of the office accord to the equity of the statute  of car c which be the foundation of this it seem to be the meaning of that Act  that person out of place shall take it so soon as the disability be remove as  to the proviso for infant c that seem to be but a reasonable declaration of  the commonlaw and will have be so if the proviso bad not be make holt chief  justice seem of opinion that a alderman go and live out of the city in another  place be a good cause of removal and that be cease to be a inhabitant they may  remove shower KB he without summons b but the rest incline that a summons be  necessary the next term argue by Pratt that the return be ill first it must be  admit that a mandamus lie then here be no cause of removal as to absence non  constat that Topsham be out of the liberty of the city though it be out of the  city and county of the say city for the liberty may extend further it be not  say how long he absent himself it may only be for a week or the like it be not  say that his removal be without a reasonable cause and it may be for a public  or family sickness the omission be allege too general that he do neglect his  duty and do not show how c it appear there be always a major part present and  consequent his absence no forfeiture because no want of it d it do not appear  that there be any business to be do at any of the court or that any damage  accrue to the city by his absence it do not appear that there be no other  court hold or that these be all the court so that he may be frequent present  beside they have not summon he to answer particular for this matter e then as  to the not take the oath he be not within the intention of the Act which be  only for person have office it appear that he be remove even before the make  of this Act consequent he be not a person have a office for this be a good  judgement till disallow by this court that court have a jurisdiction the  removal be not void but voidable f there be no danger from those that be out  of their a see post king v the city of London page notorious facts b absence  from four occasional great court and one upon a state day where no personal  notice be give when presence be not necessary when no particular business be  obstruct by absence be not cause of amotion king v Richardson burr a alderman  with his family have leave the borough for four month be not a good cause of  amoval king v mayor of Leicester burr but where non residence be a good ground  of amotion it be not necessary to summon he to come and reside previous to the  proceed to move he dougl to c freeman case cro car d   e see the case of king  v chalk ld ray salk and report more at large Mod that the disfranchisement of  a corporator be good if he be hear in his defence although he be not summon to  make it see also king v mayor of Liverpool burr but in the case of king v  mayor of Axbridge Cowp where a mandamus be apply for to restore a town clerk  on the ground that he have be remove without notice to appear and defend  himself the court refuse the writ because it be admit that there be sufficient  cause for the amotion f assize pl shower KB er p office the end of the Act be  to secure the government from those that be then in office beside they be to  be suspend and they can not be suspend unless they be in possession for that  suppose a possession Tremaine e contra cite   light and urge that a removal  for absence be reasonable because it be fit the office shall be supply and  another put into it lest there shall be a failure of justice summons be not  necessary in case of absence because he desert and we know not where to find  he then for the oath it must be a forfeiture otherwise here will be a officer  which shall never take the oath to the present government for there be no mean  to compel he to take they after his readmission and therefore have a office do  and must mean a right to the possession if a restitution be now award he come  in upon his old title there be no election for it and he must be restore if at  all to his ancient right shower KB holt chief justice as to summons you take  notice where he life so as to summon he to come to court by the same notice  you may have summon he to answer g then for the other part he be actual out  upon the restitution by the mandamus he be admit de to make new I why shall he  not take the now oath upon that admission but cur advisare vult king shower KB  trinity term the three of William and mary in the king bench sir John holt Knt  chief justice sir William dolben Knt sir William Gregory Knt sir Giles eyres  Knt justice sir George Treby Knt attorney general sir John summer Knt  solicitor general