case the queen against the borough OF Aldborough the take the sacrament  pursuant to the car c be a precedent qualification to be elect a burgess of a  corporation this be a mandamus to the mayor and burgess of Aldborough command  they to restore one sparhawk to the office of capital burgess of that borough  to this they return for cause of not obey the writ that he have not take the  sacrament within a year before the election accord to the statute of car c a  see the queen v the corporation of Buckingham post a sir James mountagu object  to the return that the Act of car c as to take the sacrament be only directory  as to the elector what sort of man they shall choose and do not make a nullity  of the office modern report and to maintain this point the case of the king v  Larwood b Hilary term will salk salk Mod skin Carth holt comb vent Mod ld ray  b be quote which be a information against Larwood for not take upon he the  office of sheriff of the city of Norwich of which office he be capable be  plead to the information that he have not take the sacrament within a year c  and so be incapable demurrer and judgement on the side of the information this  be a case in point for whether the not receive the sacrament create a  incapacity be the foundation of the demurrer the court this interpretation of  the Act be never offer to any court before the case of king v Whitehorn a ante  a and shall it prevail the Act will signify very little as to the authority of  the case of the king v Larwood it amount to no more than this that a man shall  not defend one crime by another videlicet his not take upon he the office by  his not receive the sacrament b see statute Geo c and the case of Harrison v  Evans Cowp notorious facts kid on corporation b a second objection to this  return be that it do not show that this corporation be in be at the time when  this Act be make say non allocatur for the Act extend to all corporation  create before and after Ventris a three objection to this return be that it do  not appear that the person be summon to say what be can for himself to this it  be answer that this return amount to a special non dainties which must be as  good as a general one because it do imply it and to prove a general non  dainties will have be a good return these authority be quote Dunch v the city  of Norwich c easter term side report likewise keb c where the return be non  debt is owed modus dainties and hold there indeed that the debt is owed modus  be modern report wrong because it make the party a judge of the legality of  the choice but without that the return have be good in Farringtons case d show  d the return be never to be dainties et perfect and leave be give to amend the  return by strike the perfect out Parker chief justice I think it very proper a  corporation shall hear a man before they expel he there can be no  inconvenience in hold corporation to this for I can only keep those in that be  qualify to stay in and if corporation will unjust after bear expel man it  aggravate the fault because do against knowledge it be true the party have a  action to be restore but then in the mean time he be wrongful keep out Powell  justice it be very reasonable that corporation shall do this but whether by  law we can oblige they to it be the question if a general non dainties have be  a good return why not that which amount to a special non dainties sure the add  the reason do not make the return worse No opinion give in this point modern  report er p