case the king against morgan the preside officer at a election under the  statute Geo c must be the near person in place and office to the absent mayor  and if a charter appoint the election of the mayor to be the next day after a  month from the prescriptive day it mean a lunar month after such day a  mandamus be pray on the statute Geo c against the mayor of Aborystyn in Wales  to go to a election of a mayor there have be no election at the usual day nor  within the day after as this Act direct on show cause the defendant insist  that there be a election as the Act direct on the day after the prescriptive  day which be prove to be at a courtleet to be hold within one month after  michaelmasday and it be also swear that the month have always be compute  accord to the long calendar month which be thirtyone day so that by this  computation the prescriptive day be the thirty of October and they go to a  election the thirtyfirst of October and therefore that the mandamus ought not  to go to this defence the plaintiff make two objection first that the month  for hold the courtleet ought to be a lunar month and not a calendar month and  if so the election ought to have be on the twentyninth of October and then  this election will not be within the time which the Act prescribe second that  the person who preside at such election do not appear to have any right it be  say that William who be the preside man be one of the magisterial officer next  in office to the mayor whereas the Act say be must be the near then present in  place and office to the mayor and this man be only say to be one of the near  lee chief justice the affidavit to support this mandamus have set forth that  here be no due election the statute Geo c S which direct the mandamus say it  shall be grant either if there have be no election at all or if such election  afterward shall become void in the case of Fintagen a modern election be  disclose but it appear that it be a void election the court grant the mandamus  and say it be not sufficient to show the fact of a election only but it ought  to be such a election as the Act direct the question then will be whether this  will fall within the same reason as Fintagens case the Act say that the  election make pursuant to this Act must be the next day after the charter or  prescriptive day here it be agree that the prescriptive day be at a courtleet  hold within one month after michaelmasday and it be say that this must be  compute accord to the calendar month which accord to this computation will  bring the prescriptive day to the thirty of October and the election be have  on the thirtyfirst of October the day after but it be very clear and settle  that when the common or statute law speak of a month general without fix any  number of day or say what sort of month it be mean thereby a lunar month for  it be the ecclesiastical court that reckon by calendar month and then this  election will be void not be bad the day next after the prescriptive day which  be a lunar month after Michaelmas and shall have be on the twentyninth of  October it be likewise bad on the second exception for it do not appear that  the person who preside on this election be the near in place and office to the  mayor then present it be only say he be one of the near therefore I be not  satisfy there have be a good election and I be of opinion that a mandamus  ought to be grant modern er p page and wright justice be of the same opinion  the mandamus be accord grant