case the king against glide alderman remove for absent himself from the city  and not attend although summon hold well by three judge contra holt chief  justice who hold a particular summons be necessary S c post S c show S c comb  S c holt S c ld ray mandamus to restore glide to his place of alderman of exon  they return that exon be a ancient city and that time c there have be a court  hold modern report consist of eight alderman and ten other who be the chamber  and commoncouncil of the say city who use to meet on due summons for the  better government of the corporation and that for misdemeanour in the alderman  this court use to move they that glide be choose a alderman and by virtue of  that office be a justice of peace in the say city but that he remove himself  and his family from the say city to Topsham et prd community to forfeit  recognizance et to leave behind by which he neglect the duty of his office and  come not to several council there hold and declare he will never come more and  for these reason at a court hold of which he have notice and although summon  to be be do not appear they disfranchise he a see S c Mod notorious facts a  king v barn stram b Baxter v Benfield Consts p l vol I king v Eakring burr S c  c see now Geo c modern report er p Eyre justice No peremptory mandamus shall  go because be be a alderman and have remove his habitation from the city have  give good cause of disfranchisement for it be incident to the place and duty  of a alderman to assist in the government of the city and to be resident there  to that purpose beside a alderman place be not a place of profit but all the  advantage of it consist in freedom precedence and authority and if he remove  himself from thence he be incapable of enjoy these privilege et quid to  forfeit recognizance et to leave behind be a sufficient return although it do  not appear but be may have return again this can not purge his offence and  forfeiture but he continue still removable for it as if tenant for life make a  feoff in fee on condition and enter for condition break before the lessor take  advantage of the forfeiture yet this do not purge it but as to his say he will  return no more this will not help the return because no obstacle to his come  again but he must have be summon before they disfranchise he but be remove  thence no summons be necessary Gregory justice accord in omnibus add that if  glide have declare his resolution of not come again to the mayor it will be a  disfranchisement dolben justice the cause of disfranchisement have be good if  well return but he say quid to forfeit recognizance et to leave behind general  be not good without alley allegation that he never return again for if he  return before the disfranchisement it will be a sufficient cause to prevent it  but it be return that he come not to court accord to summons this make the  return full modern report holt chief justice I agree that his absence c be a  good cause to disfranchise he but here be no sufficient summons return for he  ought to be summon to answer his fault before disfranchisement a it be true it  be allege that although summon be do not attend but a general summons will not  avail for they can when they have he in court object and deprive he for any  misdemeanour but the summons to this purpose ought to be particular to answer  to such and such fault but if it appear that he be not a inhabitant within the  city at the time of the court hold there be no need of aver a summons yet  though he leave his habitation yet possible his return may cure his default  before and if he do return and they do not summon he he can not be deprive for  perhaps he can have allege some good cause for his departure as sickness which  may have satisfy the court for the difference be where they may have a  opportunity of summon he and where not and this be a return ought to be  certain to every particular because the party have no answer to it but it may  have be good in a action on the case where he may have reply to it Bulst roll  it be return to a mandamus that thirty of the commoncouncil in the  councilchamber assemble remove the plaintiff and this be rule to be ill  because it be not allege that the commoncouncil be hold for this purpose for  the commoncouncil may have come to a feast and not as a court so in this case  though glide leave the place yet there be a possibility of return again before  disfranchisement and upon such a return a summons be necessary before he can  be remove and it not appear on the record that he do not return the  disfranchisement must be take to be nought but on the opinion of the other  three no peremptory mandamus be grant b a see king v heaven term Rep b king v  chalk ld ray salk Mod king v lime king dougl modern report er p modern report  michaelmas term the four of William and mary in the king and queen bench sir  John holt Knt chief justice sir William dolben Knt sir William Gregory Knt sir  Giles Eyre Knt justice sir George Treby Knt attorney general sir John summer  Knt solicitor general