Ashby versus white all mich Ann B R ld raym S c see S C ld raym with note Mod  case S C case by a burgess against constable of a borough for refuse to  receive his vote in election of member to parliament hold that it lie not by  three judge against holt c j salk holt S C action upon the case against the  constable of Aylesbury and declare that the king writ issue and be deliver to  the sheriff of buck for election of knight of the shire and burgess of borough  to serve in parliament whereupon the sheriff make out his precept to the  defendant be constable of Aylesbury for the election of two burgess for that  borough which be deliver and the burgess duly assemble to choose c and that  the plaintiff be duly qualify c offer to give his voice for sir t lee and S  main Esq but the defendant obstruct he from vote and refuse and will not  receive his vote nor allow it upon not guilty a verdict be find for the  plaintiff and after motion in arrest of judgement the court give their opinion  seriatim Salkeld gold I be of opinion for the defendant that the action be not  maintainable because the constable act as a judge and not as a officer and  that in a parliamentary matter also because the hinder of a vote be damnum  without in an unjust manner h lev h hob far he hold it will beget multiplicity  of action vide   williams case and that this be out of time it ought at least  to follow and not to precede the adjudication of the house of Commons cro the  reason of stirling case be because the refusal of a poll occasion the loss of  the place of bridgemaster which be a real profit and the case of a action by a  freeman for refuse to admit his voice in the election of a Lord mayor be  because he have no other remedy but this action but this differ vide lev vent  lev powys I ad idem that the defendant though not proper a judge be quasi a  judge that when the matter come before the house of Commons the plaintiff vote  will be allow and therefore he do not lose his privilege de least non curate  law and this injury if it be one come within that rule and he mention the W  which give a action for a double return to the candidate and that before the  statute h the candidate have no action for a false return and that in there be  seventy double return and yet no action bring or Act make and from those  statute give new action in those case be infer no action lie for the voter at  commonlaw far the judgement here will not bind the Commons nor be evidence  there for the Commons be not bind by our determination and last all men  renewal plus restored state troubled how usefulness prod bull Powell I differ  from gold and powys the one hold he judge the other quasi a judge for he must  be a judge or not a judge and there be not any medium that here he be a  officer as such he be to execute the king writ and have nothing but a  ministerial power in other matter Powell agree with the other two urge that  the right of election of member must depend upon the right of the elector and  the former the parliament be to decide and the plaintiff may petition the  parliament to determine it and after that may have his action but not before  and therefore be not without remedy holt c j contra he hold that the plaintiff  have a right to vote that a freeholder have a right to vote by reason of his  freehold and it be a real right and the value of his freehold be not material  till h c which require it shall be S per annum that in borough they have a  right to vote ration burgagii and that in city Salkeld er p and corporation it  be a personal inheritance and vest in the whole corporation but to be use and  exercise by the particular member and that such a franchise can be grant but  to a corporation hob   more and this be not a minimum in lege but a noble  Salkeld privilege which entitle the subject to a share in the government and  legislature no law can be make to affect he or his property but by his own  consent give in person if he be choose or by his representative if he be a  voter that if the plaintiff have a right he must in consequence have a remedy  to vindicate that right for want of right and want of remedy be the same thing  if a statute give a right the commonlaw will give a remedy to maintain that  right a strong where the commonlaw give a right it give a remedy to assert it  this be a injury and every injury import a damage violate the right of another  by a scandalous word be sufficient damage to give a action though the party  suffer not a farthing and the pecuniary loss be nothing where parliamentary  matter come before we as incident to a cause of action on the property of the  subject which we in duty must determine though the incident matter be  parliamentary we must not be defer but be bind by our oath to determine it  there can be no such method by petition as my brother Powell speak of nor can  the parliament judge of this injury nor give damage to the plaintiff for it  but judgement be give for the defendant note on Friday the that of January  this judgement be reverse in the house of lord Trevor c j and price and  sixteen lord concur with the three judge of B R the rest of the judge and  fifty lord concur with holt c j although this matter relate to the parliament  yet it be a injury precedaneous to the parliament as my Lord hale say in the  cause of Barnardiston versus soam