brown case peter bolton and another plaintiff robert jeffes and another  defendant in error that February Mews dig way way the common Council of the  city of London have not any cognizance authority or jurisdiction whatsoever to  hear determine judge or examine concern the election of any person to be one  of the common councilman of the city but by the immemorial custom of the city  the cognizance and examination of such election belong to the king court of  record hold before the Lord mayor and alderman on the saint of December the  defendant be among other choose common councilman to serve for TowerWard in  London for the year ensue and be swear return and admit accord the plaintiff  pretend that they and not the defendant be elect for that service apply on the  that of February follow to the common Council by petition for redress in order  to have the right of be common councilman there examine and determine accord  the common Council appoint a committee to examine the allegation of the  petition and to make a report thereof with their opinion and they order the  issue of such money as the committee shall appoint for advice and other  necessary expense in this matter on the that of June the defendant move the  court of king bench for a prohibition to stay the proceed in the common  Council allege that the examination of the election of common councilman do  not appertain to the common Council and upon hear counsel on both side the  court on the d of July follow grant the prohibition and the plaintiff in the  prohibition be order to declare thereupon in order to give the defendant a  opportunity of maintain the jurisdiction of the common Council in this matter  if they can declaration be accord deliver which several set forth that the  plaintiff be on the saint of December duly elect and admit common councilman  for TowerWard within the city of London for the year then ensue and that the  defendant intend to draw the examination of that election into the common  Council do exhibit a petition concern the same to the common Council with  design to move the plaintiff from their place whereas in truth the common  Council of the city of London have not any cognizance authority or  jurisdiction whatsoever to hear determine judge or examine concern the  election of any person to be one of the common councilman of the city and that  accord to the immemorial custom of the city the cognizance and examination of  such election belong to the king court of record hold before the Lord mayor  and alderman and not to the common Council of the city and that although the  brown plaintiff offer to prove these thing to the common Council yet the  common Council compel they to appear there and answer concern their election  and unjust proceed to deprive they of their office in contempt of the king and  his law and to the damage of the plaintiff to these declaration the defendant  several plead that within the city of London there have be time out of mind a  court call the court of common Council hold before the mayor alderman and  commoner of the say city duly elect and brown er p assemble that the mayor  alderman and commoner in common Council assemble for time out of mind have and  ought to have the cognizance jurisdiction and authority of examine hear  determine and adjudge of and concern the election of every person in or to the  place of office of one of the commoner of the say common Council but wave a  issue thereon they traverse that the cognizance and examination of the  election of every person to the office of a common councilman of the city have  time out of mind belong or ought to belong to the court of the Lord mayor and  alderman and pray that a consultation may be grant and by this way of plead  the defendant endeavour to put in issue the jurisdiction of the court of the  Lord mayor and alderman which be not at all in question in the cause the  plaintiff therefore reply that a consultation ought not to be grant to the  common Council to proceed because the mayor alderman and commoner in common  Council assemble have not time out of mind nor ought to have the jurisdiction  or authority of examine hear or determine concern the election of every person  to the office of common councilman as the defendant allege and upon this the  plaintiff tender a issue by conclude to the country but the defendant decline  to join issue on this point which be the true and only matter in question on  the prohibition demurrer and the plaintiff have join in demurrer the cause  come on to be argue in Michaelmas term when the whole court of king bench  unanimous give judgement for the plaintiff whereupon the defendant in  prohibition bring two several writ of error in parliament to reverse these  judgement but I do not find any print case on their behalf in support of the  judgement the defendant in error contend e Northey t reeve that the attempt to  put in issue the jurisdiction of the court of the Lord mayor and alderman be  to try a matter which be no part of the cause and if try will have be perfect  immaterial as it can not have entitle the defendant in prohibition to a  consultation for if it have be find by a jury that the court of alderman have  no jurisdiction in this matter it will not from thence have follow that the  common Council have a jurisdiction in it and the allegation of the want of  jurisdiction in the common Council be the only ground for grant the  prohibition it be incumbent on the defendant to have brown maintain the  jurisdiction which the common Council pretend to and if they have not such a  jurisdiction the prohibition ought to stand it be the business of the court of  king bench to keep all inferior court within their proper bind and not suffer  they to exercise a jurisdiction which do not belong to they and in such case  it matter not where the authority or jurisdiction to determine the right of  election be if it be not in the common Council and therefore though the  jurisdiction be allege in the declaration to be in the court of the Lord mayor  and alderman yet that be but matter of form and can not be examine on this  prohibition which be only to examine whether the common Council have any right  or not on the day appoint by the house for argue these writ of error counsel  for the defendant appear but no counsel appear for the plaintiff who several  make default it be order and adjudge that the judgement give in the court of  king bench shall be affirm and that the record shall be remit to the end  execution may he have thereupon as if no such writ of error have be bring into  the house and it be further order that the say Peter Bolton and Edward bridgem  shall pay to the say Robert jeffes and Stephen king the sum of pound apiece  for their cost sustain by reason of the bring the say writ of error jour vol p  brown er p decree