Page images

red, and judgment was given in favour of the city; but reversed by a special commission, and the reversal affirmed by the House of Lords.

Ofthe Offence $77. By the statute 5 and 6 Edw. 6., it is enacted, of buying Offices,

that persons who shall sell any office, shall lose and 1 Ipit. 234 a. forfeir all their right, interest, and estate in such offices,

and in the gift and nomination thereof; and that all persons who shall purchase such offices, shall be disabled from occupying or enjoying such offices; and that all such bargains shall be void : provided that the act shall not extend to any offices whereof any person shall be seised of any estate of inheritance, nor to any office of parkership, or of the keeping of any park, house, manor, garden, chase or forest. Provided that all acts of persons offending against this statute, done before they are removed from their offices, shall be good and valid.

Provided that this act shall not extend to any of the chief Justices of the Courts of King's Bench or Common Pleas, or to any of the justices of allize.

3 Inft. 148. $ 78. Lord Coke says, that the statute 5 Edw. 6. exCro. Ja. 269. tends as well to ecclefiaftical, as temporal offices, which

concern the administration and execution of justice; and that it was resolved in the case of Dr. Trevor, chancellor of a bishop in Wales, that both the office of chancellor and register of a bishop, were within that statute; because they concern the administration of justice. And Croke, in his report of this case, fays, it was held, that although these offices concern matters


principally pro salute animarum ; yet they also concern matters about matrimony, and legitimation, which touch the inheritance of the subjects; and about matters of legacy, for chattels real and personal ; and, in that respect, are courts of justice.

$ 79. The office of archdeacon's register is within Woodward the statute: and though the persons to whom the fale

v. Fox,

3 Lev. 289. and grant was made die, yet the archdeacon is disabled z Vent. 187. by the statute from making any other grant thereof, and the king shall have the nomination.

Wille: R.571.

$ 80. The office of cofferer of the king's household is within the statute, and if a person purchases this office, he becomes thereby disabled from enjoying it.

$ 81. Sir Robert Vernon knight being cosferer of the Ingram's king's house fold the same for a certain sum of money 234 a.

Case, i Init. to Sir Arthur Ingram, and agreed to surrender it to the Cro.jac. 386. king, to the intent that a grant might be made of it to Sir Arthur. The surrender was accordingly made, and Sir Arthur was admitted. It was resolved by Lord Chancellor Egerton, the chief justice, and others to whom the king referred the same, that this fale was void by the statute, and that Sir Arthur was disabled to hold the office, and that the king could not, by a non obstante, dispense with this act, so as to enable Sir Arthur to enjoy the office at any time ; even by a new grant, upon a subsequent vacancy.

$ 82. With respect to those offices which are not within the statute 5 Edw. 6. offices of inheritance and



also offices of parkership are expressly excepted by a Ellis v. Read, proviso in the act.

And all under-leases of such 2 Lev. 151.

offices are also excepted inclusively.

4 Leon. 33.

S 83. The office of bailiff of a hundred is not within the statute; for it is not an office of trust, nor does it concern the administration of justice.

S 84. There are several offices incident to the courts of law at Westminster, such as the clerk of the rules of the king's bench, the prothonotary, clerk of the warrants and inrolments in the common pleas, &c. which being in the gift of the chief justices are expressly excepted out of the act.

The offices of the sixty clerks in chancery are not within the statute.

Prec. in Cla.
Symonds v.
2 Vern. 308.
5 Burr. R.
i H. Black.

S 85. This statute does not extend to Commissions in the army. And it was formerly held that the office of purser of a ship of war was not within it. But Lord Mansfield has said that, if the lords of the admiralty were to take money for their warrant to appoint a person to be a purser, it would be criminal in the corrupter, and corrupted.

Huggins v.
Willes R.

S 86. It was held in a modern case that a contract with the warden of the Fleet, (who held only for life under the crown), that for a sum of money he should surrender the office to the king; to the intent that he fhould procure from the king a grant of the office, to the purchaser, was void, by the statute 5 and 6 Edw. 6. c. 16. though that office had been and might be


granted to a subject in fee. And that a bond given to secure the payment of such consideration


could not be enforced in a court of law.

S 87. It was also held in the same case that the exception in the statute 5 and 6 Edw. 6. c. 16. that the act should not extend to any office of which any person was seized of an estate of inheritance, meant only offices of which subjects were feised of estates of inheritance.

S 88. And in another case it was held that a bond Layng .

Paine, given by any of the officers mentioned in the statute willes R. 5 and 6 Edw. 6. c. 15. for securing all the profits of 571. the office to the person appointing, was •void by that statute. So was a bond such an officer to surrender whenever the person appointing chose.

89. Where an agreement or bargain is made by a Whal bardeputy to pay his principal half the profits of an office, gains are not it is not within the statute ; because it is not to pay him Statute.

Culliford v. a sum in gross, but half the profits which must be De Cardonel,

2 Salk. 406. sued for in the principal's name : for they belong to

Godolphin v. him, though a share is to be allowed out of them to Tudor, id. the deputy for his trouble.

$ go. But an agreement to allow a person a certain Parsons v. proportion of the profits of an office, in confideration Thompson of his having procured or been aiding in to the ap- 322. pointment of it, is void,

I H. Black.

[blocks in formation]

Where Equity

§ gi. As the provisions of the statute 5 Edw. 6. relieves.

do not extend to all cases, within the mischief which

it was intended to prevent, courts of equity have freTreat. of Eq. quently interposed. For though it be true that penal B, 1.c.4.5 4.

laws are not to be extended as to penalties and punishments, yet if there be a public mischief, and a court of equity sees private contracts made to elude laws, enacted for the public good, it ought to interpose.

Morris v.
Amb. 432.

S 92. Å person gave a sum of money to another for procuring him a commission in the marines. Lord Chancellor Henley decreed the bargain void, and said “ I lay down this rule, that if a man sells his interest, " to procure a permanent office of trust or service “ under the government, it is a contract of turpitude: “ it is acting against the constitution, by which the

government ought to be served by fit and able per“ fons, recommended by the proper officers of the

crown, for their abilities, and with purity.



S 93. Lord Rochfort being groom of the stole to 5. Du Chatel, his Majesty, and in consequence of that office recomi Pro. Rep.

mending pages of the presence, treated with the plaintiff's teftator to recommend him upon a vacancy on condition that he should grant two annuities to particular persons. An action being brought on the bonds fecuring these annuities by the defendant's testator, for the arrears of the annuity, the plaintiffs filed their bill for an injunction. The defendants had demurred, and the demurrer had been over-ruled. Upon a motion to continue the injunction, upon the merits, the answer being put in, it was argued upon the part


« PreviousContinue »