Page images

of the plaintiffs that the bonds were, pro turpi caufá; that Lord Rochford, having a confidence placed in him by the king, had abused that confidence, by felling his recommendation; and that, upon the public policy of the law, such an agreement ought not to stand. On the other hand it was argued, that it was allowed this was not an office within the statute of Edw. 6. that it was merely an office respecting the king's private, not his public character; and that if it was turpis contractus, that might have been pleaded at law. Lord Thurlow expressed his doubts, whether it might not have been brought upon the record at law by a plea, and made a defence there to the action ; but thought that not a sufficient reason to prevent his interpofition, the court of law never having determined that it could be so brought there as a defence. He then, admitting that it was not within the statute Edw. 6. but treating it as a matter of public policy of the law, and similar to marriage brocage bonds, where, though the parties are private persons, the practice is publicly detrimental, ordered the injunction to be continued till the Hartwell v.

Hartwell, hearing; and afterwards upon the hearing ordered it

4 Vel. Jun. to be perpetuale


[ocr errors]


be lost. 1. By forfeiture.

2. By How Offices acceptance of another office incompatible with that may be lott. which the person holds. 3. By the determination of the thing to which the office was annexed.

S 95. It is a general rule that if a person does any Forfeiture, , act which is contrary to the nature and duty of his office, or refuses to perform the services annexed to it, M 3


the office is forfeited. For in the


there is a condition implied, that the grantee shall exe-
cute it faithfully and diligently.

every office

Lit. f. 378.

9 Rep.50 a.


S 96. Lord Coke says, “ there are three causes of « forfeiture or seisure of offices, for matter of fact;

as, for abusing, not using, or refusing. Abusing or

misusing; as if the marshall or other gaoler suffer “ voluntary escapes, it is a forfeiture of their offices. “ So if a forester or park keeper fell and cut down " wood, unless for necessary brush, it is a forfeiture " of their offices; for destruction of vert, is de6 struction of venison. As to non-user there is a dif. « ference, when the office concerns the administration “ of justice, or the commonwealth, and the officer

ex officio, or of necessity, ought to attend without

any demand or request; there the non-user or non-
« attendance in court is a forfeiture. As the office of
“ chamberlain in the exchequer, prothonotary, &c.
” in the common pleas, &c. for the attendance of
“ these and the like officers is of necessity for the ad.
“ ministration of justice. So the attendance of the
“ clerk of the market is of necessity for the common
" wealth. So of holding the sheriffs tourn. But
” when the officer ought not to attend or exercise his
“ office but on demand or request to be made by him
“ to whom he is officer, there non-user or non-
“ attendance is no cause of forfeiture without demand

or request made. But when the office concerns any
“ man's private property, and the officer ought ex officio

to attend his office without request, there the non, “ user or non-attendance is no cause of forfeiture,


[ocr errors]


« unless the non-user or non-attendance is cause of

prejudice or damage to him, whose officer he is, in

something which concerns his charge. As if a “ parker or custos parci does not attend one or two

days, and within these days no prejudice or damage

happens, it is no forfeiture. But, if by reason of “ his absence persons unknown kill any deer, it is a 66 forfeiture of his office. As to refusal it is to be “ known, that in all cases when an officer is bound

upon request to exercise his office, if he do it not

upon request, it is a forfeiture. As if the steward “ of a manor is requested by the lord to hold a court, “ which he does not, it is a forfeiture."

S 97. A Filazer of the court of common pleas was Vaux v. absent from his office during two years, and farmed it Jefferen,

Dy. 1146. from year to year without leave of the court, for which he was discharged, and no record of the difcharge was entered on the roll. And upon his bringing an assise this was held a good discharge.

7 Rep. 34 l.

S 98. If a tenant in tail of an office commits a forfeiture it shall bind the issue, by force of the condition tacitè annexed by law to such estate. But, if an officer for life commits a forfeiture, this thall not affect the person intitled to the inheritance,

[ocr errors]

$ 99. If the deputy of an office in fee does any

act Bro. Ab. by which the office is forfeited, the inheritance of the Tit. Deputy,

Pl. 7. office is thereby loft. But if a person having an office of inheritance, leases it for life, and the lessee commits 2 Lev. 71. a forfeiture, this shall not forfeit the inheritance.



[blocks in formation]

Bro. Ab.
Tit. Office,

$ 100. It is held in some cases that where there are two joint officers, the forfeiture of one, is a forfeiture of the other; for both are one and the same officer, and the office is entire.

Pl. 51.

S 101. It has however been determined that where an office is granted to two, and one of them is attainted of treason, the other shall not forfeit.

Nevill's Cafe,
Plowd. 378.

§ 102. Sir Edward Nevill and Henry Nevill his son were keepers of Alyngton park with a certain fee during their lives, and the life of the longest liver of them. Sir Edward Nevill was attainted of treason, and the question was, whether the king should have the office by the attainder. It was resolved that, being only an office of skill and confidence, the same was not forfeited to the king; but that the survivor should hold the same, with the profits incident thereto, during his life.

Woodward v.
Intc, f. 79.

§ 103. Where an ecclesiastical office is forfeited, the benefit of it goes to the king as supreme ordinary.

Poph. R. 119.

S 104. Where a principal officer is authorized to 2 Vern. 174. appoint inferior officers under him, if such inferior

officers commit a forfeiture, the superior officer shall take advantage thereof,

Acceptance of an incom12. Office.

$ 105. A person may lose an office by the accept. ance of another office, incompatible with that which he already holds. And all offices are incompatible and inconsistent where they interfere with each other.


For that circumstance creates a presumption, that they cannot be executed with impartiality and honesty.

Inst. 310.

106. Thus Lord Coke says, that a forester by 4 patent for life having been made justice in eyre of the same forest hac vice, the forester ship became void : for these offices are incompatible, because the forester is under the correction of the justice in eyre, and he cannot correct himself.

§ 107. Upon a mandamus to restore a person to the Rex v.

Pergam, place of town clerk, it was returned that he was Sid. R. 305. elected mayor and sworn, and therefore they chose another town clerk. And the court was strongly of opinion that the offices were incompatible, because of

Milward v.'

Thatcher, the subordination.

2 Term R.81.

of the Prin

S 108. An office may be loft by the destruction of Deftruction the thing to which it is incident.

As if a person cipal. grants the office of parker, and afterwards destroys his park, the office, together with all casual fees annexed to it, is gone. For the office, being only an Howard's

Care, accessary, must follow the fate of the principal. For Cro. Car. 59. although the grantor of the office could not appoint another person as long as the park continued, yet when the park itself was determined and disparked, the office, which was appendant thereto, should also be determined. And it was said that if one grant the office of steward of a manor, with all profits of courts; and the manor is afterwards destroyed, the office of steward, together with the casual profits annexed to it, is determined.

[blocks in formation]
« PreviousContinue »