The applicant sought an order of mandamus requiring the Vestrymen and Churchwardens to hold a meeting of the parishioners for the election of Vestrymen and auditors for the Parish on the grounds that a meeting previously held for that purpose had been conducted unfairly, in that on a vote to nominate four inspectors for the election of Vestrymen, two lists of four were prepared by the two parties, that is the Churchwardens on the one hand and the Meeting on the other. On a show of hands, the Churchwardens expressed their decision in favour of their list. This was disputed; and those in favour of the list demanded a division of the voters present in order that the numbers on each side might be counted. The Churchwardens refused to take this course and declared the election carried by the show of hands. Lord Denman CJ, giving the judgment of the court said: ‘ . . . The show of hands ought to be fairly taken. Was it so taken? A strong doubt was expressed at the time whether the Churchwardens had not made an erroneous report of the numbers on each side: it is even now sworn, by several who were present, that the majority was the other way; nothing could be more reasonable than the demand that the numbers should be divide and be counted. If this had been done with closed doors, certainty would have been obtained in a few minutes. But the Churchwardens took upon themselves to declare the respective numbers in favour of that party to which they avowedly belong at the very moment when they refused to ascertain the truth. The affidavits now produced by them and many others of their belief in respect of this doubtful matter, do not meet the just complaint that they might have spoken with perfect knowledge; and that belief is, indeed, founded on the remarks and reasonings which are detailed and are very far from being conclusive. These considerations have brought us to the opinion that the mandamus ought to be issued’
Judges:
Lord Denman CJ
Citations:
(1839) 11 Ad and E 15, [1839] EngR 1019, (1839) 11 Ad and E 15, (1839) 113 ER 317
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Tromans, Regina (on the Application of) v Cannock Chase District Council and Another CA 28-Jul-2004
It was alleged that there had been a miscounting of votes in the planning committee, or that they had come to an equality of votes. There were no procedures in place to resolve the impasse.
Held: In the absence of directly applicable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Administrative, Ecclesiastical
Updated: 06 May 2022; Ref: scu.200219