Mandamus to a vicar to restore TH to the office of parish clerk. Return, that TH had on several specified occasions misconducted himself by designedly irreverent and ridiculous behaviour in his performance of his duty ; by appearing in church drunk, so as to be incapable of performing it; and by indecently disturbing the congregation during the administration of the sacrament. The return stated that the alleged acts were done in the view and presence of the defendant, and after repeated reproof, whereupon the defendant removed him from his office of clerk. Plea, stating that TH had not been summoned to answer for his conduct before his removal. Held, that the return was bad for not shewing such summons.
Lord Denman, CJ held that even personal knowledge of the offence was no substitute for hearing the officer: his explanation might disprove criminal motive or intent and bring forward other facts in mitigation, and in any event delaying to hear him would prevent yielding too hastily to first impressions.
Lord Denman, CJ
[1844] EngR 230, (1844) 5 QB 614, (1844) 114 ER 1381
Commonlii
England and Wales
Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.304822 br>