Page:Prerogatives of the Crown.djvu/153

 Ch.VIIL] Game Franchises. iss is, " that the liberties be allowed (a) ;" if it be for the Crown, and the parties have continued possession of the franchise by wrong from the beginning, the judgment is, " that they be ousted;" but if they once had title, and lose it, the judgment. is, " that the liberty be seized into the King's hands (6)." The prior judgment of seizure is called a judgment " quousque-*^ this judgment, it hath been thought, would dissolve the corpora- tion, if the parties did not come in and avoid it the same, or at the farthest, the next term, and that there was no use in a final judgment, but to shew that the King will take advantage of the forfeiture, which he may declare by the grant of a new char- ter (c). But this opinion was over-ruled in the House of Lords, where it was determined, that the effect of this judg- ment was merely to lay the King's hands on the franchise of being a corporation, so that the corporation could not use its liberties, and the action of its vital powers was suspended; that in that situation the King might appoint a aistos, and might introduce a new corporation by charter, to whom he might commit the custody ; but that the old corporation were entitled to redeem their liberties, and remove the King's hands, upon which the power of the new corporation must necessarily cease, and the letters patent become void (d), 3. Of Game Franchises, and herein of the King's Preroga- tive as to Game, and of Forests. Before we consider the right of the King id grant forests, parks, chases, and warrens ; the question whether or not the (a) Co. Entr. 535, b. London, being a body politick, &c. (b) Yolv. 192. Co. Entr. tit. Quo shouldbeseized/'for the word 'o/' being Warranto. omitted before the word ' being', the (r) Rex V. Amery, 2 T. R. 515. judgment was not against the corporate {d) 4 T. R. ^1. Vide thejudgment existence of the city, but against the in Rex v. Amery in the House of Lords, franchises it enjoyed : and Holt said, in the account of that case in two vols. " that a corporation might subsist after quarto, and 2 Kyd. 496., &c, 2 Bac. its franchises were taken awayj for that Ab. 31. tit. Corporation, G. — With re- these were not essential to it, but only spect to the form of a final judgment, a privilege appertaining to it; that the it was determined in Sir James Smith's essence of a corporation was to make case, that the corporation of Ix)ndon bye-laws, anti govern their members, was not dissolved by the judgment as which a corporation might do, though recited in the act of 2 W. and M. stat. their franchises were seized." 4 Mod. 1. c. 8. which was, "that the liberty, 52. Skin. 310. Garth. 217. 1 Show. franchise, and privilege of the city of 263, exclusive.