Chalke,  Comb.  397,  where  the  removal
was  before  conviction,  for  criminally  raz-
ing entries  in  the  corporation  books  which
were  at  first  proper,  but  the  point  was  not
decided.  In  Haddock's  Case,  T.  Raytn.
439,  the  amotion  was  for  riotously  assem-
bling and  assaulting  several  corporators,
thereby  impeding  the  business  of  the  cor-
poration. It  was  considered  that  the  of-
fence was  two-fold,  —  one  against  the
duty  of  his  office  as  a  corporator,  the  other
(wholly  disconnected)  of  a  riot.  And  as
he  might  be  guilty  of  one  and  yet  be  ac-
quitted of  the  other,  the  corporation  might
amove  without  conviction;  and  the  case
is  said  to  be  different  from  that  of  Chalke
(supra),  for  there  the  officer  could  not
have  been  guilty  of  the  offence  at  law
without  at  the  same  time  having  been
guilty  of  a  breach  of  his  duty.  The  cases
decided  are  considered  to  favor  this  view,
viz.,  if  the  act  is  criminal  and  single  in
its  nature,  so  that  a  conviction  or  acquit-
tal in  the  courts  of  law  will  necessarily
determine  the  guilt  or  innocence  of  the
party,  there  must  be  a  conviction,  but
otherwise  there  may  be  a  removal  with-
out, or  independent  of,  a  conviction.
Buller's  N.  P.  206 ;  Willc.  249-252  ;
Glover,  331,  338  ;  Grant,  240  ;  2  Kyd,
88-94,  where  the  prior  cases  are  digested
and  stated.  Lord  Mansfield,  in  Rox  v.
Richardson,  1  Burr.  538,  leaves  the  point


Ml/NICIl'AL    CoIiroKATIONS.
