<^7j^^9^(lS> Yearly Legal Practices (A NEW SERIES.) NOTE. — The Subscription List closes on September 15th, from which date the works are supplied at regular prices. Forms for A] BUTTE (1) THE Yl (Found 2 vols. taining 18S0 ; t ments togethe Vol. n. various By G. Barriste (2) THE Yl Being a Superioi ■with list and Ixr MURR. (3) THE Yl Bern; Or Guid of Cases Samuel Esq., T( 25s. "It "Ac THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES 198 In on- Lct, ict- irt, fJT. the :ts. E, She •ts, 3d, JR 1. )le .te T, (4) THE YEARLY HIGH COURT PRACTICE. To be published after the issue of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court. Further particulars ■will be duly announced. Sub script inns should be sent to — BUTTERWORTH & 7, Fleet Street, London, EC. Co., . p 3 7, FLEET STREET, LONDON. WOEKS PUBLISHED BY Messrs. Butterworth, ^afo ^ublislruirs, |;00lisfllcns, anir (Shortens, Seaborne's Law of Vendors and Purchasers of Real Property. Being a Concise Manual of the Law relating to Vendors and Pur- chasers of Real Property. Fourth Edition. Re-arranged and partly re-written by W. Arnold Jolly, Esq., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn, Bar- rister-at-Law. Price 10s. 6d. ; for Cash, post free, 9*. 1897 Stephen's Commentaries on the Laws of England. Partly founded on Blackstone, thoroughly Revised and Modernized and brought down to the Present Time. Twelfth Edition. This edition is set for the Intermediate Examinations for Solicitors for 1897. In 4 vols. Svo. £4 is. ; for Cash, £3 7*. 6d. " Let the student remeinber that ' Stephen ' cannot be too well known. A proper knowledge of it obtained and half the work for the Final is done." — Law Notes. Underbill's Law of Torts. A Summary of the Law of Torts, or Wrongs Independent of Con- tract. Sixth Edition. By A. Underhill, Esq., M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister- at-Law. Post Svo. Price 10s. 6d. cloth; for Cash, post free, 9s. 1894 Underbill's Law of Trusts and Trustees. A Concise Manual of the Law relating to Private Trusts and Trus- tees. By Arthur Underhill, Esq., M.A., LL.D., of Lincoln's Inn, Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition. Post Svo. Price 21s. cloth ; for Cash, post free, 17s. 6d. 1891 De Colyar's Law of Guarantees. A Treatise on the Law of Guarantees and of Principal and Surety. Third Edition. By Henry A. de Colyar, Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Demy Svo. Price 17s. 6d. ; for Cash, post free, 14s. 6d. 1897 Powell on Evidence. Powell's Principles and Practice of the Law of Evidence. Sixth Edition. By J. Cutler, B.A., Professor of English Law and Juris- prudence at King's College, London, and C. F. Cagney, B.A., Bar- risters-at-Law. Post Svo. Price 21s. cloth ; for Cash, post free, 17s. 6d. 1892 Cierke & Brett's Conveyancing Acts. The Conveyancing Acts, the Vendor and Purchaser Act, and the Trustee Acts ; with Notes and an Introduction. By Aubrey St. John Clerke, B.A., and Thomas Brett, LL.B., B.A., both of the Middle Temple, Esqrs., Barristers-at-Law. Fourth Edition. By Aubrey St. John Clerke, of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Post Svo. Price 10s. 6d. ; for Cash, post free, 9s. 1897 Tudor's Leading Cases. A Selection of Leading Cases on the Law relating to Real Property, Conveyancing, and the Construction of Wills and Deeds; with Notes. Third Edition. By O. D. Tudor, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. Fourth Edition (in preparation). xv I- zt i J± DIGEST OF ^Parliamentary anil JWnnicipal REGISTRATION CASES. THIRD EDITION. A DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL lUgiatratimt ., which, after reciting that Highfield was seised to him and his heirs of the said pews for an estate of inheritance in fee simple, witnessed that Highfield did thereby grant and convey to R. and his heirs the said pews, and the sole and exclusive right of using the same at all times when Divine Service should be performed in the said church, and at all other reasonable times when the said church should be opened for the use of persons frequenting the same. It was admitted that Highfield derived his title from a deed in the same terms, made shortly after the passing of 2 & 3 Vict. c. 33 (private), between Highfield and the persons mentioned in section 4 of that Act as " The said subscribers to the said church of St. Mark." The church of St. Mark was established under 56 Geo. III. c. 65 (local and personal), which, after reciting that a lease of land had been procured, and a church with pews, seats, &c, built thereon, and that the subscribers to, and proprietors of, the said church had purchased the freehold reversion and inheritance thereof in fee simple, enacted that cer- tain persons and their successors were appointed commissioners and trustees for the management of the temporal affairs of the church, &c, who were empowered to let or sell, and transfer and convey for the purpose only of attending Divine Service 58 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. certain pews or seats specified in schedule 3 of the Act, and including the pews in question. All the pews or seats so specified were, by the Act, rendered chargeable with certain rents, and such other rateable leys or assessments as should be neces- sary for repaying to the proprietors of the church their costs in purchasing the freehold reversion and inheritance thereof. The Act provided for the appointment annually of churchwardens, who were empowered to sue for and recover the rents, leys, or assessments by action of debt, or, on the case for use and occupation, to be brought against the owners or occupiers of the pews or seats. By 2 & 3 Yict. c. 33 (private), reciting the above Act, and that doubts had arisen as to the estate and interest which the subscribers to, and proprietors of, the church took in the pews and seats specified in schedule 3 of the recited Act, it was enacted that the fee simple and inheritance of and in the said pews or seats should be vested in the said subscribers to the said church, or the proprietors for the time being of the same pews and seats, their heirs and assigns for ever. Held, that R. did not acquire, under either of these statutes, any freehold interest in the land on which the church was built, or in any profits issuing thereout, but merely a qualified right, in the nature of an easement, to occupy the pews on certain occa- sions, and that, consequently, he was not entitled to a county vote : Brumfitt v. Roberts, L. P. 5 C. P. 224 ; 1 H. & C. 387 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 18 W. E. 678 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 301. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 59 Proprietors of pews in St. George's Chapel, Storehouse, have not, by virtue of 27 Geo. III. c. 17, any free- hold interest in the soil of the chapel entitling them to votes for the county. South Devon. C. claimed to be registered in respect of a "freehold pew," of the clear annual value of 40s. The pew was in St. George's Chapel, East Stone- house, which had been rebuilt under a public Act, 27 Geo. III. c. 17. That Act, after reciting that the then existing chapel of St. George's, East Stonehouse, was de- cayed, and not sufficiently large for the inhabitants of the chapelry, empowered certain trustees to take down the chapel, and erect a new one instead thereof. The trustees were required by the Act to appro- priate the pews in the new chapel (except one for the curate) to the subscribers to the building, who were to be deemed proprietors of the pews allotted to them respectively, and such pews were, by the Act, " vested in such proprietors respectively, their heirs and assigns for ever." The pew in question was appropriated by the trustees to a subscriber to the building of the chapel, who had conveyed it to the person by whom it had been conveyed to the claimant. There was no evidence to show in whom was the freehold of the soil previously to the passing of the Act. Held, in accordance with Brumfitt v. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. P. 224, ante, pp. 57, 58, and Hinde v. Charlton, L. R. 2 0. P. 104, ante, pp. 49, 51, that C. was not entitled to a county vote : Green wa// v. Hockin, L. R. 5 C. P. 235; 1 H. & C. 403; 39 L. J. C. P. 103; 22 L. T., N. S. 304. 60 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Periodical payments to building society in respect of ■principal, not a charge reducing annual value of freehold as against mortgagor in possession. South Leicestershire. The appellant was ob- jected to on the list of freehold voters for the parish of St. Mary. He was a member of, and held shares in, a build- ing society established under 6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 32. In 1863, in consideration of the society advancing him £300 on his shares, he mortgaged to the trus- tees, as a security for the repayment thereof, with capitalised interest, some freehold tenements, of which he was owner in fee, to secure " the subscriptions, payments, redemption moneys, and fines in relation to the sum of £300," by monthly instalments of £3 9s. (£41 8s. a year, or £414 in all), extending over a period of ten years. A power of sale was vested in the trustees in case of failure by the appellant for four consecutive months to pay the required subscriptions and observe the regulations of the society. The appellant, having made no default, had always been in possession of the property. There were still two years to run, during which he had to pay the monthly instalments, but he was en- titled to redeem the property by a present payment of £73 Is. The annual value of the tenements was £31 4s. The annual payments of £41 8s. were made gene- rally in reduction of the sum borrowed, and in dis- charge of the appellant's payments and subscriptions according to the rules of the society ; but if such annual payments were appropriated, two-thirds (£27 12s.) would be in discharge of principal, and the remaining third (£13 16s.) in payment of interest. Held, reversing the barrister's decision, that only so much of the annual payments as represented the interest should be deducted from the annual value of the tenements, and that, consequently, the appellant, COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 61 having an equitable interest of the value of 40s. a year, was entitled to the franchise : Copland v. Barf left, 6 C. B. 18, ante, p. 17, and Beamish v. Stoke, 11 C. B. 29, ante, pp. 21, 22, considered ; Robin-son v. Bunk- ley, 15 C. B., N. S. 478, ante, pp. 37, 38, followed ; Rollestoti v. Cope, L. E. 6 C. P. 292 ; 1 H. & C. 488 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 160 ; 19 W. R. 927 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 390 (a). Amount of expense voluntarily incurred by landlord in improving his property, but not necessary to obtain. the rent essential to qualify, not a charge to be deducted in ascertaining net annual value. West Riding (S. Division) of Yorkshire. Tenants in common in fee of houses and lands volun- tarily spent a sum of money in laying on water to the houses for the convenience of their tenants, who consequently had to pay an increased rent. The amount of this expenditure, if included among the necessary outgoings to he deducted in ascertain- ing the net annual value of the property, which, without such deduction, was sufficient to qualify, would have left less than 406'. a year for each owner. Held, that as the outlay was not necessary to give the premises a qualifying value, such deduction ought not to he made : Buckley v. Wrigley, L. R. 7 0. P. 185 ; 1 H. & C. 661 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 835. (a) Bovill, C. J., in delivering his judgment in the above case, laid down the following rule for the guidance of revising bar- risters : — " The question in these cases in future for the revising barrister to consider will be, whether, taking the payments which have been paid for principal or purchase-money into account, and deducting the proper annual sums, independently of the payments on account of the principal, the claimant's interest in the property is of the value of 40s. by the year. If his interest in the property be found to be of that value, he will be entitled to the franchise, otherwise his claim to be placed on the list of voters must be disallowed." 62 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The Thames Navigation Act, 1870 (section 10, sub- section 6), has not the effect of enfranchising the shareholders in Putney Bridge in respect of their shares : see Tapper v. Nicholls, ante, pp. AA, 46. Middlesex and East Surrey. Twenty-three persons claimed in the parish of Fulham, and thirty- six in that of Putney, in respect of " freehold shares in Putney Bridge." Since the decision in Tepper v. Nicholls, ante, pp. 44, 46, the Thames Navigation Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Vict. c. 149), had passed. By that Act (section 10, sub-section 6), the bridge and lands belonging thereto, as well as the tolls, were rested in the committee of management (six persons selected by the shareholders from their own body to manage their affairs), and their successors for the time being, " subject to the trusts on which the same were held at the passing of this Act" In all other respects the facts and documents in the present consolidated appeals were the same as those in Tepper v. Nicholls, and, mutatis mutandis, are to be taken as forming part of this case. Held, that it having been rightly decided in Tepper v. Nicholls that the shareholders in the bridge had no qualification to vote in respect of their shares, the present claimants were similarly disqualified, and had acquired no additional right under the Thames Navi- gation Act, 1870, section 10, sub-section 6 : Wadmore v. Dear, Wadmore v. Aries, L. R. 7 C. P. 212 ; 1 H. & C. 687 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 20 W. E. 239 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 28. Allottee of corporation land of the borough of Stafford, under bye-law of 1836, has no freehold interest therein. "West Staffordshire. The Corporation of Staf- ford were for many years before the Municipal Cor- poration Act, 1835, possessed of certain lands in the borough, which were held and enjoyed as follows : — COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 63 Each member of the town council had two acres for his life, and his widow after his decease during the continuance of her widowhood, and residence in the borough. The rest of the lands were held in allotments of one acre each by persons selected by the mayor, and rents varying in amount were paid in respect of such occupation. In 1836 a bye-law was passed by the council, which provided that such of the lands as were then, and should thereafter become vacant, should be held and enjoyed by none other than "the poor and neces- sitous burgesses of the borough," or their widows, respectively, resident within the borough; that all allotments thereafter to be made should be of one acre each, and that the lands thus to be allotted should be held at a certain rent, the amount thereof and days of payment to be fixed by the council from time to time, as occasion should require, at the reasonable discretion of the council. The bye-law further pro- vided, that for the purposes thereof only such bur- gesses should be considered " poor and necessitous " as should be declared to be so by a majority of the council, and that in selecting occupants two grounds of preference should be observed alternately, viz., seniority as a burgess, and number of children at home under the age of ten years. Members of the council were to be incapable of holding. One of the burgesses had been declared by a meet- ing of the council, held in 1869, to be a " poor and necessitous " burgess within the bye-law of 1836, and had been admitted to an acre of the land in question, under an order of the council, which ordered that such acre should be delivered to him " as tenant thereof to the council, and that he do pay 5s. entrance money, and 5s. per annnm as and for rent, until further notice." Held, that the interest of the burgess in the land to which he had been so admitted was determinable at the will of the council, and therefore did not 64 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. amount to a freehold estate for life, so as to entitle him to a county vote : Fernie v. Scott, L. R. 7 C. P. 202 ; 1 H. & 0. 718 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 20 ; 20 W. E. 236; 25 L. T., N. S. 836. Clergyman having a borough vote as occupier of Ms parsonage house may, notwithstanding section 24 of Reform Act, 1832, have also a rote for the county in respect of Ms pew rents (if of a nature to qualify), although such parsonage house and pew rents together constitute the benefice. North-West Lancashire. The respondent was on the register of voters, for the township of Preston, in respect of " freehold land and pew rents, St. Mary's Church," St. Mary's Street. He was minister of St. Mary's Church, which was situate in the parliamentary borough of Preston, and, as such minister, occupied the parsonage house, which gave him a vote for the borough. The land mentioned in the description of qualifica- tion on the register was wholly unprofitable, but, under the " sentence of consecration " of the church, the respondent was entitled to " the residue of pew rents," which the churchwardens, who had the duty of letting the pews, paid him as his stipend, after deducting certain sums for the services of the church. The sum thus received by the respondent had always exceeded £1U0 a year. The case did not show how the pew rents could confer a freehold qualification, but merely reserved the question whether they could, notwithstanding 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 24, be severed from the occu- pation of the house (which was part of the benefice), so as to give a separate qualification for the county. Held, that there was nothing in that section to prevent them from being so severed, and consequently that the respondent (assuming the pew rents to give him a qualification) was entitled to have his name retained on the county register : Beswick v. Alkcr COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 65 L. R. 8 C. P. 265 ; 2 H. & C. 36 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 20 ; 21 "W. R. 72 ; 27 L. T, N. S. 423. Rigid to receive money payments out oj realty profits, such payments being of undefined amount, and con- tingent on a surplus, is neither an equitable interest in land, or in any rent issuing thereout. North Durham. The younger brethren of the Hospital of King James, Grateshead, claimed votes in respect of " freehold land, freehold coal mines, freehold rent-charges (a) or ground rent." The hospital, which was incorporated, consisted, under a re-foundation charter of 1010, of a master and three "Ancient Brethren," in whom lands were vested by such charter. The bishop was empowered by an Act of parlia- ment (51 Gfeo. III. c. 116) to make statutes for the government of the hospital, and for the increase (ad libitum) of the number of the brethren. Statutes were accordingly made, under which the master ap- pointed additional brethren, who were called " The Younger Brethren ; " but they formed no part of the corporation. They were appointed for life, being removable only for drunkenness or immorality. No instance of dismissal had ever been known. The hospital estates were under the management of the master, who was to receive the revenues, and, after paying thereout the taxes, repairs, and other outgoings, was to retain one-third of the net revenues for himself, pay £25 a year to each of " The Ancient Brethren," and £70 a year to the chaplain, and after reserving a balance not exceeding £00 for current expenses, to divide annually the residue between "The Younger Brethren," yet so that no "Younger Brother " should receive more than the share of each of " The Ancient Brethren." («) See ante, note (b) on p. 14. S. 66 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The share of each "Younger Brother" had always, in fact, amounted to upwards of £24 a year. There was no hospital building in existence, and " The Younger Brethren " did not occupy any part of the property belonging to the hospital. Held, that the claimants had neither an equitable interest in the land, nor a rent-charge (a) thereon, and, therefore, were not entitled to be registered : Simey v. Marshall, L. E. 8 C. P. 269 ; 2 H. & 0. 1 ; 42 L* J. C. P. 49 ; 21 W. E. 123 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 581. Grant of rent-charge (a) to three persons, their heirs and assigns, to the use of same three persons, their heirs and assigns for ever, as tenants in common, is a grant operating at common law, and not under Statute of Uses. Grantees of rent-charge (a) so conveyed, not in " actual possession " thereof, within section 26 of Reform Act, 1832, until payment of rent. South-East Lancashire. B., C, and D. claimed in 1872 to be registered, each in respect of one-third share of rent-charge (a) issuing from freehold land and buildings. A., being seised in fee of certain lands, messuages, and hereditaments, by indenture dated 13th October, 1871, granted out of them " unto B., C, and D., and their heirs, one perpetual yearly rent- charge (a) of £9, to be payable by equal half yearly payments on 5th April and 5th October in each year," the first pay- ment to be due on 5th April, 1872, "to hold the said rent-charge (a) unto the said B., C, and D., their heirs and assigns, to the use of the said B., C, and D., their heirs and assigns for ever, as tenants in common, and in equal shares." The moiety of the rent-charge (a) due on 5th April, 1872, was paid and divided between the grantees. («) See ante, note (b) on p. 14. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 67 Held, first, that the use being specific and not in- consistent with the rest of the habendum, the whole of the habendum must be read as specific, and so read, the deed operated as a grant at common law, and not under the Statute of Uses ; and therefore, secondly, upon the authority of Murray v. Thomiley, 2 C. B. 217, ante, p. 14, and Mayden v. Tirertou, 4 C. B. 1, ante, pp. 14, 15, that the grantees had not been in the " actual possession " of the rent-charge (a) for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July, as required by 2 Will. IY. c. 45, s. 2*>, and were, consequently, not entitled to be registered in 1872 : Webster v. Ashton-under-Lyne (Orme's case), L. E. 8 C. P. 281 ; 2 II. & C. 60; 42 L. J. 0. P. 38 ; 21 W. E. 171 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 652 (b). Grantee of rent-charge (a) under Statute of Uses is in " actual possession," within ■section 26 of Reform Act, 1832, from date of execution of the deed. South-East Lancashire. The appellant claimed to be registered in respect of " share of rent-charge (a) issuing from freehold land and houses." By a deed executed on 29th January, 1872, and made between one M. of the first part, the appellant and sixteen other persons of the second part, and the appellant and one W. of the third part, the said M., being seised in fee simple of certain lands in A., granted to the parties of the third part, and their heirs, an annual rent-charge (a) of £35 14s., to be pay- able by equal half-yearly payments on 29th January and 29th July in each year, the first payment to be made on 29th July then next, and to be charged upon the said lands ; to hold the said rent-charge (a) unto the parties thereto of the third part and their heirs for ever, with power of distress, " to the use of (a) See ante, note (b) on p. 14. (b) See remarks on the above case in Williams on Settlements, pp. 5, 6. f2 68 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the said parties hereto of the second part, and their respective heirs and assigns, as tenants in common and not as joint tenants." The moiety of the said rent-charge (a) due on 29th July, 1872, was paid on 30th July, 1872. Held, that as the deed operated under the Statute of Uses, the appellant was, by force of that statute, in actual possession of the rent-charge (a), within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26, immediately on the execution of the deed, and was, therefore, entitled to be regis- tered in the year 1872 : Heelis v. Blain, 18 C. B., N. S. 90, ante, pp. 43, 44, followed. Semble, that it is competent for the court, although a court of appeal in registration cases, to review its previous decisions, and overrule them if manifestly wrong. Semble, that section 66 of 6 Vict. c. 18, makes the judgment final only in the case in which it is given (b) : Webster v. Ashton-under-Lyne (Hadfield's case), L. P. 8 C. P. 306 ; 2 H. & C. 89 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 146 ; 21 W. P. 637; 28 L. T., N. S. 901. The fact of trustees having an absolute poxcer of sale over a rent-charge (a) (toes not preclude cestui que trust from having a freehold interest therein, if, in the event of -sate, trustee* arc accountable to cestui que trust for proceeds thereof North-East Lancashire. The appellant claimed to vote in respect of one fifty-fourth share of a free- hold rent-charge (a), to which he was entitled as one of thirty-four " beneficiaries " under a deed of 28th January, 1875. By the deed, which was expressed to be made be- tween the owners in fee of a rent-charge (a) of £120 (described in the deed as trustees), and thirty- four persons (described therein as beneficiaries), after re- («■) See ante, note (l>) on p. 14. (b) See JRokrts v. Percival, 18 C. B., N. S. 36. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 69 citing an agreement by the trustees and each of the beneficiaries for the sale to him of the beneiicial interest in one fifty-fourth share of the said rent at the price of £52 5s., it was declared that the trustees, their heirs and assigns, should stand seised of one undivided fifty- fourth share of the said rent, and the remedies for enforcing payment thereof, &c, in trust for each of the beneficiaries, his heirs and assigns, absolutely, and of the remaining twenty shares in trust for themselves, their heirs and assigns, as tenants in common, in equal shares. There was a covenant by each beneficiary that if at any time he should desire to sell his share in the said rent and premises, it should be first offered to the trustees for the time being at a price to be ascertained in case of dispute by arbitration, and a similar covenant by each trustee with his co-trustees as to his own beneficial share. Then followed a declaration that the trustees for the time being should have an absolute power of sale over the said rent and premises exerciseable at their or his discretion, without any further consent on the part of any person. Held, that the trustees could not exercise the power of sale contained in the deed without being accountable to the beneficiaries for the proceeds ; con- sequently that the appellant took a freehold interest in his beneficial share, and was entitled to the county franchise in respect thereof : AshwortJi v. Hopper, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 178 ; 2 H. & C. 283 ; 45 L. J. C. P. D. 99 ; 24 W. R. 187 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 667. Two distinct rent-charges (a) may be joined together to make up requisite value. North-East Lancashire. The appellant was on the register of voters in respect of freehold rent- charges (a). (a) See ante, note (b) on p. 14. 70 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. He was the owner in fee of two rent-charges (a) issuing out of distinct estates, each of such rent- charges (a) being below, but together exceeding, 40s., in annual value. Held, that the appellant was the owner of " free tenement " of the required value, within 8 Hen. VI. c. 7, and was, therefore, entitled to the franchise : Wood v. Hopper, L. E. 1 C. P. D. 192 ; 2 H. & C. 311 ; 45 L. J. C. P. D. 108 ; 24 W. R. 187 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 531. Jtent-charge (a) of sufficient value may qualify, although there be no present power of distress available. South Hants. The appellant claimed in respect of a freehold rent-charge (a). By an indenture dated 29th September, 1874, the reversion in fee of land was conveyed to one C, sub- ject to certain long leases, each created by indenture of demise in 1864. In each of the leases a ground- rent was reserved, with a power of re-entry on default. These leases were still subsisting. By indenture dated loth January, 1875, C. granted to the appellant (in fee) a yearly freehold rent-charge (a) of £2 lUs., charged upon the said land, and the indenture contained a power of distress on default of payment of such rent-charge (a). The reserved ground-rent was amply sufficient to pay the rent-charge (a) in question, and the appellant had actually received from C. the amount due in respect thereof. Held, that the appellant was the owner of " frank tenement to the value of 40s. by the year," within 8 Hen. VI. c. 7, notwithstanding that the remedy by distress was not available before the determination of the leases : Bauson v. Robins, L. R. 2 C. P. D. 38 ; {a) See ante, note ['/) on p. 11. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 71 2 H. & C. 317 ; 46 L. J. C. P. D. 62 ; 25 W. R. 212 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 599. Lessee for Jives of part of waste of a manor, over which rights of common of pasture have been immemqri- ally exercised by person*, who by their conduct ore precluded from disputing lessee's title at least for his life, has a freehold interest in land demised. Pembrokeshire. The respondent claimed a free- hold vote in respect of land, formerly part of the waste of the manor of Newport, but which had, in 1861, been granted by the lord of the manor to the respondent under a lease for three lives, with a cove- nant to add lives. Similar leases had been granted since 1838, but there was no evidence of any such lease previous to that date. From time immemorial the burgesses of Newport had exercised rights of common of pasture over the waste of the manor ; but for upwards of 100 years it had been the practice of the mayor and burgesses at their courts- leet and courts-baron to present to the lord individual burgesses for occupation of pieces of the common or waste lands, and most commonly with the addition, after naming such burgess, " he to agree with the lord for the rent." In all cases the persons so presented took possession of the apportioned plots of land, generally building cottages and other build- ings thereon, and paid the rents to the lord which he had fixed, such rents being very small sums, varying according to circumstances. No duration of holding was specified in such presentments, but upon the death of the person presented, his personal repre- sentatives continued to occupy and pay rent to the lord without further reference to the court-leet. The land comprised in the respondent's lease was presented to him, pursuant to the practice above set forth. Such land, when so presented, consisted of three several plots, and the presentments thereof to 72 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the respondent took place in 1841, 1852, and 1855, respectively. The respondent had retained possession and paid rent to the lord, in accordance with the terms of his lease. Held (no question of value being raised), that the respondent had a freehold interest entitling him to a vote : Phillips v. Salmon, L. R. 3 0. P. D. 97 ; 2 H. & C. 339 ; 47 L. J. C. P. D. 53 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 579. Where a freeholder {already on register) is objected to, revising barrister has no power to entertain any objection other than that stated in the notice of objection. Local description of qualification in fourth column may be amended by striking out surplusage. North Northamptonshire. A voter's qualifica- tion was stated in the third column of the register as " freehold land," and the local description thereof in the fourth column was " Plots 166, &c." (specifying fifteen numbers), " Victoria estate." The voter had parted with all the plots except one, which was freehold land of sufficient value to qualify him for the franchise. A notice of objection served upon him stated, that the objection was grounded on the third column, and related to the nature of the voter's interest in the qualifying property. The objection taken before the revising barrister was, that the qualification was misdescribed. Upon the above facts it appeared to the barrister that the freehold land mentioned in the third column was not the freehold land then possessed by the voter, and that he, the revising barrister, had no power to amend the fourth column by striking out the plots which the voter had parted with. He, there- fore, expunged the name from the register. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 73 The court held — 1. That the barrister ought not to have enter- tained any other objection than the one stated in the notice (28 Vict. c. 36, s. 6). 2. That as the identity of the property was not changed by the diminution of it, he had power to amend under section 40 of 6 Vict, c. 18, and should have amended by striking out of the fourth column the numbers of the plots which the voter had ceased to own : Smith v. Woolston, L. R. 4 C. P. D. 73 ; 2 H. & C. 421 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 84 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 198. Cestuis que trustent in receipt of rent* and profits of land {devised on trust for -sate for the benefit of themselves and others, but remaining unsold), do not, if precluded from electing to keep the land unconverted, possess an equitable freehold estate therein, inasmuch as if is within the power, and is the duty, of the trustee* to sell. North-East Lancashire. Three persons (parties to a consolidated appeal) were on the register of voters, each in respect of a share of copyhold cottages, and they were objected to under the following cir- cumstances : — A testator devised copyhold cottages to trustees on trust to sell the same, and to stand possessed of the proceeds, and pay the interest and dividends thereof to his wife during her widowhood, and after her de- cease or marriage on trust for such of his children as should be living at the time of his decease, to be equally divided between them. The share of a son to be vested and payable to him on his attaining the age of twenty-one, and the share of a daughter to be vested in her at twenty- one or marriage ; and the trustees were directed to invest the share of a daugh- ter, and pay the interest to her during her life for her sole and separate use, and after her death were 74 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. to stand possessed of her share and the annual pro- duce thereof upon trust for her children, if sons, on their attaining twenty-one, and if daughters, at twenty- one or marriage. The wife predeceased the testator, who died in 1872, leaving three sons (the appellants) and one daughter him surviving. The trustees duly proved the will, and were in 1873 duly admitted to the copyhold cottages according to the custom of the manor. The testator's daughter married and had issue, who were living, hut were not of age. Pursuant to a verbal arrangement amongst them- selves (in which the daughter's husband concurred, but to which the trustees were no parties), the testa- tor's children, being of age, had agreed to keep the cottages unconverted, and the rents (about £50 per annum) were received by the trustees and divided amongst them. Held, that, the children of the testator's daughter being infants, no election could be made to take the cottages in their actual state ; and, although the ap- pellants, being in receipt of their respective shares of the rents of the cottages, had an interest in land, it was within the power, and was the duty, of the trus- tees to determine such interest by sale ; and conse- quently, that the appellants had not such an estate (legal or equitable) in the copyhold cottages as to entitle them to county votes under 30 & 31 Yict. e. 102, s. 5 : Spencer v. Harrison, L. R. -5 C. P. D. 97 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 61 ; 4y L. J. C. P. D. 188 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 676. The words " land occupied together with a. house, 8fc." in section 24 of Reform Act, 1832, refer not 'merely to contemporaneous occupation of the quali- fying premises, but also to a user of them for a common purpose. North Northamptonshire. The respondent was on the parish of Peterborough list of voters in re- COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. (0 spect of his ownership of land. He had since May, 1877, been the owner in fee simple of a piece of freehold land in Padhomi-road, Peterborough, within the borough of Peterborough, the yearly value of such land exceeding the sum of £2. There was no building on the land. The re- spondent was, and had for some time prior to his becoming the owner of the land in question been, the owner in fee simple, and also the occupier, of a house in the borough of Peterborough, and he was entitled to a parliamentary vote for the borough in respect of it. The respondent's land in Padholm-road was used by him temporarily as garden ground, and was dis- tant from the house about one mile. It was objected at the revision court that the re- spondent was not entitled to his county vote, on the ground that the land was " occupied together with " the house, within the meaning of section 24 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and their occupation conferred upon him the right of voting for the borough. The revising barrister overruled the objection and retained the name. The court held, that the words " occupied together with " in section 24 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, have a more extensive meaning than contemporaneous occupation, and point to a user of the qualifying premises to- gether for a common purpose, and that, there being no evidence in the case before the court of any such user of the two properties, the revising barrister had rightly decided that the land in question was not occupied by the respondent " together with " the house, so as to exclude him from the county fran- chise : Sanders v. Smith, Colt. Reg. Cas. 150 ; 50 L. J. C. P. D. 117, 118 ; 48 L. T., N. S. 438, 440. Gr. L. Watson, Esq. 76 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. A rent-charge (a) issuing out of lands situate in more counties than one must, for the purposes of the franchise, be apportioned rateably to the quantity and value of the land in each county. North Northamptonshire. The respondent claimed a vote as a freeholder in the parish of Mid- dleton, and was duly objected to. The nature and description of his alleged qualifi- cation appeared on the list as follows : — Freehold rent-charge on Middleton. freehold lands. By a deed dated 25th June, 1880, Gr. L. W. granted to the respondent and his assigns, during the joint lives of the said Gr. L. W. and the respondent a yearly rent- charge of £100, to be charged upon lands situate partly in the parish of Middleton, in the county of Northampton, and partly in the county of [Leicester. These lands contained altogether 220 acres, 3 roods, and 15 perches, of which 211 acres, 1 rood, and 24 perches, were in the county of Leicester, and 9 acres, 1 rood, and 31 perches, in the parish of Middleton. The deed of grant contained the usual powers of entry and distress (in default of payment of any part of the rent-charge (a) ) into and upon the premises charged, or any part thereof. Although the annual value of the land in North- amptonshire was considerably above £5, yet, if the rent-charge were rateably apportioned upon the whole •of the lands charged therewith, the proportion issuing out of the lands in the county of Northampton would be below £5, i.e., £4 5s. Qd. (b). (a) See ante, note (&) on p. 14. (b) It seems to have been assumed throughout this case that a life rent- charge is included in the term " tenements" in section 18 of the Reform Act, 1832 (amended as to value by section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867), and consequently that such rent-charge must, for the purposes of the franchise, be of the clear yearly value of £5. See I) mitt v. Christchurch, post, pp. 82, S3. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 77 The revising barrister allowed the respondent's claim, being of opinion that, owing to the powers of distress and entry (contained in the deed of grant) upon any part of the premises charged, the rent- charge need not be apportioned rateably to the quantity or annual value of the lands in the two counties, but that the whole, or any portion of it, might be deemed, for the purposes of the franchise, to be charged upon and issuing out of, the land in the county of Northampton. The court, reversing the decision, held, in accord- ance with the principle of apportionment laid down in Barron- v. Buckmaster (12 C. B. 664. ante, pp. 25, 26), and Milk v. Cobb (L. It. 2 C. P. 95, ante, pp. 48, 49) (a) , that the rent-charge (b) must, for the purposes of the franchise, be rateably apportioned upon the whole of the lands charged therewith : Beam v. Watson, Colt. Beg. Cas. 268. One who occupied in a parliamentary borough his own freehold shop (capable of conferring a borough vote), and who also occupied a dwelling-house in the same borough, wan held not entitled to the county fran- chise la respect of the freehold, although revising barrister for the borough had, under 41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-sect. 14, retained the dwelling- house qualification for voting, and noted, as to the freehold, that the occupier wax not entitled to vote for the borough in respect thereof. West Cornwall. The respondent was on the list of voters for the parish of St. Mary, Truro, and was duly objected to on the ground that the alleged qualification consisted of a freehold shop, occupied by the respondent, of such value as would confer on him the right of voting at parliamentary elections for the borough of Truro. (a) See also West v. Robson, 3 C. B., N. S. 422. (b) See ante, note {b) on p. 14. 78 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The facts of the respondent's occupation of the shop, and of its being of sufficient value to qualify for a borough vote, were admitted. The respondent was also the occupier of a dwelling- house situate in the parish of St. Clement, in the borough of Truro, and he was on the borough list of parliamentary voters, both in respect of the dwelling- house and the shop. In revising the borough list of parliamentary voters on a day preceding the county revision, the barrister had, in compliauce with sub-section 14 of section 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, placed against the entry on such list of the respondent's name in respect of the freehold shop, a note to the effect that the respon- dent was not entitled to vote for the parliamentary borough in respect of that qualification, he being on the same list of voters in respect of another quali- fication, viz.., the dwelling-house in the parish of St. Clement. It was argued at the revision court on behalf of the respondent that by reason of the revising barrister having placed such note against the name of the re- spondent, he was entitled to have his name retained on the list of county voters for the parish of St. Mary, Truro, while it was argued by the appellant that the case came within section 24 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that the revising barrister was, therefore, bound to hold the objection good. The revising barrister held that the effect of the note made in pursuance of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-sect. 14, was to deprive the respondent, during the period for which both lists of voters (county and borough) would be in force, of his right of voting at parliamentary elections for the borough in respect of his freehold shop, and that he was, consequently, so far as that property was concerned, in the position of a person having no qualifying property in the borough, and that therefore section 24 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, did not apply. The barrister accordingly overruled the objection, COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 79 and retained the name of the respondent on the list of voters. The court, reversing the decision, held that the terms of section 24 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, had in no "way been qualified by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, and that they were clearly applicable to the present case : Chilcott v. Bullen, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 282 ; 46 L. T., N. S. 63. Where a rent-charge (a) teas granted by deed, which operated at common law, and teas executed before commencement of the six calendar months next previous to 31st July in the year of registration, the first payment {although due in advance) not being in fact made until after commencement of such period : held, that grantee teas not in " actual possession " {within section 26 of Reform Act, 1832,) of the rent-charge (a), so as to be qualified for the franchise in respect of it. South Hampshire. The respondent's name was entered on the list of voters in respect of a freehold rent-charge (a). By a deed (operating at common law), dated 1st December, 1881, the respondent was entitled to a yearly rent-charge (a) of £2 for the life of the grantor, payable in advance, by two half-yearly payments on 1st December and 1st June in each year, free of all deductions and charges. The deed contained a power of distress. The first payment of the rent- charge (a) was made on 1st June, 1882. It was objected at the revision court that, no pay- ment having been made before 1st February, 1882, the respondent had not been in " actual possession" of the rent- charge (a) for the period required by («) See ante, note (b), on p. 14. 80 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26 (a). The revising barrister having allowed the vote, — The court, on the authority of Murray v. Thorniley, 2 C. B. 217, ante, p. 14, reversed the decision : Druitt v. Lane (not reported, except in relation to a preli- minary objection to the hearing of the appeal, see post, "Practice"). Where a married woman seised of freehold houses to her separate use conveyed the same by deed dated 12th January, 1882, to her husband in fee simple, it 67, by virtue of section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the court below, being of opinion that M.'s occupation, although separate, was not of such an independent m 2 164 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. character as to render him capable of being rated in respect thereof under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and that con- sequently he occupied as a mere lodger, and not as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of the statutes (a) : Morfee v. Novis, L. E. 8 Q. B. D. 195 ; Colt, Eeg. Cas. 163 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 183 ; 46 L. T., N. S. 253 ; 30 W. E. 823. One uho separately occupies, as tenant, part of a house (wholly let out in similar tenancies) is not the less an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within 30 # 31 Vict c. 102, and 41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26, by reason of the landlord being rated, paying the rates, doing the repairs, and not demising the passage and staircase. City of "Westminster. B. claimed to have his name inserted in the list of voters in respect of a dwelling-house. He occupied, as tenant, at a weekly rent of 7s., two rooms (furnishing them himself) on the first floor of a house. These rooms were not structurally severed from the rest of the house, nor separately rated, nor was B.'s name entered in the occupiers' column of the rate-book ; but the landlord was rated for the whole house, which contained eight rooms, and was wholly let out in similar tenancies, the landlord paying all rates and taxes,' including water-rate, in respect of the entire premises, and also doing all painting and repairs inside and out. B. had, in common with the other tenants, the use of the passage, staircase, street door, and conveniencies of the house. The landlord did not reside in the house, nor did he personally or by his servants retain the control and dominion over the house or any part of it, or render (a) See, as to the distinction between an ' ' inhabitant occupier, as tenant," and a "lodger," note («) to Bradley v. Baylis, ante, on p. 160. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 165 any services to any of the tenants. He simply received his rents from them. B.'s claim was opposed, the contention being that he was a mere lodger, and not the occupier of a dwelling-house within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26. The revising barrister decided that the claim was good, and placed B.'s name on the householders' list. The court (Q,. B. D.) affirmed the decision on the ground that the rooms in respect of which B. claimed, being " separately occupied " by him "as a dwelling," constituted a " dwelling-house " within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, by virtue of section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the court below on the ground that, although the landlord was rated (a), paid the rates (a), did the repairs, and had not demised the staircase and passage, B. never- theless occupied the rooms in question so indepen- dently of his landlord's control as to be capable of being rated under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and consequently was entitled to be registered as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of the sta- tutes (b) : Kirby v. Biffen, L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 195 ; [a) See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 19, and 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 14. (b) See, as to the distinction between an " inhabitant occupier, as tenant," and a "lodger," note (a) to Bradley v. Bay lis, ante, on p. 160. In a schedule to the principal case (with which the revising barrister had consolidated other appeals) it was stated that some of the persons named therein occupied only a room on one floor, and that others occupied rooms on different floors. B., it will be observed, occupied two rooms on one floor. Bkett, L. J., expressed a doubt whether, regard being had to the above distinctions, the appeal had been properly consolidated, but added that, as the revising barrister had included the cases thus varying in detail from the principal case in a schedule thereto, " the court must assume " all the cases to be alike ; and he accordingly intimated that the question remains open whether a 166 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Colt. Reg. Cas. 163; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 183; 46 L. T., N. S. 253 ; 30 W. E. 823. Tenant who at the commencement of qualifying year separately occupies as his dwelling part of a house, which at that period is wholly let out in similar tenancies, does not lose his status as an " inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house" and become a " lodger " by reason of one of the other tenants relinquishing his tenancy and giving up his keys to landlord during qualifying year ; at all events, if landlord does not exercise any control over the house beyond that which is involved in his taking the usual steps to re-let the vacant tenement. Borough of Chelsea. R. was objected to on the list of occupiers. He had for upwards of twelve calendar months next previous to 15th July separately occupied as his residence a room in a dwelling-house at a weekly rent. At the commencement of the qualifying year the dwelling-house, of which R.'s room formed part, was wholly let out in similar tenancies, each of them being of a nature to qualify its tenant to vote as an " inhabitant occupier of a person who separately occupies as a dwelling two rooms on different floors, using one room as a bedroom and the other as a sitting- room, is an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of the statutes. It is respectfully submitted that this question has been settled by the decision in Kirby v. Biffen. The fact of the majority of the court not having questioned the pro- priety of the consolidation implies that they perceived no sub- stantial distinction between the cases. Had they been of opinion that the facts of each case were not so similar that a judgment in one of the cases would govern the rest, it would appear to have been their duty, on the authority of Prior v. Waring, 5 C. B. 56, to refuse to entertain the appeal on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. It would seem, then, that, for the purpose of the dwelling- house franchise, it is immaterial whether a person separately occupies as a dwelling one room or more than one room on a single floor, or whether he so occupies rooms on different floors. In each case he would, on the other conditions of the franchise being fulfilled by him, become entitled to vote in respect of a dwelling-house. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 167 dwelling-house " within section 3 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and section 5 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. During the qualifying year one of the tenants re- linquished his tenancy, and gave up the key of his room and the front door key to the landlord, who thereupon took the usual steps to obtain a new tenant for the vacated room. The landlord did not, during any portion of the qualifying period exercise any control over the house or any part of it, except such control (if any) as may have by law devolved upon him in consequence of the vacation of the room, and the delivery up to him of the keys by the outgoing tenant, as above stated. It was contended at the Revision Court on behalf of the objector that, on the outgoing tenant vacating his room and giving up his keys, the landlord there- upon ipso facto was by law restored to such control over the house as to change the status of R. from that of an inhabitant occupier to the status of lodger in his room, and that, having been during part of the qualifying period an inhabitant occupier of, and during another part of such period a lodger in, his room, he was not entitled to have his name retained on the occupiers' list. The revising barrister overruled the objection, being of opinion that R. had continued to be an in- habitant occupier during the whole period of qualifi- cation. The court (Q-. B. D.) affirmed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal, affirming the decision of the court below, held that, the landlord not having exer- cised a general control over the entire house, the status of R. as an " inhabitant occupier " (which [semble] could not be changed without his submission or consent) (a) was not converted into that of a (a) It would seem that, -whereas a tenant cannot, without his consent or submission, be converted into a lodger, a lodger may 168 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. " lodger," and consequently that his vote was properly allowed by the revising barrister (a) : Ancketill v. Baylis, L. R. 10 Q. B. D. 577 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 289 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. D. 104 ; 48 L. T., N. S. 342 ; 31 W. R. 233. The municipal franchise stands on the same footing as the parliamentary franchise as regards the separate occupation of part of a house. Therefore, where a man, separately occupied rooms in a house, he was held to be entitled to the municipal franchise in respect of such occupation, although the rooms were used by him as a dwelling only, and not u for busi- ness purposes." Borough of Plymouth. A. was objected to on the list of voters (Division One) for Vintry Ward in the parish of St. Andrew. He separately occupied as a private dwelling only, two rooms at 9, Better Street, in which house there were four other residents. It was contended at the Revision Court that, as A. occupied the rooms as a private dwelling only, and not " for the purposes of any trade, business, or profession," the rooms so occupied by him did not constitute a house within be converted into a tenant by the act of his landlord. See per Lindlet, L. J., in Morton v. Palmer, 51 L. J. Q. B. D. on pp. 11 and 12, and in Ancketill v. Baylis, Colt. Reg - . Cas. on pp. 305 and 306. (a) This decision overrules a dictum of Brett, L. J., in Bradley v. Baylis, where he is reported as follows : ' ' Supposing a man remains in the house and lets off several rooms to different persons who are then his lodgers, and he afterwards lets off all the rest of the rooms and leaves the house and preserves no actual control over it, so that he is not to go into it, either by his servants or by himself, then those persons who were before lodgers have become by that fact householders. But supposing during the qualifying year one of those lodgers leaves, and the owner thereupon (as assuredly he must) resumes the control over that unlet part, according to my view of the statutes, immediately by that act of his those people left in the house who have been householders become lodgers again : " L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 235, 236. BOROUGH FRA>'CH1SE — OCCUPATION. 169 sects. 9 and 31 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, so as to create a municipal qualification. The revising barrister having decided against this contention, the court held, affirming the decision, that the municipal franchise was on the same footing as the parliamentary franchise in respect of the sepa- rate occupation of part of a house, and that A., being undoubtedly entitled to the parliamentary franchise by virtue of the decision in Bradley v. Baylis (L. E. 8 Q. B. D. 195, ante, p. 162), was con- sequently entitled to his municipal vote : Greenway v. Batchelor (Aldridge's case), L. E. 12 Q. B. D. 381 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 317; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 180; 50 L. T., N. S. 272 ; 32 W. E. 319. A voter, whose name was expunged from Division I. in consequence of an objection to his parliamentary rote only, was held not entitled to have his name transferred to Division III. without proof of his being qualified as a burgess. Boiiough of Plvmouth. A notice of objection to the name of a person on the list No. 1 (Division One) for the parish of St. Andrew was in accordance with Form (I.), No. 2 (Parliamentary), in the schedule to 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. The objection was admittedly fatal to the parliamentary vote of the person objected to ; but it was contended before the revising barrister that, regard being had to the form of the notice of objection, the municipal vote was unchallenged, and that, consequently, the name shoidd be transferred to Division Three. The revising barrister consented so to transfer the name upon proof of a municipal qualification. Such proof not being forthcoming, he struck off the name from the lists altogether. On appeal, the court held that the revising bar- rister was right: Greenway v. Batchelor [Jacob's case), L. E. 12 U. B. D. 376 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas 322 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 179 ; 50 L. T., N. S. 270 ; 32 W. E. 320. 170 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. BOROUGH FRANCHISE— RESERVED RIGHTS. A merely colourable residence insufficient to qualify under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 32. Borough of Tewkesbury. The appellant claimed, in 1844, to be inserted in the list of freemen for the borough of Tewkesbury. He, with his wife and servant, resided at Glouces- ter, where he carried on the business of a wine merchant. Gloucester is more than seven miles from Tewkes- bury. With the view of qualifying himself to vote for the borough of Tewkesbury, he had, since 1841, paid a friend 9d. a week for the use of a furnished bedroom and a dark closet in a house within the borough. He had the key of the closet, and had kept some wine samples in it between January and July, 1844. During that period he had slept in the bedroom twelve times, and in the course of the year ending July, 1844, sixteen times (a), on the occasions of his going to Tewkesbury on business. He had never taken his meals at his friend's house, except as a guest. The revising barrister having held that the appel- lant had not resided within the borough, so as to satisfy the requirements of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 32, (a) As the case originally stood, the number of times was stated to be " about twelve," and " about fifteen to twenty " ; but this being objected to as being too vague, the statement was, by consent of the parties, handed to the revising barrister, who was present in court, for amendment ; and he there and then amended it. See 8 Scott, N. R. 784, note. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 171 The court affirmed the decision: Whithorn v. Thomas, 8 Scott, N. R. 783 ; 7 M. & Gk 1 ; 1 Lutw. 125 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 8 Jur. 1008 ; B. & Am. 259. In order to be entitled to vote in respect of reserved rights under section 33 of Reform Act, 1832, voter must retain identical qualification which he had when that Act was passed. Borough of Northampton. The respondent was objected to on the list of inhabitant householders. Previously to the passing of the Reform Act, 1832, every person who had been an inhabitant house- holder within the borough for six calendar months next before the day of election, and who had not received parochial relief, or other alms, for the space of twelve calendar months then last, was entitled to vote. By section 33 of the above-mentioned Act it is provided that " every person now having a right to vote in the election for any city or borough (with certain exceptions not material) shall retain such right of voting so long as he shall be qualified as an elector according to the usages and customs of such city or borough, or any law now in force, and such person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in any future parlia- ment for such city or borough if duly registered, &c. ; but that no person shall be so registered in any year unless he shall, on the last day of July in such year, be qualified as such elector in such manner as would entitle him then to vote if such day were the day of election and this Act had not passed." At the time of the passing of the Act (7th June, 1832), the respondent had a right to vote as an inhabitant householder, according to the usages and customs of the borough, and remained thus entitled until October, 1832, when he and his family ceased to reside at Northampton, and went to reside at 172 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Bedford, where lie stayed for fourteen weeks ; lie then returned to Northampton ; immediately became an inhabitant householder thereat, and had so con- tinued ever since. He had in every year, since the passing of the Act, been an inhabitant householder, duly qualified according to the usages and customs of the borough, on the last day of July in each year. Held, that the respondent, having once ceased to be an inhabitant householder at Northampton, did not " retain the right of voting " for the borough, within section 33 of the Reform Act, 1832, and was, therefore, not entitled to be registered : Jeffery v. Kitchener, 8 Scott, N. R. 923 ; 7 M. & GK 99 ; 1 Lutw. 210 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 75 ; 9 Jur. 138 ; B. & Arn. 359. In order to be entitled to vote in respect of reserved rights under section 33 of Reform Act, 1832, voter must retain identical qua/if cation which he had when that Act was passed. Borough of Northampton. [In this case the facts were in all material points the same as in Jeffery v. Kitchener, supra ; it was, therefore, decided, without argument, in accordance with the decision in that case :] Stanton v. Jeffery, 8 Scott, N. R. 933; 7 M. & Gh 109, note; 1 Lutw. 219, note; 14 L. J. C. P. 79, note ; B. & Arn. 367, note. Proviso in section 32 of Reform Act, 1832, excluding freemen admitted, otherwise than by birth or servi- tude, after 1st March, 1831, docs not apply to freemen and liverymen of the city of London. City of London. The respondent (a freeman and liveryman) was admitted a freeman by purchase after 1st March, 1831. Held, that he was not within the disqualifying proviso in section 32 of 2 Will. IV. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 173 c. 45 : Croucher v. Browne, 2 C. B. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 388 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 74; 10 Jur. 184; B. & Arn. 621. Employment of an inhabitant freeholder of Exeter as a draper's assistant in London (such employment necessitating his living in London during part of statutory period of residence) held to constitute a break of such freeholder' 's residence in Exeter, so as to disqualify him as a voter for that city, inasmuch as he could not, consistently with his employment, go to his home in Exeter whenever he pleased. City and County and Borough of the City of Exeter. R. was objected to as a freeholder on the ground that for six calendar months next previous to the 15th of July, 1887 (the year of the revision), he had not resided in Exeter or within seven miles thereof, pursuant to 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 31, and 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, s. 7. For a long time previously to January, 1887, R. had continuously resided at his father's house in Exeter as a member of his father's family, and a separate bedroom in the house was set apart for his exclusive use. He paid no rent for the bedroom, but his right by his father's permission to use it continued up to the time of the hearing of the objec- tion. In January, 1887, E. left his father's house and went to London, where he sought, and obtained, employment under a verbal engagement as an indoor assistant in a wholesale draper's establishment, to do certain work which required his being in London while so engaged. It was understood that when the particular work for which he was engaged was com- pleted his employment would cease. This work took him two months to complete, and on its completion he sought other employment in London, but, failing to obtain it, he returned to his father's house in Exeter, and remained there for three weeks, when he left (in May),. and went again to London for the purpose, and with the intention, of seeking employment there. 174 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Within a short time after his arrival in London he obtained employment as an indoor assistant in a London draper's establishment, and continued in such employment from that time until after the 15th of July, and did not at any time within such period, return to his father's house in Exeter. His employ- ment in London as draper's assistant required his being in London, and he might not, during the working days, have returned to his father's house at Exeter, although he could have done so from Satur- day to Monday morning. R. was a single man, and had no home other than the house of his father, except under the circumstances before stated, when he was employed in London. Held, that the objection to R. was good, inasmuch as he could not, consistently with his employment, have returned to his home in Exeter whenever he pleased : Beal v. Town Clerk of Exeter, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 31 ; L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 300 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. D. 128 ; 58 L. T., N. S. 407. A freeman in a borough, whose name does not appear on any parochial list, is not entitled to have his name entered on a list of parochial electors either by the revising barrister or by the town clerk. Borough of Coventry. H., a freeman of the city, claimed to have his name entered either by the revising barrister or by the town clerk on the list of parochial electors for the parish of Holy Trinity- Within, by virtue of his being entitled to a parlia- mentary vote for the borough. The revising barrister rejected his claim on the ground that he was not a person " registered in such portion either of the local government register of electors or of the parliamentary register of electors as relates to the parish," under section 2 (1) of the Local Government Act, 1894, read together with sec- tion 44, defining " parochial elector " and " register of parochial electors." BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 175 The court (affirming the decision) held, that sec- tion 2 (1) provided that the following persons were to he parochial electors, " and no others," viz., " per- sons registered in such portion either of the local government register .... or of the parliamentary register .... as relates to the parish," while sec- tion 44 provided that " the local government register .... and the parliamentary register .... so far as they relate to a parish, shall together form the register of the parochial electors of the parish." H. was not on the local government register ; and, not being on any portion of the parliamentary register which related to the parish, was not entitled to be placed on the register of parochial electors, having regard to the words " and no others " in section 2 (1). Although the question as to the supposed duty of the town clerk to place a freeman's name on a parish register was not properly raised in that case, the court further held, that there was no such duty ; there was no such direction in the Act ; no principle laid down there as to which parish the freeman should be allotted to ; and no distinction made between the two different classes of resident and non-resident freemen. By such residence as the resident freemen had, they had no parochial right of franchise. Their franchise was a purely personal one ; and they were rightly excluded, in the absence of any other qualifi- cation, from the register of parochial electors : Hart v. Beard, 65 L. J. Q. B. D. 157 ; 44 W. E. 154 ; 1 Lacey Smith's Reg. Cas. 9. Non-payment of rates by scot and lot voter for one year, a suspension of right to be registered- — not a per- manent extinction of right to vote. Borough of Warwick. The 33rd section of the Reform Act, 1832, provides, that " every person now having a right to vote in the election for any city or borough (with certain exceptions not material to the 176 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. present case), shall retain such right of voting so long as he shall be qualified as an elector according to the usages and customs of such city or borough or any law now in force, and such person shall be entitled to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in any future parliament for such city or borough, if duly registered, &c. ; but that no person shall be so registered in any year unless he shall, on the last day of July in such year, be quali- fied as such elector in such manner as would entitle him then to vote if such day were the day of election and this Act had not been passed." At the time of the passing of the Act, the right of voting in the borough of Warwick, according to the usages and customs thereof, was in the inhabitants paying scot and lot, and every person who had been duly rated for six calendar months next before an election, and had paid all rates due from him before the actual giving of his vote, was entitled to vote as such scot and lot voter. B. claimed to be inserted in the list of voters as an inhabitant paying scot and lot. He had been on the register every year as such inhabitant, with the exception of 1845, when his name was expunged in consequence of his rates due on 31st July, 1845, remaining unpaid, and no tender thereof having been made (a). He had paid on 31st July, 1846, all rates then due from him, including those which had remained unpaid in the previous year. He had always been a resident occupier of a house within the borough, and been rated in respect of it. Held, that the non-payment by B. of his rates for one year operated simply as a suspension of his right (a) It does not appear from the case that these rates were ever demanded. Before a scot and lot voter could be disfranchised for non-payment of poor rate, it was necessary to prove that there had been either a personal demand, or a demand in writing left at the house: see per Wilde, C. J., 4 C. B., 69, citing Cullen v. Morris, 2 Stark. N. P. C. 577. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 177 to be registered, and did not destroy the right to vote reserved to him by section 33 of the Act ; and that, his qualification as an elector according to the usages of the borough having continued, he was entitled to be placed on the register in 1846 : Nicks v. Field («), 4 C. B. 63 ; 1 Lutw. oW ; 16 L. J. C. P. 61 ; 10 Jur. 1088. Where a party had been admitted a "free burgess" by birth, of the borough of Malmesbury before 1st March, 1831, and elected one of the " capital burgesses" (ancient voters) after that day, he was held not excluded from the franchise by section 32 of Reform Act, 1832, birth having made him eligible as a " capital burgess." Borough of Malmesbury. The 32nd section of the Reform Act, 1832, provides that no person who shall have been elected, made, or admitted a burgess or freeman since the first day of March, 1831, other- wise than in respect of birth or servitude, or who shall hereafter be elected, made, or admitted a burgess or freeman otherwise than in respect of birth or servi- tude shall be entitled to vote, &c. The corporation of Malmesbury consisted of four classes of burgesses or freemen : — 1. Capital burgesses. 2. Assistant burgesses. 3. Landholders. 4. Free burgesses or commoners. Persons becoming members of the corporation were admitted thereto as free burgesses or commoners, (a) In a note to this case, 4 C. B. G3, the learned reporter states that there was nothing to show that either appellant or respondent was " a person interested " in the appeal (a consolidated one), and refers to Wanklyn v. Woollett, 4 C. B. 86 : see note to that case, post, "Practice." S. N 178 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTATY REGISTRATION CASES. and so in the first instance became members of the fourth or lowest class, one of the qualifications for membership whereof being in respect of birth. Members of the fourth class were promoted to the third, as vacancies happened by seniority, and vacan- cies in the second and first classes were filled up from the third and second by election. Previously to the Reform Act, 1832, the right of voting was vested in the " capital burgesses " only. P. had been admitted a free burgess or commoner, in respect of birth, before 1st March, 1831 ; and having afterwards become a landowner, and an assist- ant burgess, was finally, 2nd June, 1834, elected a capital burgess of the corporation. Held, that P. was not disqualified by section 32 of the statute as " elected otherwise than in respect of birth," birth having made him eligible as a "capital burgess": Gale v. Chubb, 4 C. B. 41 ; 1 Lutw. 544 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 54 ; 11 Jur. 22. Residence of freeman beyond limits of ancient borough, but within limits of borough as extended by Boun- dary Act, 1832. Borough of Shrewsbury. E. on the list of free- men was objected to, at the revision of 1851, on the ground that he had not resided within the borough, or within seven miles thereof, for the period pre- scribed by section 32 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. The borough boundary was extended by 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 64. E. had resided in a house within both the ancient and extended limits of the borough from 25th March, 1851, to 31st July following. For two years previous to, and up to, the said 25th March, he had resided in a house without the ancient, but within the limits as extended by the above-mentioned Act. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 179 The house so situate was within seven miles of the polling place of the borough (a). The revising barrister having held the objection good, The court reversed the decision : Jam's v. Peek, 11 C. B. 15. Right of voting as freemen by birth, not restricted to freemen whose fathers /re re admitted before 1st March, 1831 ; but is preserved continuously to all lineal descendants of freemen admitted prior to that date. Borough of Barnstaple. It is provided by section 32 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, "that no person shall be so entitled {i.e., to vote) as a burgess or freeman in respect of birth unless his right be originally derived from or through some person who was a burgess or freeman, or entitled to be admitted a burgess or freeman previously to the first day of March, 1831." In the borough of B. there was a body of freemen. The sons of these freemen were entitled, on proving their fathers' marriage, that they were born of that marriage, and that they had attained the age of twenty-one years, to be admitted as freemen. S. was duly admitted a freeman (by right of birth from his father) on 31st July, 1856. His father was admitted (also by right of birth) on 2nd May, 1831, having only come of age on the preceding 4th April. The grandfather was admitted (by right of birth) on 14th October, 1810. {a) It does not appear clear what point the revising barrister intended to reserve, but, at all events, he seems by his concluding statement in the case to have stated the objector out of court. n2 180 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that S. was entitled to be registered as being a freeman wliose " right was originally derived from or through some person who was a freeman previously to the first day of March, 1831 " — namely, his grand- father : Gaydon v. Bencraft, 18 C. B., N. S. 11; II. & P. 97;' 34 L. J. C. P. 53; 10 Jur., N. S. 1206; 13 W. E, 267; 11 L. T., N. S. 483. Residentiary canons of Exeter Cathedral hold their dwellings^ each as a corporation sole, and not as a member of the Chapter, and are, consequently, entitled to city rotes as freeholders in respect of them. City of Exeter. The respondent was on the list of freeholders. He was one of the residentiary canons of Exeter Cathedral, and his qualifying property was the residentiary house belonging to him in respect of his canonry. The dean and chapter of Exeter are a corporation aggregate. The canons are appointed for life. Each canon on his election produces the key of the house occupied by his predecessor, and prays to be admitted. As one of the canons he is elected and decreed to be installed, and thereupon takes posses- sion of his house, which he repairs at his own expense, and with his enjoyment of which the Chapter as a body cannot interfere. Held, that the proper inference from the above facts was, that the respondent held his house as a corporation sole, and not as a member of a corpora- tion aggregate, and, consequently, that he was entitled to vote for the city as a freeholder under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 31 : Ford v. Harinqton, L. R 5 C. P. 282 ; 1 H. & C. 331 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 107 ; 18 W. E, 289 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 609. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 181 An officer in the army does not acquire a freeman's residentiary qualification by having a home within seven miles of the borough, unless he has actually resided there during the whole of requisite period, for, being subject to the rules of the -service, he cannot go home whenever he pleases. City of Exeter. The respondent (a freeman of the city of Exeter) was, and had been for several years, an officer in the army, and, except when on leave of absence, was stationed with his regiment more than seven miles from the city of Exeter. When on leave, as he usually was for three months in the year, he lived at the house of his mother, within seven miles of the city of Exeter. Two rooms in his mother's house (one of them a bedroom) were always reserved for the respondent's exclusive use, and some of his clothes and other property remained therein while he was away with his regi- ment. Although he had his mother's permission during the whole of the six months next before 31st July (a) preceding the revision, to occupy the rooms when- ever he wished, he had, in fact, occupied them during three only of those months, when he was on leave. The respondent was unmarried, and had no other home than his mother's house. Held, that the respondent, being subject to the will and pleasure of the Queen, and, consequently, not at liberty to return to his mother's house when- ever he pleased, had not resided within the city of Exeter, or within seven miles thereof, so as to satisfy the requirements of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 32 : Ford v. Hart, L. P. 9 C. P. 273 ; 2 H. & C. 167 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 24 ; 22 W. P. 159 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 685. (a) See now, as to the requisite period of residence, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, changing 31st July to 15th July. 182 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Condition of residence required by section 31 of Reform Act, 1832, may be satisfied by voter residing in the house of another as a guest. Continuity of residence not necessarily broken by absence for a night. City of Exeter. The appellant, on the list of freeholders, was objected to on the ground that he had not resided for six calendar months next previous to 31st July (a), 1877 (the year of the revision), "within the borough, or within seven miles thereof, pursuant to 2 Will. IV. c. 45. On 31st July, 1876, and from that date until 29th March, 1877, and again from 29th May, 1877, throughout the remainder of the qualifying period of residence, the appellant had a fixed home and resi- dence within the borough. But during the two months intervening between the 29th of March, 1877, and the 29th of May, being without a home of his own, he lived and slept with his wife and child at his wife's mother's house, which was also within the borough. The appellant, his wife, and child exclusively occupied one sleeping apartment in the said house, but in the day time lived in other rooms therein, and occupied them in common with the appellant's mother-in-law. The appellant did not pay his mother-in-law for such use and occupa- tion, but lived in the house as her guest. The house was one of a number of almshouses, which were given by the trustees of the same to inhabitants of Exeter to be occupied rent free during the pleasure of the trustees. The rules of the charity forbade any person to reside with an inmate, except by permission of the trustees, who had given no such permission to the appellant. (a) See now, as to the requisite period of residence, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municpal Registration Act, 1 S 7 8 . BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 183 The appellant was, during his two months' sojourn at his mother-in-law's, absent one night in London on business ; but, with that exception, lived and slept at his mother-in-law's house continuously during such period. His wife and child lived and slept there for the two months without interruption. Held, that the residence required by section 31 (a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, need not be that of one occupy- ing as owner or tenant ; consequently, that the nature of the appellant's residence in the house occupied by his mother-in-law was such as to satisfy that section, notwithstanding his liability to removal by the trustees ; also, that the continuity of his resi- dence was not broken by his being absent on business for one night : Beal v. Ford, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 73 ; 2 H. & C. 374 ; 47 L. J. C. P. D. 56 ; 26 W. R. 146 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 408. Service under articles in London on the part of an inhabitant freeholder of Exeter during part of statutory period of residence, held to constitute a break of sue// freeholder's residence in Exeter so as to disqualify hint as -a voter for that citij, inasmuch as he could not, consistently with his articles, go to his home in Exeter whenever he pleased. City and County of the City of Exeter. The respondent, a freeholder on Form D., list No. 2, was objected to on the ground that he had not resided for six calendar months next preceding loth July, 1879, within the borough or within seven miles thereof, pursuant to 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 31. For a long time previously to May, 1878, the respondent had continuously resided at his father's house, which was within seven miles of the city of Exeter, and a separate bed-room in the house had («) The appeal was erroneously stated in the case to be founded on section 33. The reference should have been to section 31 : see 2 H. & C. 374, note. 184 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. always been set apart for his exclusive use, with the right to use it whenever he thought fit, and he had always kept some of his clothes and other property in the room. In May, 1878, the respondent left his father's house and went to London for the sole purpose of completing a term of service under articles to a solicitor there, and, subject thereto, he always intended to and did continue his residence, with the right to the said bed-room, at his father's house. In August, 1878, the respondent, with the permis- sion of the solicitor to whom he was articled, returned to his father's house, and there spent a three weeks' holiday, sleeping in the said bed-room during that time. He then went back to London under his articles, which expired on 20th January, 1879. On 23rd of the same month he returned to his father's house, and had resided there ever since. Held, that the respondent could not, consistently with his articles, be deemed to have had either the liberty or intention to return to his father's house whenever he pleased, and therefore had not resided within the city of Exeter, or within seven miles thereof, so as to satisfy the requirements of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 31 : Ford v. Drew, L. K. 5 C. P. D. 59 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 1 ; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 172 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 478 ; 28 W. R. 137. ( 185 ) BOEOUGH FRANCHISE— LODGINGS (a). A lodger does not lose his qualification as such by reason of his having claimed to be rated. City of London. The appellant, who was the respondent in Outhbertson v. Ilaii/s, L. R. 4 C. P. 523, claimed as a lodger in respect of his occupation as stated in that case, post. The appellant had in due time claimed to be rated as for " part of a house ;" there were no rates due in respect of the premises at the time of the claim (/>). The revising barrister held, that the appellant must, for the purposes of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, be deemed to have been rated to the relief of the poor in respect of the said premises from the period at which the rate had been made in respect of which he had claimed to be rated ; and that, thenceforward, in consequence of such rating, he had not occupied the premises as a lodger within the meaning of the Act, and he accordingly disallowed the claim. The court reversed the decision (c) : Sains v. Cuthbertson, L. R. 4 C. P. 528, note. (a) See now the provisions of section 6 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, as to "additional," "succes- sive," and " joint occupation of," lodgings. {b) This fact, although stated by the revising barrister in Mains v. Cuthbertson (not in Outhbertson v. Sains, 2JOSt), does not appear, in the report. (c) It will be observed that the court did not decide that the status of the appellant was that of a lodger within the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1867, that question not having been sub- mitted for their decision : see per Bovill, C. J., in Cross v. Ahop,' L. R. 6 C. P. 319. The simple point decided was, that the appellant, assuming him to be a lodger within the Act, had not become disentitled to be registered as such by reason of his having claimed to be rated. 186 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Members of Cambridge University, whether fellows, scholars, or undergraduate*, held to have no votes for the town of Cambridge in respect of their college rooms (a). Held, that even supposing the rooms in question were " lodgings," section 78 (a) of 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, was by sections 56 and 59 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, incorporated into the latter statute, so that the appel- lants were not entitled to vote for the town of Cambridge "in respect of the occupation of any chambers or premises in any of the colleges or halls of the University of Cambridge " : Peroirne v. Peters, Barnes v. Peters, Bakewell v. Peters, L. K. 4 C. P. 539; 1 H. & C. 251 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 266 ; 17 W. K. 970. Lodge)- rote mag be /required in respect of apartments rented by claimant, and occupied as a residence by his wife and family during the qualifying period, although he himself mag hare slept there once or twice a week only during that time, provided he teas at liberty to sleep tliere whenever he pleased. Borough of Chelsea. The appellant claimed in respect of lodgings at 17, Edge Terrace, Kensington. The appellant had taken the lodgings, and his wife and family had lived in them during the twelve months next before 31st July preceding the revision. The appellant had slept there once or twice a week only during that period (b), under the following circumstances : He was employed to look after a gentleman of intemperate habits, upon whom his friends deemed it necessary that some one should be in constant attend- ance in the day time. With a view to this, and to enable the appellant («) See now section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, and Tanner v. Carter, post, p. 224. (b) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — LODGINGS. 187 to perform his duties thoroughly, the friends of the gentleman took lodgings for the appellant at 22, Porteus Eoad, Maida Hill, that being the house in which the gentleman under his charge also lodged. With the exception of the one or two nights in each week when the appellant slept at the lodgings in Edge Terrace, he slept at the lodgings so provided for him by his employers, although he was not bound by his agreement to do so. Held, that the appellant had resided in the lodgings in Edge Terrace, within the meaning of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 4, sub-s. 3, and was conse- quently entitled to vote : Taylor v. Si. Mary Abbotts, Kensington, L. E. 6 C. P. 309 ; 1 H. & C. 421 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 45 ; 19 W. E. 100; 23 L. T., N. S. 493. Continuous actual residence not necessary for a lodger rote. City of Westminster. The appellant claimed in 1870 as a lodger in respect of rooms in Charles Street, Berkeley Square. From a date prior to 31st July, 1869, he had been, and still was, a yearly tenant of the rooms in ques- tion, which he had occupied separately, and as sole tenant, for the twelve months immediately preceding 31st July (a), 1870 ; but he had during that period also occupied a house in the country, where he kept an establishment of servants all the year round, and where he himself resided when not in London. He had resided in the lodgings during the follow- ing periods in the qualifying year : — In 1869, from 24th till 28th September, and from 10th till 15th November ; in 1870, from 23rd April till 21st May, from 26th till 31st May, from 9th till 23rd June, and from 27th June till 4th July. Held, that the appellant's residence in the lodg- (a) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. 188 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. ings was sufficient to give him a vote (a) : Bond v. St. George's, Hanover Square, L. R. 6 C. P. 312 ; 1 H. & C. 427 ; 40 L. J. 0. P. 47 ; 19 W. R. 101; 23 L. T., N. S. 494. The declaration of a lodger claimant annexed to Ms notice of claim is prima facie evidence of his quali- fication not on/// in the case of lodgers who, being on the existing register, claim again in respect of the same lodgings under section 22 of 41 8f 42 Vict, c. 26, but also in the case of lodgers claiming for the first time under section 4 o/'30 Sf 31 Viet. c. 102. Borough of Marylebone. N. claimed under section 4 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), to have his name inserted in the list of voters as a lodger. The notice of claim which, with the accompanying declarations, was in the form H., No. 2, in the schedule to the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), as adapted to the case of a new lodger claimant, was dated the 9th of August, 1881, and was duly witnessed and published. N. did not appear personally in support of his claim, nor was any evidence tendered on his behalf in support of it. There was no opposition to the claim under section 39 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (6 Vict. c. 18). It was contended on N.'s behalf that section 23 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 applies to all lodger claimants, (a) Beett, J., in delivering his judgment, cited approvingly the following statement of the law : — " In order to constitute residence, a party must possess, at the least, a sleeping apartment ; but an uninterrupted abiding at such dwelling is not requisite. Absence, no matter how long, if there be the liberty of returning at any time, and no abandonment of the intention to return whenever it may suit the party's pleasure or convenience so to do, will not prevent a constructive legal resi- dence." Elliott on Registration and Qualifications, 2nd edition, p. 204. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — LODGINGS. 189 not only to those who, being already on the list of voters in respect of lodgings, claim in respect of the same lodgings under section 22 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, but also to those claiming for the first time under section 4 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and that N. was consequently entitled to have his claim allowed with- out any evidence being adduced in support of it in addition to that furnished by his declaration annexed to his notice of claim. The revising barrister decided that section 23 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 did not apply to the case of persons claiming under section 4 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and who did not claim under section 22 of 41 & 42 Vict, c. 26 ; and that it was necessary for a person claiming under section 4 of the former statute, whether his claim was opposed or not, to appear either personally or by his agent, and to produce evidence in support of his claim other than that (if any) afforded by his declaration, and the barrister accordingly disallowed N.'s claim. The court (Q. B. D.) reversed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, The court, affirming the decision of the court below, held that the terms of section 23 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 being general, and there being no other section in the Act limiting the operation of that section, it is not restricted in its application, so as to apply only to lodgers on the existing register claiming again in respect of the same lodgings, but applies also to lodgers claiming for the first time under section 4 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and consequently that, N.'s declaration annexed to his notice of claim being primd facie evidence of his qualification, his claim should, in the absence of rebutting evidence, have been allowed at the revision (a) : NutJi v. Tamplin^ (a) This decision puts an end to the doubt which had arisen in consequence of an opinion expressed by Lord Coleridge, C.J., and Denman, J., in Pickard v. Baylis, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 235, to- 190 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. L. R. 8 Q. B. D. 247 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 249 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 177 ; 30 W. R. 346. Notice of claim to be registered, a part of lodger's qualification to cote. Neglect to give such notice cannot be waived by overseen publishing name in list of lodgers. [Davies v. Hopkins (3 C. B., N. S. 376) dis- tinguished.] Borough of St. Pancras (South Division). The name of William. Henry Humphrey appeared on the old lodgers' list, and was objected to on the ground that he had not claimed to be registered in manner provided by section 22 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. The said W. H. Humphrey was on the old lodgers' list for 1885. He made no claim of any kind to be registered for 1886 ; but the overseers, instead of causing the old lodgers' list for that year to be printed de novo from the claims served upon them, caused it to be printed from a copy of the old lodgers' list in the then current register, from which they intended to expunge the names of the voters from whom no claims had been received. The overseers had, how- ever, omitted to expunge the name of the said the effect that section 23 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 is confined to the claims of old lodgers. It seems to he the duty of the revising barrister, hy virtue of the decision in the principal case, to allow without inquiry (at least where no suspicion of fraud or falsehood attaches to the declarations or the signatures thereto) all unopposed lodger claims, provided that the notices of claim be correct in form. If, how- ever, a lodger claim be defective by reason of the omission of any particular required by form H., No. 2, in the schedule of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, to be inserted therein, the barrister will exercise his discretion as to the allowance (with amendment), or rejection, of the claim, for such particulars form no part of the qualification, and are therefore not affected by section 23 of the statute. See per Lindley, J., in Pickard v. Baylis, L. R. 5 C. P. D., on p. 247 ; Colt. Reg. Cas., on p. 116. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — LODGINGS. 191 W. H. Humphrey, and failed, to discover the mis- take before the list had been signed and published. The revising barrister held that the old lodgers' list being, by virtue of section 22 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, to be deemed a list of voters, it was thereby brought within the principle of Dames v. Hopkins (3 C. B., N. S. 376), and Leonard v. Alhways (2 H. & C. 411), and that he could not therefore go behind the published list in the case of an old lodger, and require proof that he had made a claim. The revising barrister accordingly rejected the evidence, and retained the name of the said W. H. Humphrey on the old lodgers' list. The court, re- versing the decision, held, that to have claimed to be registered is a necessary constituent of the qualifica- tion of a lodger, whether old or new ; and that the necessity for so claiming cannot be waived by the overseers' publication of a name in a lodgers' list : Hersant v. Hake, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. 412 ; 56 L. J. U. B. D. 44 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 12 ; 56 L. T., N. S. 337. In one case, a lodger's claim teas in respect of a bed-room with joint use of sitting-room; and the revising barrister, bring -satisfied that the bed-room alone was of the annual value of £10, amended the claim by omitting the latter part of the qualification. In another case, the claim was in respect of rooms as a joint lodger, but teas on a form for a sole lodger, stating the annual value of the rooms as £10 only ; and the revising barrister, being satisfied that the rooms were of the annual value of £20, amended the claim by inserting £20. Held, in both cases, that the revising barrister, holding that the variance in each case was a mistake, had power to amend under section 28 o/'41 8f 42 Vict. c. 26. Borough of Exeter. The revising barrister had made various amendments in some old and new 192 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. lodger claims ; and, having declined to state a case, a rule was argued calling on him to state a case, on the ground that he had no such power to amend. In some of the cases, the claim was in respect of a " bed- room with joint use of dining-room and sitting-room," and, in the declaration, " partly as joint tenant." In others, in respect of joint lodgings on a form for a sole claim, with the annual value stated as " £10," instead of " £20." It was argued against the power to amend, that these were really no mistakes at all, but intentional informalities, and that a claim of a sole lodger and of a joint lodger were for two dif- ferent qualifications ; the latter being first created by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 6. The court held (affirming the decision), that these were cases in which the claimants had accidentally misdescribed what they believed to be the character of their qualifications ; and that, the revising bar- rister, having found as a fact that it was by mistake, which was for his determination, had properly amended. The claimants had not, as in Fo^kett v. Kaufman, proved a different qualification : Fx parte Babr, 02 L. J. Q. B. D. 97 ; (1893) L. E. 1 Q. B. 121 ; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 275 ; 07 L. T. 527; 41 W. 11. 142. The declaration and attestation required by statute to be annexed to a lodger claim form a necessary part of sue// claim, and, if they respectively bear a date preceding that of the close of the qualifying //ear, the// render the claim essentially defective. A notice of objection in such a case, where the ground of objection stated was " That you hare not complied with the statutory requirements in making your claim" held sufficiently specific. City of Gloucester. The appellant was objected to by the respondent as not being entitled to have his BOROUGH FRANCHISE LODGINGS. 193 name retained on the old lodger list for the parish of St. John the Baptist, the ground of objection being that " you have not complied with the statutory re- quirements in making your claim." The appellant had been entered in respect of lodgings on the register in force in 1883. After the loth of July, 1888, and before the 2oth July, 1888, he sent to the overseers a notice of claim, whereby he claimed to be placed on the old lodger list in respect of the same lodgings. The form of his claim was in accordance with form IL, No. 2, in Sched. III. to the Registration Act, 1885, but the declaration of residence for the twelve months immediately preceding July 15th, and the attestation were respectively dated July 9th. The objector contended at the revision court that the notice of claim, being dated the 9th July, six days before the expiration of the qualifying period, disclosed no sufficient qualification, and that the appellant was not entitled to have his name retained on the old lodger list for the year 1889. It was sub- mitted on behalf of the appellant (1) that, being an old lodger, and his name having accordingly been inserted in the list by the overseers, the revising bar- rister had no power to inquire into the sufficiency of the notice of claim, and that the case was governed by Denies v. Hopkins, 3 C. B., N. S. 376 ; and Leonard v. Alloicai/s, 2 H. & C. 41 1. (2) That the notice of objec- tion did not sufficiently state the ground of objection. (3) That the date of the notice of claim was immaterial, as it was in fact sent to the overseers after the 15th July, and not later than the 25th July, and that the publication of the list by the overseers cured any irregularity in the original claim. (1) That the revising barrister ought to amend the date of the notice of claim, if necessary, by substituting some date subsequent to 15th July for the date appearing on the notice. The revising barrister held, that the notice of objection was sufficiently specific, and that the case was governed by Hersant v. Halse, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. s. o 194 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 412 ; that a notice of claim disclosing a sufficient qualification was a condition precedent to the appel- lant's right to have his name entered or retained in the old lodger list ; that his notice of claim disclosed no sufficient qualification, and was therefore invalid and ineffectual ; and that the date of the notice of claim was not a mistake which the revising barrister had power to amend. The revising barrister accord- ingly expunged the appellant's name, and the names of thirty-nine other persons (whose appeals were con- solidated herewith) from the several old lodger lists in which they respectively appeared. The court affirmed the decision : Jones v. Kent, L. E. 22 Q. B. D. 204 ; 37 W. E. 303 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. D. 106 ; 60 L. T., N. S. 320. Absence of date from attestation clause in a lodger claim, through deliberate non-compliance with form H. No. 2, in Sched. III., to the Registration Act, 1885, held fatal to the validity of such claim. Jones v. Kent (supra) followed. Battersea and Clapham (Clapham Division). The appellant claimed, as a new lodger, to have his name inserted in the list of voters for the parish of Clapham. There was annexed to his notice of claim, which (except the attestation clause) was in the statutory form, a declaration of residence, dated the 13th day of August, 1888, and signed by the apj)ellant. To this declaration was appended a form of attestation which had been adopted by the political agents on both sides, and was as follows : — " I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I have witnessed the above signature of the above-named J. H. Smith, at the date stated above, and that I believe the above claim to be correct. Eliza Jane Taylor." ( With residence and calling.) BOROUGH FRANCHISE — LODGINGS. 195 The claim was opposed on the ground that the declaration of the attesting witness was not dated in accordance with form H. No. 2, Sched. III. to 48 Yict. c. 15. The revising barrister decided that the date of the declaration by. the attesting witness was an essential part of the declaration, and that its omission was fatal to the validity of the notice of claim ; he accordingly disallowed the appellant's claim, and the claims of 260 other persons whose appeals were con- solidated herewith. The court (on the authority of Jones v. Kent, ante, p. 194) affirmed the decision : Smith v. Chandler, L. R. 22 Q. B. D., p. 208 ; 58 L. J. Q. B. D. 103 ; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 129 ; 60 L. T., N. S. 327 ; 37 W. R. 351. The declaration annexed to a lodger's claim and the claim itself are parts of an integral whole, and a mistake in such declaration may therefore he amend- able under the Parliamentary and Municipal He- gist ration Act, 1878 (41 8f 42 Vict, c, 26), s. 28, sub-s. 2. Middlesex (Hornsey Division). The appellant claimed to have his name inserted in the lodgers' list. The declaration (on a printed form) annexed to his claim was in the following terms : — " I hereby declare that I have during the twelve calendar months im- mediately preceding the 15th day of July in this year occupied as sole tenant (or as joint tenant with ), and resided in the above-mentioned lodgings, and that those lodgings are of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of ten pounds or upwards." The words " or as joint tenant with " were not struck out, nor was the blank after such words filled up. The revising barrister disallowed the claim (also the claims of 125 other persons whose claims were similarly de- fective) on the ground that the declaration did not show whether the claimant was a sole or a joint o2 196 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. tenant, and lie declined to amend, as he held that sub-section 2 of section 28 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, did not apply to the case. The court (reversing the decision) held that the claim and declaration annexed thereto were parts of an integral whole, and that the power of amendment extended to the whole by virtue of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-s. 2 : Ainsley v. Nicholson, L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 144 ; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 146 ; 59 L. J. Q. B. D. 102. It is essential to the validity of a lodger claim that the witness should have been an eye-witness of the claimant's signature thereto. Borough of St. Pancras (West Division). The appellant was objected to on the old lodger-list. The ground of objection was in the following terms : " Your lodger claim has not been legally attested." The appellant had made and signed a claim bearing date the 16th day of July, 1891. The attestation (in accordance with the form given in the Registra- tion Order, 1889) was as follows : " I, the under- signed, hereby declare that I have witnessed the above signature of the above-named claimant at the date stated above, and that I believe the above claim to be correct." The signature of the witness, which was dated the same day as the claim, followed. At the time when the appellant signed the claim, the witness (a person who well knew the claimant, and was acquainted with the facts stated in the claim) was not present, but the appellant himself, sub- sequently on the same day, handed the claim to the witness, who then, at the request of the appellant, subscribed the attestation. The revising barrister held that it was a necessary condition to the validity of a lodger claim that the witness should be present at the time of signature by the claimant, and that, this condition not having been fulfilled, the appellant's BOKOUGH FRANCHISE — LODGINGS. 197 claim was invalid. He accordingly expunged the name of the appellant, and the names of 29 other persons (similarly circumstanced, and to whom like objections were made) from the list of voters. The court affirmed the decision : Body v. Hake, 61 L. J. Q. B. D. 57 ; Fox and Smith's Eeg. Cas. 240 ; 40 ~W. B. 206(a). (a) Hunt v. Halse and Penning v. Halse were argued together with the above case, the facts being similar, except that in Hunt v. Halse the claimant had, after signing the claim, taken it to the witness on the next day for attestation, and that in Fenning v. Halse the claimant's wife had on the same day taken the claim, when signed, to the witness for attestation. 198 DIGEST 0E PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 YICT. c. 3. Non-commissioned officers occupying rooms in the cavalry barracks, Canterbury, held, in respect of such occu- pation to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 188-1. City of Canterbury. Objection was made to the retention of the appellant's name on the list of occu- pation voters on the ground that his occupation was not as owner or tenant. The entry on the list was as follows : — Atkinson, John. Barracks. Part of house. Barracks. The appellant was a sergeant in the 7th Dragoon Guards, the depot of which was attached to the cavalry depot at Canterbury. As such sergeant he inhabited, by virtue of his service in the army, two rooms in a block' of build- ings in the cavalry barracks, and had inhabited the same two rooms for the qualifying period. The said rooms were used by him as a bedroom and sitting- room respectively. A portion of the furniture was supplied by the government, and not allowed to be removed by the appellant; the remainder was supplied by the appellant himself. The appellant's rooms oj)ened into a passage used in common by himself and other non-commissioned officers, the passage communicating with a staircase, and that again with a passage on the ground floor, which led to the front door. No one had a key of the rooms but the appellant. The appellant was OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3." 199 obliged to be in bis quarters by a stated hour every evening. The Queen's regulations and certain stand- ing orders of the commanding officer required that the medical officer should inspect the appellant's quarters as well as all other portions of the barracks every week, and report as to the condition thereof. It was the duty of the orderly officer and certain other officers to visit such quarters at stated times, and to report as to their order and condition, and such inspection did in fact from time to time take place, for which purpose the appellant, on receiving notice, was bound to admit such officers to his quar- ters, and they would have power, if refused admit- tance, to break open the doors and enter. Non-commissioned officers of superior rank to the appellant lived in the same block. It was the duty of the senior non-commissioned officer for the time being in each block, in case of need, to maintain order, and in case the appellant should be disorderly, it would be the duty of such senior non-commissioned officer, for the time being, to enter the appellant's room to enforce order. The colonel commanding the whole of the depot lived in a detached house away from the block in which the appellant lived. The colonel's house was within the wall which extended round the barracks and barrack yards. The commanding officer could at any moment enter any part of the barracks (including the appellant's rooms) for any cause which might seem to him reasonable ; and he further had the power of closing the barrack gates, and forbidding any person to enter or leave the barracks at any time. The appellant was liable at any time to be ordered by the commanding officer to move to other quarters, and would be bound to obey such order. The revising barrister expunged the name of the appel- lant, and the names of twenty-eight other persons (whose appeals were consolidated with this), holding that their occupation had not been of such a separate 200 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and exclusive nature as to constitute any one of them a person deemed to be an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house as tenant within the meaning of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. The court reversed the decision : Atkinson v. Col/ard, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 254; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 375; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 18; 53 L. T., N. S. 670; 34 W. R. 75. The judgment of the court (delivered by Cave, J.), was as follows : — " The appellant in the case of Atkinson v. Collard is a sergeant in the army, and he claims the vote as having inhabited a dwelling-house by virtue of his service within the meaning of the 3rd section of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. " It was objected that this section does not apply to service in the army, because the crown is not bound by a statute unless named in it. How the rights, prerogatives, or property of the crown are affected by soldiers having votes we cannot see ; but it is enough to say that the crown is named in the statute, as we shall show presently. " Next it was said that it was contrary to public policy that soldiers should have votes. No authority was cited for this proposition. On the contrary, soldiers have always, in respect of the franchise, been treated on the same footing as civilians. " By 8 Geo. II. c. 30, which provides for the removal of soldiers from the vicinity of an election, it is enacted that nothing in the Act contained shall extend to any officer or soldier who shall have a right to vote at any such election, but that every such officer and soldier may freely, and without interruption, attend and give his vote at such election. A similar provision is to be found in 10 Vict. c. 21. It is true that by 22 Geo. III. c. 41, and 8 Geo. IV. c. 53, s. 9, officers of excise and customs and persons engaged in the post office were dis- qualified from voting ; but these disqualifications were finally removed by 31 & 32 Vict. c. 73, which OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 201 recites that it is inexpedient that any person, other- wise entitled to be registered as a voter, should be incapacitated to vote at the election of a member or members to serve in Parliament by reason of his being employed in the collection or management of her Majesty's revenues. " The question, moreover, is put beyond all doubt hy the 9th section of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1884, sub-s. 9, which provides that ' where a man inhabits a dwelling-house, in respect of which no person is rated by reason of such dwell- ing-house belonging to or being occupied on behalf of the crown, or by reason of any other ground of exemption, such person shall not be disentitled to be registered as a voter, &c.' Now a dwelling-house can only be occupied on behalf of the crown by a servant of the crown, or at any rate by some one who is regarded as being in consimili casu with a servant of the crown, so that this provision is a clear indica- tion that servants of the crown are intended to be included within the Act. The other objections made against the vote were of a more special .character. The word ' inhabit ' simply means to dwell in, and there can be no doubt that the appellant inhabits the two rooms in question. It admits of as little doubt that they form a dwelling-house. " By section 5 of the Kegistration Act of 1878, the term ' dwelling-house ' is to include any part of a house where that part is separately occupied as a dwelling ; and it is also provided that ' where an occupier is entitled to the sole and exclusive use of any part of a house, that part of the house shall not be deemed to be occupied otherwise than separately by reason only that the occupier is entitled to the joint use of some other part.' Now the two rooms in question are either themselves a dw T elling-house, or they are part of a dwelling-house, and in the latter case, as they are separately occupied as a dwelling, they form a dwelling-house within that section. " A servant does not the less inhabit a dwelling- 202 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. house, nor is it the less a dwelling-house because the master makes and enforces regulations for the good government of the servant and of his house ; nor does the fact that the master retains himself or delegates to others the power of entering a servant's house for the purpose of maintaining order prevent the servant from having the sole and exclusive use of the house. The next objection is that the dwelling-house was inhabited by a person under whom the appellant served. Now it is obvious that this part of the section cannot apply where the master and servant occupy separate and distinct houses; and, as where the servant inhabits part of a house he must have the sole and exclusive use of that part, this clause can only apply where the servant inhabits part of a house, and the master inhabits the house of a part of which the servant has the sole and exclusive use. Thus, where a butler has the sole and exclusive use of a bedroom in his master's house, it is clear that the dwelling-house is inhabited by the person under whom the butler serves ; and where a gate-keeper has the sole and exclusive use of a cottage at the gate of his master's park, it is equally clear that the dwelling- house is not inhabited by the person under whom he serves. " In the present case the appellant inhabits two rooms in a block of buildings, and there are other rooms in the same block inhabited by other non- commissioned officers, some of them of superior rank to himself. Now it appears impossible to contend that the appellant inhabits the whole block as a dwelling-house ; and, if he inhabits his own two rooms only, it must follow that the other non-com- missioned officers do the same, and consequently that the officer of highest rank also only inhabits his own rooms. If this is not so, either every person in the block must inhabit the whole block, which is absurd, or else, when the officer of highest rank goes away, the next officer immediately and by virtue of his superior rank at once begins to inhabit the whole OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 203 block, having previously* inhabited only his own two rooms. In truth, the senior non-commissioned officer occupies his own two rooms and those only, and cannot inhabit rooms which he does not in fact occupy either by himself or his servants, although undoubtedly the converse does not hold, and a man may occupy what he does not inhabit. In our judgment there is no dwelling-house here of which the appellant occupies a part and the senior non- commissioned officer the whole. Moreover, we think that the appellant in this case does not serve under the senior non-commissioned officer. It is not neces- sary to decide whether a private soldier serves under the captain of his troop or company, or a captain under the colonel of his regiment. A soldier does not serve under everyone of superior rank to himself in the same regiment, and there are no facts stated in the case which warrant the conclusion that the appel- lant served under anybody who inhabited any rooms in the same block of buildings. " These considerations dispose of most of the cases relating to non-cbmmissioned officers and married men. " In the case of Loicn/ v. Collard it was contended that the appellant, in that case a captain, could not have a vote because an officer of superior rank — a major — had quarters in the same block of buildings. This case, however, is not substantially different from that of Atkinson v. Collard, and we think the same considerations apply. The major did not in fact, or constructively, inhabit the whole block, but only his own quarters, and moreover is not a person under whom Captain Lowry served in his office or employment." The above judgment applies to the following cases in addition to those reported post, on pp. 204 — 217 :— Moffit v. Collard (from the city of Canterbury) ; O'Sullirait v. Collard (ditto) ; 204 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Donoghue v. Byrne (from Warrington) ; .Donor/ hue v. Ritchie (ditto) ; Ford v. Pardoe (from the city of Exeter) ; Ford v. Smerdon (ditto) ; McOowan v. Coleman (from Pontefract) ; 'Flaherty v. Chambers (from Maidstone) ; Stothard v. Puree/1 (from the Holderness division of the East Riding of Yorkshire) ; Tilston v. Pott (from Wrexham) ; Sedgwick v. Neville (from the Lichfield division of Staffordshire) . A captain in the King's Dragoon. Guards occupying, by virtue of military service, a room in a. block of buildings, called the officers' quarters in the cavalry barracks, Canterbury, held, in respect of such occu- pation, to be an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling- house within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, although a superior officer occu- pied quarters in the same block.' City of Canterbury. The appellant was a captain in the King's Dragoon Guards, and com- manded the troop of his regiment attached to the cavalry depot at Canterbury. He had occupied during the qualifying period a room in a block of buildings called the " officers' quarters " in the cavalry barracks. Another officer, Major Hickman, occupied similar quarters in the same block, and was the senior officer occupying quarters in such block. The facts did not differ substantially from those in the preceding case (Atkinson v. Collard), but the revising barrister had here found that the appellant had occupied his room under such circumstances as to constitute the inhabitancy of a dwelling-house by virtue of service in the army. The revising barrister, however, expunged the appellant's name on the ground, first, that the OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 205 barracks as a whole must be taken to be the dwelling- house mentioned in the proviso or second part of the third section of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and must be taken to be inhabited by a person under whom the appellant served, viz., the colonel commanding the cavalry depot, or, secondly, that if the particular block of buildings in which the appel- lant's quarters were situated, was to be taken to be the "dwelling-house" in the said proviso mentioned, then the said block was inhabited by a person under whom the appellant served, viz., Major Hickman. The court reversed the decision : Lotcry v. Collard [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—395, ante, p. 200]. Acting quarter-master sergeants in the musketry depot, Gravesend, occupying rooms in the Milton Barracks, held, in respect of such occupation, to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Borough of Gravesend. The respondent ob- jected to the name of the appellant being retained in division II. of the list of occupation voters, on the ground that he had not occupied a dwelling-house as tenant for the qualifying period. The entry in the list was as follows : — McQuillan, James. Milton Barracks. Dwelling- house. Acting Quarter- master Sergeants'' Quarters, Milton, Barracks. The appellant was an acting quarter-master sergeant in the musketry depot, Gravesend, and by virtue of his service under the Queen had occupied for the prescribed period a house or cottage within the Milton Barracks. This house or cottage was one of a block of houses or cottages which were set apart for the occupation of the married men as their quarters, and the said house was marked " acting 206 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. quarter-master sergeants' quarters." If the appellant had not been in barracks, he would have received an allowance as lodging money. There was no internal communication between the appellant's house and the houses on either side of it. No one dwelt in the appellant's house except himself and family. The appellant had his meals in the said house. The keys of the said house (of which keys there were no duplicates) were kept by the appellant, and when on leave he was entitled to take the keys with him. The appellant was not allowed to make any alterations in the rooms or buildings occupied by him. A certain amount of furniture was allowed the appellant in his said house, the amount of the furniture so allowed being regulated in accordance . with the Queen's regulations. The appellant was not allowed to remove any part of such regulation furniture from his house. With the above exception, all the furniture in the appellant's house was the property of the appellant. An inspec- tion of the regulation furniture was made from time to time by the proper officer, who was empowered by the Queen's regulations to enter the appellant's room for the purpose. The appellant would be charged with the value of any regulation furniture that might be found on such inspection to be damaged or missing. The appellant was by special pass allowed out of barracks until 12 o'clock at night, by which time he was bound to be inside the gates, but if he presented himself at the barrack gates after hours, the non-commissioned officer on duty at the gate would be bound to admit him. Between tattoo and reveille, no non-commissioned officer or private was allowed out of barracks without a special pass. It was the duty of the medical officer to inspect the appellant's house at least once a week. But such officer might make a more frequent in- spection if, and when, he might think it desirable to do so. Upon the medical officer giving notice to the appellant of his intention to enter the appellant's OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 207 house, the appellant was bound to admit him. If admission were refused, the medical officer would report the fact to the commanding officer, who would order the door to be broken open. The commanding officer in charge of the barracks did not for any portion of the prescribed period live inside the barracks, the senior officer who lived in the barracks was a major, who occupied a set of rooms therein. The commanding officer in charge of the barracks had the power of entering the appellant's house at any time for the purpose of inspecting the same or for any other cause that he might think reasonable. The appellant was bound to admit the commanding officer into his (the appellant's) house upon request, and if admission was refused the com- manding officer had the power to order the door to be broken open. The commanding officer had the power for any cause that he might think reasonable, to forbid any particular person or persons from entering the appellant's house, and he could exercise a discretion as to what persons he allowed therein, though he would be responsible to a superior authority for an abuse of such power. If the appellant was guilty of improper conduct in his house, the commanding officer could order the military police to enter the house and arrest the appellant, and the military police would be entitled to break open the door for the purpose. The commanding officer could not while the appellant held the post of acting quarter-master sergeant, shift his quarters, because there were no other quarters in the barracks assigned to the acting quarter-master sergeant, but, assuming he had not been in the position of acting quarter-master sergeant, the commanding officer would have had the power of moving him to other quarters at any time, and in the event of his being ordered to shift to other quarters of a like nature to those occupied by him he would have had no option but to obey. 208 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The commanding officer further had the power to close the barracks at any time and to forbid strangers to enter the gates thereof if he thought in the interests of the service that it was advisable to do so. The revising barrister held that the occupation by the appellant and by eleven other persons (who were objected to under similar circumstances, and whose names and qualifications were in a schedule attached to the special case) had not been of such a separate and exclusive nature as was necessary to constitute him or any of them an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, or the Representation of the People Acts, he therefore expunged the names from the list. The court reversed the decision : McQuillan v. Solomon [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—390, ante, p. 200]. Sergeants in the Royal Marines occupying rooms in the Marine Barracks, Chatham, held, in respect of such occupation, to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling- houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884]. Borough of Chatham. The retention of the name of the appellant on the list of occupation voters was objected to on the ground that his occupation was such as not to confer a vote. The entry on the list was as follows : — Herbert, Joseph. I Marine Barracks, I House. | Marine Barracks. Chatham. The appellant was an unmarried sergeant in the Royal Marines. He occupied one room in a block of houses in the barracks, which room was used by him as a sitting-room and a bedroom, but he did not mess in the said room. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 209 The house in which the appellant's room was situate consisted of four stories, the ground floor, in which the appellant's room was, contained five rooms and a passage. Two of these rooms were situate on one side of the passage, which ran down the middle of the building from the outer door to the door of the appellant's room, which was situate at the end of the said passage, opposite to the outer door. The two other rooms were situate at the other side of the passage, opposite the two already mentioned, and the appellant's room was situate at the end of the block. The four rooms other than the appellant's (the dooi*3 of which opened directly on to the pas- sage) were each occupied by several privates in the Marines. The appellant's room was occupied by himself alone, and he had the control over the whole of said floor. There was a staircase leading from this floor to the floors above, which floors were of the same description and tenanted in the same manner as hereinbefore mentioned, a sergeant occupying a room in each of the floors, and having control over the floor in which his room was situate, but no one of superior rank occupied the house in which the appellant lived. There was no entrance into the appellant's room except through the outer door, and along the passage to the door of the appellant's room. The outer door was always kept open. The appellant had the key of the door of his room, and no duplicate of such key was kept, but if the appellant went on leave for more than twenty-four hours, he would be obliged to leave his key behind him with the proper authority. The commanding officer inhabited a house inside the barracks. A certain amount of furniture, consisting of a bed and other necessaries, was in accordance with the rules of the service, allowed the appellant in his said room, and was used by him. He was not allowed to remove any part of such regulation furniture from his room ; but he was allowed to have, and did have, s. p 210 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. additional furniture of his own there. The regu- lation furniture was inspected from time to time, and the appellant was chargeable with the value of any of it that was damaged or missing. No private or non-commissioned officer was allowed out of barracks between tattoo and reveille without a special pass. The appellant was allowed out by a special pass up to 12 o'clock at night, but, assuming that he presented himself at the barrack-gates after hours, the non-commissioned officer stationed on duty at the gate would be bound to let him in. It was the cfuty of the medical officer to inspect the appellant's room at least once a week, but such medical officer might enter the said room for that purpose more frequently, and, indeed, whenever he might think it desirable to do so ; and the appellant, on receiving notice from the medical officer, was bound to admit him. The appellant's room was also liable to be inspected at any time by the commanding officer, and the appellant was bound to admit such officer into his (the appellant's) room upon request. If admission were refused, the commanding officer had the power to order the door to be broken open. The commanding officer might for just cause forbid any particular person or persons from entering the appellant's room. If the appellant was guilty of riotous Or improper conduct in his room, the commanding officer could order the military police to enter the room and arrest the appellant, and the military police would be entitled to break open the door for that purpose. The commanding officer further had the power to change the appellant's quarters at any time for others of the same class ; also to close the barracks at any time and forbid strangers to enter the gates thereof if, and when, he thought in the interest of the service that it was advisable to do so. The Queen's regulations and orders for the army, approved by her Majesty the Queen, and published OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 211 at the Horse Guards War Office on the 10th of May, 1883, apply, so far as matters of discipline are concerned, to the Royal Marines. The revising barrister held that the occupation by the appellant and by thirty-six other persons (who were objected to under similar circumstances, and whose names and qualifications were set out in a schedule attached to the special case) had not been of such a separate and exclusive nature as was necessary to constitute him or any of them an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the meaning of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, or the Representation of the People Acts. He therefore expunged the names from the list. The court reversed the decision : Herbert v. Chat- ham [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—395, ante, p. 200]. Non-commissioned officers and privates occupying rooms in the Winchester Barracks held, in respect of such occupation, to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling- houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. City of Winchester. The appellant and sixty- eight other persons (whose names and qualifications were contained in a schedule attached to the special case) were objected to on the ground {inter alia) that they were not entitled to be registered each as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house under 48 Yict. c. 3, s. 3. The sixty-nine voters in question were all non- commissioned officers or privates in the army, and each of them (except such as were married) had been the sole occupant of separate and the same quarters in Winchester Barracks for the requisite period of qualification. In the case of those who were married, each of whom had likewise occupied separate and the same f2 212 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. quarters for the qualifying period, no persons other than their wives and children had been also inmates of such quarters. The separate quarters of married men consisted of two rooms ; those of the unmarried of a single room only. Such rooms in each case opened on to a common staircase which communicated with the barrack yard. At the foot of some of such staircases there were doors opening into the yard, which doors, however, were never closed. The other staircases had no doors at the foot, and resembled the staircases in the Temple. Each separate quarter was entirely distinct from any other separate quarter, there being no communication whatever between the separate quarters except by means of the common staircase. No rent was paid by anyone for separate quarters. The barracks were in the hands of the commissariat department, of which there was a branch at Win- chester, and there the keys of all vacant quarters were kept. When troops came into barracks a quarter-master or quarter-master sergeant got from the commissariat the keys of as many separate quarters as were required, and he allotted the rooms, and handed to the occupants the keys, which they retained as long as they occupied. Every soldier whether married or not had to answer the roll call. All separate quarters were liable to be inspected for the purpose of ascertaining their condition as regards repair and cleanliness, and in the event of offences against discipline. The commanding officer could change a man's separate quarters, and had power to confine the whole of a corps to barracks if necessary. The barracks were surrounded by walls in which were gates communicating with the public street. These gates were locked at 10 p.m., and sentries were put over them. Unless they had leave, neither non- commissioned officers nor privates were allowed to be out of barracks after the gates were locked, and no non-commissioned officer or private could be out of OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 213 barracks after his time of leave had expired without being " absent " and guilty of a military offence. Privates had to put out their lights at 10.15 p.m. Sergeant-majors, sergeants, and other non-commis- sioned officers were allowed lights till a later hour, according to the time when their leave expired. Leave was granted to all sergeants, but such leave might be cancelled or rescinded. Two or three pickets went out every night to pick up non-com- missioned officers or privates who might be drunk or disorderly, or out without leave. No man was locked into his quarters at any time, but it was the duty of the sentries to challenge any non-commissioned officer or private coming out of quarters into the barrack yard at night, and if necessary to detain the man, and call the sergeant of the guard. The revising barrister decided that the above- mentioned system of control and restriction was inconsistent with the ordinary incidents of tenancy and disentitled the voters in question to be registered as inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses within the meaning of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. He accordingly expunged the names of the said sixty-nine persons from the list of voters. The court reversed the decision : Boxall v. Bailey [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—395, ante, p. 200]. Officers and non-commissioned officers occupying rooms in the Copthorne Barracks, Shrewsbury, held, in respect of such occupation, to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses within section 3 of the Represen- tation of the People Act, 1884. Borough of Shrewsbury. The following persons claimed to have their names inserted in the list of 214 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Inhabitant Householders : — George Newton Fendall, William Francis Annesley Wallace, Claude George Henry Sitwell, James Wylie, Peter Murphy and Thomas Mara. Each claim stated the place of abode of the claimant to be " The Barracks, Copthorne," the nature of qualification, "dwelling-house (service)," and the name and situation of the qualifying property, " The Barracks, Copthorne." The claimants were officers and non-commissioned officers of the 53rd regimental district, and were stationed in, and inhabited, the Copthorne Barracks in the borough of Shrewsbury. The barracks con- sisted of several blocks of buildings surrounded by an enclosure wall. One of the blocks was named the " officers' quarters," another the " quarter-master's house," another the " married quarters," another " McLeod's block," &c. Each block was separate and detached from the other blocks. Colonel FendalPs claim. — The claimant was the colonel in command of the 53rd regimental district and of the barracks, and was the officer of the highest rank therein. He lived in, and had the sole and exclusive use of certain rooms in the " officers' quarters" block. No one had a right to enter them without his permission. Lieutenant Wallace's claim. — The claimant was a lieutenant and adjutant. He lived in, and occupied and had the sole and exclusive use of, a bed-room, sitting-room, and kitchen, in the "officers' quarters" block. All the furniture of his rooms was provided by him. His rooms were separate and distinct from those of the colonel, and at the other end of the block, and had an outer door opening into a passage. The claimant had keys of that door. The colonel had no key of it nor, as the claimant said, any right to visit the rooms, or to turn him (the claimant) out of them. He said in evidence that in his opinion the colonel was not justified in entering the rooms even, OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 215 to suppress any disorder there, and that he had no more right of entry than that of a police officer to enter a private house. But the colonel could arrest the claimant. Lieutenant Sificell's claim. — The claimant was a lieutenant who occupied other rooms in the " officers' quarters," and whose case was identical with that of Lieutenant Wallace. Quarter-master Wylie's claim. — The claimant with his wife lived in a distinct house with a railing round it in the barracks. He occupied the whole house, and had the same exclusive right as that which the lieutenants had to their respective quarters. Sergeant-Major Murphy's claim. — The claimant was a warrant officer, that is to say, a non-commissioned officer of superior grade. He lived with his wife and four children in the " married quarters " block, and occupied, and had the sole and exclusive use of, six rooms therein. There was a separate entrance and passage exclusively for his use from the barrack yard into his rooms. It was not possible to pass by that entrance or passage into any other quarters in the block. About thirty non-commissioned officers also had quarters in the " married quarters " block. The colonel gave previous written notice to the claimant of any visit by the colonel to the claimant's rooms. There was no periodical visitation of them by the colonel, but he could visit them when he liked, and the claimant would not exclude him. The other officers had not, as far as the claimant knew, any right to enter his rooms unless to give orders, and when any officer came to the rooms he knocked at the door and waited until it was opened. Sergeant Mara's claim. — The claimant was a sergeant. He was a single man. He lived in "McLeod's block," and occupied one room on the 216 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. second story upstairs, which room formed his bed- room and sitting-room. He had the sole and exclu- sive use of this room, and had the key of it. Some of the furniture in the room was supplied by the government, and some belonged to the claimant. He had not his meals in the room but had them at mess. The orderly officer might visit the room when he liked to see if it was clean, and that no improper use was made of it. The claimant was allowed by the government a room to himself because he held the rank of sergeant. About fifty soldiers lived in the " HcLeod's block " which contained four barrack rooms, each of which was a sleeping place intended for twenty-eight men. This block and others like it were each in charge of a non-commissioned officer. The non-commissioned officer in charge of the block supervised it. Different non-commissioned officers looked after each such block. Most of the claimants had lived in the respective premises for several years. If they did not live in the barracks an allowance, in addition to their pay, would be made to them for quarters elsewhere. The revising barrister decided that the barracks did not form one dwelling-house only, but consisted of a number of dwelling-houses. That the quarter- master's house was one separate dwelling-house of which the claimant, Wylie, was alone the '-' inhabitant occupier," and that the respective rooms or " quarters " occupied solely by each claimant respectively, were in each case part of a house separately occupied as a dwelling, and, therefore, by 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, s. 5, included in the term " dwelling-house " for the pur- poses of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and a " dwelling-house " within 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3, by the effect of section 11 of that Act. That inas- much as such part so being a " dwelling-house " was in each case " inhabited " by the claimant, and was "not inhabited by any person under whom such man served," he should be deemed to be an " inhabit- ant occupier of such dwelling-house as tenant," and OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 217 that a right of visitation and inspection, even if possessed and exercised by a superior officer for the purposes of military discipline, was not inconsistent with the claimant's right of occupation under 48 Vict. c. 3, or with his " sole and exclusive use " of the dwelling- house within the meaning of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 2t>, s. 5. He accordingly allowed the claims. The court affirmed the decision : Roberts v. Murphy [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 391—395, ante, p. 200]. Although actual inhabitancy during each day of the qualifying year is not required in order to .satisfy the terms of section 3 of the Representation of the People Ad, 1884, there must nevertheless be a con- structice inhabitancy ; but to make out constructive inhabitancy, voter must show that he had an inten- tion to return after a temporary absence and a power of returning at any time without breach of any legal obligation (a). Ford v. Barnes, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 254 ; 1 Colt., Reg. Cas. 396; 55 L. J. Q. B. I). 24; 53 L. T., N. S. 675 ; 34 W. R. 78. (a) See now 54 & 55 Vict. c. 11, s. 2, allowing four months' absence " in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service, or employment." 218 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where an industrial trainer of a workhouse, paid and employed by the poor law guardians, by whose per- mission he had, by virtue of his employment, the exclusive use and occupation of a bed-room and sitting-room in the workhouse as his dwelling, the guardians reserving (///other room in the house for their own use as a board-room, and the master of the workhouse (also paid and employed by the guar- dians) living in another part of the workhouse building, but without control over the industrial trainer, sure by reporting him to the guardians for disobedience, held first, that the industrial trainer inhabited a " dwelling-house " by virtue of his em- ployment within .section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 ; secondly, that the workhouse was not inhabited by any person under whom the industrial trainer -screed, as neither the guardians nor the master inhabited the whole workhouse ; and thirdly, that the industrial trainer did not serve undo- the master. City of Exeter. The appellant, whose name was on the occupiers' list, was objected to on the ground that he had not occupied the qualifying property as owner or tenant. The appellant's name appeared on the .list in the following form : — Adams, John. I Union workhouse, I Dwelling- I Okehampton Okehampton. | house. Road. The appellant was an industrial trainer, appointed, paid, and employed by poor law guardians. As part of his salary, the appellant was allowed to have the exclusive use and occupation of two rooms, namely, a sitting-room and bed-room, situate in the main building of the workhouse ; and during the whole of the qualifying period he separately occupied the said rooms as a dwelling by virtue of his employ- ment as industrial trainer at the workhouse. The OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 219 guardians reserved another room in the main build- ing of the workhouse as a board room. The master of the workhouse (also appointed, paid, and employed by the guardians) resided in other rooms, situate in another part of the workhouse building. By the poor law orders it was the duty of the master of the workhouse to receive from the porter the keys of the workhouse at 9 o'clock every night, and to re-deliver them to him at 6 o'clock every morning, or at such hours as should from time to time be fixed by the guardians. The appellant could not stay out of his rooms after 9 p.m. without the master's permission. If, however, he did stay out after 9 p.m. without such permission, the master would have no power to suspend or dismiss him, but would report the matter to the guardians, who would deal with it either by repri- mand or dismissal. Save in this respect, the appel- lant was not subject to the orders or control of the master. It was contended by the objector that the appellant was a lodger in the rooms allotted to him by reason of the master of the workhouse (his official superior) residing in another part of the same building, and controlling the appellant in his right of ingress and egress to and from the said premises. It was con- tended on behalf of the appellant that he, having inhabited the rooms in question, and having had the separate use and occupation of the same for the necessary period by virtue of his office and employ- ment, and his employers (the guardians) not having inhabited the said rooms or the said main building of the workhouse, was by virtue of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house as tenant. The revising barrister decided that the residence of the master of the workhouse (the official superior of the appellant) was, in law, the residence of his employers (the guardians of the poor), and the fact 220 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. that the appellant could not stay out of his rooms after 9 p.m. without the permission of the master, and was liable to be reported if he did so, was an exercise of control sufficient in law to prevent his being an occupying tenant of a dwelling-house within the Representation of the People Act, 1884. He accordingly expunged the appellant's name. The court (reversing the decision), held, firstly, that the appellant inhabited a " dwelliug-house " by virtue of his employment within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 ; secondly, that the workhouse was not inhabited by any person under whom the appellant served, as neither the guardians nor the master could be regarded as in- habiting the whole workhouse ; and thirdly, that the appellant, in the absence of any power of dismissal by the master, did not serve under him : Adams v. Ford, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 239 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 403 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. I). 13 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 666. Shop assistants separately occupying, by virtue of their employment, furnished bedrooms in a dwelling-house belonging to their employers, and sharing a sitting- room therein for their meals, the employers mot residing in the house, but exercising a gene ml con- trol over it by means of a resident caretaker, and supplying -service by means of a resident domestic servant, were held to be entitled to the franchise, each as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, under 48 Viet. e. 3, s. 3. Borough of St. Pancras (South Division). — The appellant claimed under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 ; he had, during the qualifying period, been employed as a shop assistant, and, by virtue of such employment, had during the same period inhabited solely one furnished bedroom in a dwelling-house belonging to his employers. The house contained other bedrooms, OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 8. 221 similarly inhabited by other persons in the same employment as the appellant ; also a dining room, in which the appellant and the other inmates had their meals (provided for them by their emj)loyers) in common. The appellant's bedroom was not structurally severed from the rest of the house, nor separately rated, and the appellant had no key of the room- door. The appellant's employers had not, during any part of the qualifying period, lived on the premises, but had exercised throughout the said period general control over the whole house, such control being enforced through a resident caretaker, who discharged the following duties : — At a certain hour every night he locked the street- door (the only means of ingress and egress to and from the house) for the night, and took possession of the key, having previously required all visitors to leave the house. After locking the door for the night, he turned off the gas, by which all the rooms in the house were lighted, and saw that no lamp or candle was thereafter kept burning in any of the rooms. The employers also performed by a resident ser- vant (not under the orders of the inmates) the requisite domestic service for the bedrooms and house generally. It was contended at the revision court on behalf of the appellant and twelve other persons, whose appeals were consolidated with his, that the several bedrooms occupied by them respectively were dwelling-houses for the purposes of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and that the appellant and the said twelve other persons were, under that section, entitled to be placed on the list of voters, each as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house as a tenant. The revising barrister decided that by reason of the control exercised, and service performed by the employers as above stated, the bedrooms in ques- tion were not separately occupied as dwellings within 222 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, s. 5, and therefore were not dwelling-houses for the purposes of the Representa- tion of the People Acts, 1867 and 1884, and he accordingly disallowed the claims. The court held (reversing the decision) that the conditions of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, had been complied with, and con- secpiently that the appellant and the said twelve other persons were entitled to be registered each as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house as a tenant within that section : Strib/itiq v. Hake, L. R. 16 Q,. P. D. 246 ; 55 L. J. Q. P. D. 15 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 409 ; 54 L. T., N. S. 268. The effect of section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, is merely to remove from members of the University of Cambridge the particular disqualification which had previously attached to them, and not to confer on them a more extensive franchise than that enjoyed l)i/ an ordinary inhabitant occupier of a dwelling- house. Therefore Cambridge undergraduates, being prevented by college discipline from occupying their rooms in college throughout the entire period of qualification prescribed by statute, are not entitled to a rote in respect of such rooms. Porough of Cambridge. The appellant was objected to on the list of inhabitant occupiers. He was a student attached to one of the colleges in the University of Cambridge. He had occupied a set of rooms in college for the qualifying period at a yearly rental, payable by three terminal payments. The rates were paid by the college and were charged to the appellant with the rent. There was no express agreement with regard to the hire of the rooms, which were furnished and kept in internal repair by the appellant. The rooms had an outer door opening on to a common staircase. There were two keys to this OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 223 door, one kept by the appellant, and the other by the college servant who attended to the rooms. By the latter key the college authorities obtained access to the rooms when required. The appellant was bound to employ the college servants to attend upon him in his rooms. The rooms formed part of the college buildings which were approached from the street by an outer gate, of which the college authorities had the control, and the appellant, who was in all respects subject to the discipline of the college, could not go out or bring friends into the college by this outer gate after 10 p.m. It was a breach of college discipline for a student to remain out of college after midnight. Students were not permitted to reside in or visit their rooms during the vacations, winch extended to about half the year, without the express permission of the college authorities. During such vacations the rooms were occasionally used by the college authorities for visitors for short periods, without the express consent of the students. When the rooms were so used for long periods such consent was usually obtained. Students were liable to removal from their rooms, without notice, for mis- conduct or breach of the rules. No married student was permitted to reside in the rooms with his wife. By the Cambridge Award Act, 1856 (19 & 20 Vict. c. xvii.), it is provided by section 24, that, " as respects college property, the whole thereof shall be deemed to be in the occupation of the college, although parts may be exclusively occupied by individual members or students." It was contended by the respondent at the revision court, that by reason of this enactment there could be no occupation of college property by . students ; also that the appellant was not an inhabitant occu- pier as tenant of a dwelling-house within the meaning of section 3, sub-section 2, of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. 224 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. It was contended "by the appellant, that such occupation was rendered unnecessary in the case of the appellant by reason of the proviso in section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885 ; also that the appel- lant was an inhabitant occupier as tenant of a dwelling-house within the meaning of the Act of 1867. The names of 509 other persons were objected to under like circumstances, The revising barrister decided that by reason of the proviso in section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, the Cambridge Award Act did not prevent the appellant from being regis- tered as a parliamentary voter in respect of his occupation of the rooms ; but that the appellant was not an inhabitant occupier as tenant of a dwelling- house within the Act of 1867, and that such occupa- tion was not rendered unnecessary in the case of the appellant by reason of the proviso in section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, and he accordingly expunged the names of the appellant and the said other persons from the list. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the effect of section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, was merely to place occupiers of college chambers on the same footing, in relation to the franchise, as other inhabitant occupiers, and consequently that, as the appellants had not inhabited, and had. no power without permission from the college authorities to inhabit, their rooms during the prescribed statutory period of residence, they were not entitled to be placed on the register : Tanner v. Carter, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 231 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 435 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 27 (sub tit. Tanner v. Castor) ; 34 W. R. 41 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 663. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 225 The effect of section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, is merely to remove from members of the University of Oxford the particular disqualification which had previous/// attached to them, ami not to confer on them a more extensive franchise than that enjoyed by an ordinary inhabitant occupier of a dwelling- house. Therefore Oxford undergraduates, being prevented by college discipline from occupying their rooms in college throughout the entire period of qualification prescribed by statute, are not entitled to a vote in respect of such rooms. City of Oxford. The respondent objected to the appellant and others (whose appeals were consolidated with this), being retained on the occupiers' list on the ground {inter alia), as to each appellant: — 1. That he had not occupied, either as owner or tenant. 2. That he had not occupied for twelve months to July 15th. 3. That he had not been an inhabitant occupier for twelve months up to July 15th. The following facts were established by the evidence : — Every name objected to was that of an under- graduate, occupying rooms in a college or hall of the University of Oxford. No formal agreement for a tenancy was entered into between the college on the one side, and the undergraduates on the other ; but in some of the colleges printed copies of the college regulations were supplied to the undergraduate when he came into residence. No notice to quit was given by either side previous to the surrender of a set of rooms. The colleges reserved to themselves the right to enter an undergraduate's room when they thought fit, and, in Balliol College, the right was claimed (to be exercised with reason), of using the rooms for academical purposes, such as a college s. Q 226 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. meeting or lecture. The general right was qualified in the case of Queen's College, where it existed only in the person of the junior bursar acting as landlord on behalf of the college for landlord purposes. In every college an annual rent was paid by the undergraduate by three terminal payments, i.e., at Easter, Midsummer, and Christmas. Rates were paid for the whole of the year in every instance by the undergraduate, either directly or indirectly : and in some colleges, where the value of the rooms per- mitted, the inhabited house duty as well. The undergraduate was also charged for repairs and dilapidations. In some of the colleges the furniture was the ex- clusive property of the college, and a charge for the use of it was included in the rent ; but under- graduates were allowed to make their own additions ; while in other colleges they furnished their rooms themselves. In Balliol an undergraduate could not even add to his furniture without permission of his college. A servant was attached to each set of rooms, and was provided with a key, which enabled him to enter the rooms as he pleased. The servant was supplied by the college, and the undergraduate had no voice in his selection. At the end of each term the undergraduate was required to vacate his rooms, and to return to them at the commencement of the new term. During term he could not leave his rooms so as to go outside the college after 9 p.m., nor could he enter the college so as to get to his rooms after that hour, except by payment of a fine, which was in- creased in amount according to the lateness of the hour at which he returned. During vacation an undergraduate could not reside in his rooms without permission, but he was allowed to keep in them his furniture and personal effects. It was usual in vacation for the college authorities, in some instances, to lend an undergraduate's rooms to visitors without asking leave of the undergraduate. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 227 this consent being taken for granted ; and in one college (Wadham) an instance was given where an undergraduate was refused permission to occupy his rooms in vacation on the ground that they had been lent by the college ; and in another (Keble), it was usual in the long vacation to lend all the rooms in the college to members of the diocesan conference, without in any way consulting the undergraduate occupants. The undergraduate had the use of one key of his rooms, and his servant had the use of another. In every college the tenure of an undergraduate's rooms was subject to good behaviour, and the require- ments of discipline, of which the college authorities constituted themselves the sole judges. It was proved, in the case of every name objected to, that the undergraduate in point of fact did not and could not, without leave, occupy //is rooms during the vacation; and that these vacations, of which there were three, comprised a period of six months in the year. DuriDg these vacations an undergraduate was allowed to occupy his rooms by means of his furni- ture and personal effects, and in some cases he could retain the key, but his control over the key and his personal effects was qualified by the fact that he could not use the one or touch the other without permission. The barrister decided, in the case of each appellant, that he was not on the loth of July then last, and had not, during the whole of the preceding twelve months, been an inhabitant occupier as " owner or tenant " of any dwelling-house within the borough as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1867 ; and further, that he had not during such period been an " inhabitant occupier " of a dwelling- house within the meaning of that Act. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the effect of section 15 of the Registration Act, 1885, was merely to place occupiers of college chambers on the same footing in relation to the franchise as other inhabitant occupiers, and consequently that, as the q2 228 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. appellants had not inhabited, and had no power without permission from the college authorities to inhabit, their rooms during the prescribed statutory period of residence, they were not entitled to be placed on the register: Banks v. Mansell, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 231; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 435 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 27 ; 34 W. E. 41 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 663. Where a non-commissioned officer, inhabiting separate rooms in barracks as a dwelling-house by virtue of military service, teas compelled by the rules of such service to be absent from his quarters in barracks for twenty-seven days of the qualifying year, it was held that such absence constituted a break of residence disqualifying him for the franchise under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (a). Spittall v. Brook, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. 426 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. D. 48; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 22; 35 W. E. 520. Successive occupation of tiro dwelling-houses, one by virtue of service under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and the other as an ordinary householder under the provisions of section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 {extended to counties by section 2 of the Rep resented ion of the People Act, 1884), constitutes a qualification for the parliamentary franchise, notwithstanding the diffe- rent nature of the occupation of the tiro houses. North Eiding of Yorkshire (Whitby Divi- sion). E. claimed to be placed on Division 2 of the Occupiers' List as the occupier of two dwelling-houses (a) See now 54 & 55 Vict. c. 11, s. 2, allowing four months' absence "in the performance of any duty arising from or incidental to any office, service, or employment." OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 229 in immediate succession. He had occupied the first house by virtue of service under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and the second as an ordinary tenant householder under section 26 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. The revising barrister decided that the different nature of the claimant's occupation of the two houses was fatal to his claim, and accordingly disallowed it. The court (reversing the decision) held that, the fact of successive occupation of the two dwelling- houses being established, the question as to the charac- ter of such occupation (whether as servant or as ordi- nary tenant) was immaterial for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise : Nicholson v. Yeoman, L. R. 24 U. B. D. 145 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 150. Absence of certain householders from their dwellings in the borough of Warrington for twenty-six days of the qualifying year, owing to their being in camp at Alt car for their annual training as militiamen, in accordance with the Queen's Regulations, held to constitute a break of residence disqualifying them for the franchise, as they could not quit the camp without permission (a) . The revisiug barrister, being of opinion that the facts of the case disclosed no legal compulsion of absence, disallowed the objections, and retained the names of Gr. B. and W. J. on the list of voters. The court (reversing the decision) held, in accord- ance with Ford v. Barnes (L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 254), and Spitted v. Brook (L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 426), that Gr. B. and W. J. were, as militiamen, under a legal compulsion to be absent from their homes during (a) All such disqualifications were removed by the Electoral Disabilities Removal Act, 1891 (54 & 55 Vict. c. 11, s. 2), allowing four months' absence "in the performance of any duty," &c. 230 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. part of the qualifying year, and consequently there was a break of their residence, which disentitled them to have their names retained on the list of voters : Donoghue v. Brook, 57 L. J. Q. B. D. 122 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 100 ; 58 L. T., N. S. 411. A policeman's cubicle (in a police barrack) of which he had exclusive occupation by virtue of his service, which was one out of seven in the .same dormitory, and which was inclosed on three sides by partitions reaching up to within tiro feet of the common ceiling, and /chic// shared air and (///slight in common with the others, and the furniture of which was supplied by the count//, an/l where la 1 neither /cashed nor ate his meals, and over which (though not in fact restricted in its use during the qualifying period) the superintendent had general control, is not a part of a house " separately occupied as a dwelling" under section 5 of 41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26, so as to (//title the policeman to the franchise. Borough of Gloucester. Police constable C. was objected to on Division 2 of the Occupiers' List as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house for twelve months to 15th July, 1895, in respect of his cubicle, on the ground that the cubicle could not be deemed to be " separatelj 1- occupied as a dwelling" under the above section, because, on account of the facts stated in the headnote, the cubicle was not in fact separately occupied. The revising barrister overruled a point taken that the notice of objection did not properly raise this objection, and, holding that the case was indistinguishable from Burnett v. Hielnnott (see post, p. 234), decided in favour of the objection. The Court of Appeal, upholding the decision on both points, and also that of the Divisional Court OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 231 to the same effect, held, having been informed by the chief constable that, in addition to the facts stated in the headnote, the chief constable had power to change at any time the constable's cubicle, and to order him not to receive visitors therein ; also not to take his meals, or wash or smoke therein ; also not to enter it in the daytime ; also to open his door to the superintendent at any time ; — that all these facts were inconsistent with the idea of separate occupation of a dwelling-house, and that the cubicle was not, therefore, separately occupied as a dwelling : Clutterbuck v. Taylor, 1 Smith's Reg. Cas. 59 ; L. R. (1896) 1 Q. B. 395 ; 65 L. J. Q. B. D. 314. A man had a shop at Wigan, where he carried on busi- ness all day, and where he had only slept on tivo occasions during the qualifying period on tiro eJiairs. He tired more than seven miles away, at Southport. Held, that he had not, within 2 ty 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27, "resided" at Wigan, or within seven miles thereof. Borough of Wigan. B. carried on at Wigan the business of a draper during all the business hours of every weekday, received all his correspondence there, took his meals there, but had no sleeping accommodation there, and had only twice in the qualifying half-year slept there on two chairs. He lived more than seven miles off, at Southport. B. was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List as not having " resided " for six calendar months next previous to 15th July, 1892, within or within seven miles of the borough. The revising barrister upheld the objection. The court (affirming the decision) held that he was right. Section 27 distinguishes between occu- pation and residence, and requires a person who occupies to reside also within the borough, or within seven miles of it. It had been held for centuries 232 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. that where a man lives and sleeps and has his home is his residence : Barlow v. Smith, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 293. Where, during the qualifying year up to May 24, the whole of a house had been occupied for business purposes by T., and (the business having been turned into a limited company) after that date for the remainder of the qualifying period a part only of that house had been occupied by T. as tenant to the company, held that there was no break in the con- tinuity of T.'s occupation. Borough of Widnes. The name of T. was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List on the ground that he had not occupied the tenement in question, 115, Waterloo Road, as owner or tenant during the whole of the qualifying twelve months. The whole of No. 115 had been up till May 24, 1894, occupied by T. and his partner jointly for their business purposes as soap manufacturers. On that day the business was converted into a limited liability company, and the company demised to T. and his partner jointly a room, part of the premises in ques- tion, which they thenceforward occupied jointly. It was conceded that T.'s right to remain on Division 1 could not be sustained ; but his right to be inserted in Division 3, for which a claim had been made, was insisted on. The revising barrister decided against the claim. The court (reversing the decision) held, that a change in the character of the occupation did not constitute a break of occupation, when the occupation had continued in fact : and that the case was within the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882 (45 & 46 Yict. c. 50, s. 9, sub-s. 2 (b) ) : Timmis v. Albiston, L. R. (1895) 2 Q. B. 58 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. D. 564. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 233 Occupation (by one of four canons of a cathedral chapter during the residential period of three months) of the common canonical residence is not an occupation either jointly or severally for the qualifying period of twelve months within the Representation of the People Act, 1884, sections 5 and 7, sub-s. 7. Borough of Bangor. T., a canon of Bangor Cathedral, was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List for the borough on the ground that he had not occupied the qualifying premises, viz., the common canonical residence, either as owner or tenant, during the whole of the qualifying period of twelve months. T. was one of four residentiary canons, who, by mutual agreement, usually occupied each successively for their three months' period of residence, the one residence allotted by the chapter for that purpose. During the interval between each canon's period of residence, a servant in the common employment of the four canons took care of the residence, and pre- pared it for the incoming canon, who, when in resi- dence, had his own servants to attend on him, and the exclusive use both of the residence and of the furniture, which was the common property of all four canons. The revising barrister disallowed the objection, holding that T. had for the whole qualifying period of twelve months occupied constructively the resi- dence as owner or tenant. The court (reversing the decision) held, that Durant v. Carter (L. E. 9 C. P. 261 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 17) was conclusive against such occupation constituting occu- pation for twelve months within the above sections : Rowland v. Prichard, 62 L. J. Q. B. D. 319 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 310 ; 68 L. T. 586. 234 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. A policeman's cubicle (being one out of twelve similarly occupied in the same dormitory in the station) which he occupied by reason of his service, 12 ft. long by 8 ft. wide, three sides of which were enclosed by a wooden partition 7 ft. high, reaching up to within &ft. of the ceiling, each man being entitled to lock up his cubicle, the passage, air, and light being com- mon to all the other occupants, is not " separately occupied . ... as a dwelling," within the meaning of section 5 of the Registration Act, 1878. Borough of Reading. H. a policeman was ob- jected to on Division 2 of the Occupiers' List as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house in respect of his cubicle. The above are the main facts of the case, which, however, is not fully reported here, as the same state of facts occurred in the subsequent case of a policeman's cubicle in Clutterbuck v. Taylor, see ante, p. 231, in which the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the revising barrister and of the Divi- sional Court in this case, in favour of the objection. The revising barrister decided, and, if and so far as the question was one of fact for him he so found, that the cubicle was not sufficiently separated from the rest of the dormitory as to constitute part of a house " separately occupied as a dwelling." The court (supporting his decision) held accord- ingly, inasmuch as the cubicle, being open at the top, each occupant to some extent shared the warmth, air, and light of the dormitory as a whole, precluding the idea of that complete privacy implied in the separate occupation of a dwelling : Burnett v. Hiekmott, L. R. (1895) 1 a B. 691 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. D. 407 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 412; 72 L. T., N. S. 236; 43 W. R. 284. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 235 The fact of an occupier as tenant of a dwelling-house having been adjudicated a bankrupt during' the qualifying year held not to constitute a break in the voter's occupation as tenant, where the trustee in bankruptcy had not interfered, and the landlord continued to accept rent from the occupier, as before the adjudication. City of York. W. B. was objected to on the list of voters, wherein his qualification was described as " dwelling-house, Walmgate." The ground of objection was that he had not occupied as tenant the house in question throughout the qualifying period, 1889 — 1890. He was a yearly tenant ; he was ad- judicated bankrupt on the 17th of October, 1889. His occupation of the house was never disturbed by the landlord or anyone else, so that from the commence- ment to the end of the qualifying period it was continuous. For the residue of the period after the adjudication, the landlord on the usual quarter days accepted the rent from the voter. No act of any kind in relation to the bankrupt and his dwelling- house was ever done or signified by anyone officially connected with the bankruptcy. Under these circum- stances, the revising barrister considered this occu- pation of the dwelling-house to have been always clothed with the legal character of tenancy, at first by contract, then by implication of the common law as a tenancy at will, and subsequently, by acceptance of the rent, as a yearly tenancy. He therefore dis- allowed the objection, and retained the name of W. B., and three other names objected to on the same ground, on the list of voters. The court affirmed the decision : Machau v. McGuire, L. R. (1891) 1 Q. B. 250; Fox and Smith's Eeg. Cas. 201 ; 39 W. E. 109 ; 55 J. P. 214. 236 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The occupation of " stanch " in Spitalfields Market, at annual payments of more than £10 for each stand, held to be an occupation of "land or tenement" so as to qualify under section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Borough of the Tower Hamlets (Whitechapel Division). Two voters — Charles Allen and Jabez Charles Abbott — were objected to on the list of occu- piers, wherein their names appeared as follows : — Spitalfields Stand. Spitalfields Market. Market. Abbott, Jabez Charles Spitalfields Stand. Spitalfields Market. Market. The grounds of objection relied on in each case were : — That the voter had not occupied as tenant the premises described on the overseers' list continuously for twelve months to July 15, 1891, and that he had no land or tenement within the meaning of section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. The facts of the case were substantially as fol- lows : — Spitalfields Market comprised an area of land situate on the west side of Commercial Street, and was owned by H. as lessee from the freeholder, and was used for the sale of vegetables and fruit. The market was bounded on the east side thereof bj r the back walls of the houses in Commercial Street, and was covered with a glass roof supported by columns to protect it from the weather, and, except on the east side thereof, there were no walls or other erec- tions beyond iron railings separating the market from the adjoining streets or property. The site of the market was let by H. in separate plots or pieces of land, commonly called " stands," to numerous persons, and two of these stands, which were respec- tively of more than £10 annual value, were let by E., as to one of them, to the said Charles Allen, and OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 237 as to the other, to the said Jabez Charles Abbott, who had for the qualifying period respectively occupied the same stands. The market was rated as one property, and the rates had been duly paid by H. The practice was to let these stands to the occu- piers for specified periods arranged between them and the owner of the market, according to the requirements of the occupier, and for the tenancies to continue until determined by notice to quit. There was no fixed time for which such notice had to be given, but it was usual for H., when he desired to remove a tenant, to give a notice which was gene- rally, but not invariably, in writing. The stands were not numbered, nor had they any distinguishing marks on them, but the precise position in the market of the stand or piece of land which each occupier was entitled to, though not enclosed by EL, was defined and well known to him and to the occupier of such stand, and to the occupiers of all the other stands in the market, and any person desiring to find the stand of a particular occupier could readily do so by inquiring of any of the porters at the market, or of any person acquainted with it. Each stand occu- pier paid a fixed rent for his stand, which was, in the respective cases of the persons objected to, more than £10 per annum, and this rent was payable by the occupier, whether the stand was actually used by him or not. In addition to the fixed rent, each stand occupier had to pay toll to the owner in respect of the goods which he (the stand occupier) sold. In a consider- able part of the market, the stands were boarded over or paved, and stalls were placed thereon by the occupiers for the purpose of exposing their goods for view and sale, and these stalls were in almost every instance separated from the adjoining stands by wooden or other movable partitions, and in most cases the name of the occupier was placed by him on a board within the stall, and the goods often re- 238 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. mained in the stalls during the night. The said Charles Allen occupied a stall of this description. The remaining part of the market consisted of an open space paved with stone, and each occupier of a stand or piece of land on this part of the market occupied and used the same for the purpose of bring- ing thereon his carts and waggons, from which, and from the piece of ground occupied by him, his goods were offered for sale. The said Jabez Charles Abbott occupied a stand of this description. Upon proof of the facts above stated, the revising barrister disallowed the objections, and retained in the list the names of Charles Allen and Jabez Charles Abbott ; also the names of twenty -two persons occu- pying stands upon which stalls had been placed as mentioned in the case, and the names of twenty-four other persons occupying stands on the said open piece of ground. The court, considering that the revising barrister's conclusions were not inconsistent with the facts found by him, affirmed the decision : Hall v. Metcalfe, L. R. (1892) 1 Q. B. 208; 61 L. J. Q. B. D. 53 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 227. ( 239 ) MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE. The municipal franchise is unaffected by section 3 of the Be}) resent at ion of the People Act, 1884, which operates as an extension of the parliamentary fran- chise only. Borough of Brighton. Appellant's name was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List for the parish of Brighthelmstone. The qualifying premises were a coffee-house (22, Carlton Hill), let by the owner to a committee, who put in appellant to live there and manage the place as their servant. The premises were rated in the name of appellant as occupier, and the receipts for rates were made out in his name. The occupation was such as to render appellant an inhabitant occupier by virtue of office service or employment under section 3 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1884, and he was therefore entitled to be on Division 2. The revising barrister held that appellant did not possess a municipal as well as a parliamentary quali- fication, and transferred accordingly his name from Division 1 to Division 2. The court affirmed the decision : Maclean v. Pricharcl, L. R. 20 U. B. D. 285 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 94 ; 58 L. T., N. S. 337 ; 36 W. R. 508. 240 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. NOTICES OF CLAIM— COUNTIES. A notice of claitn (Parliamentary and Local Govern- ment) may be signed in the claimant's name by a clerk to a person authorized by the claimant to make and sign such claim on his behalf, if the clerk in signing the name is acting under the express direction of the person so authorized. Harborough Division of the County of Leices- ter and Administrative County of Leicester. A notice of claim for Division 1 (of proper form and date), purporting to have been signed by Thomas Brown (the appellant), was delivered to the overseers of the parish of N. P., and was published by them in terms of the claim as part of the list of occupation claimants in the ordinary course. On the name of the said Thomas Brown being called on at the Revision Court for proof of due notice of claim, Frederick Tombs (the respondent) opposed the re- tention of the said name in the list, on the ground that the signature, " Thomas Brown/' was not written by that gentleman, and that the claim was therefore bad. The facts relating to the said signa- ture were as follows : — The said Thomas Brown gave an authority in writing to one C. Coppack to make and sign a claim for him to vote as a Parliamentary, or Local Government, elector, or both, as he might seem qualified. The said C. Coppack, instead of affixing the name of Thomas Brown to the claim himself, directed one J. W. Pearce (a clerk in C. Coppack's office) to do so, and the said J. W. Pearce accordingly signed Thomas Brown's name at the foot of the said notice of claim. The revising barrister, although satisfied that the document in NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 241 question really and in fact emanated from the said Thomas Brown, was not satisfied, on the above facts, that he had given " due notice of his claim," and therefore expunged his name and eighteen other names (opposed on similar grounds and consolidated herewith) from the list of occupation claimants. The court (reversing the decision) held that the affixing of the signature to the notice of claim by the clerk of the agent by his direction did not estab- lish that the claimant had not given " due notice of his claim" within 6 & 7 Yict. c. 18, ss. 37, 38: Brown v. Tombs, L. E. (1891) 1 Q. B. 253 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 196 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. D. 38 ; 64 L. T., N. S. 114. Service of notice of claim on 20th July, a good service, although that day happens to fall on a Sunday. South Lancashire. Notices of claim were de- livered at the dwelling-house of one of the overseers of the township of West Derby, in his absence, about 9 p.m. on Sunday, 20th July, preceding the revision. The overseers published such claims in the list of claimants, but inserted opposite to each name the word "objected;" and at the revision they con- tended that such service of the said claims respec- tively was insufficient, having been made on a Sunday, and the following day being too late by law for the service of the notices ; and that such claimants, therefore, were not entitled to be regis- tered. The revising barrister allowed the objections, and consolidated the several cases. Held, reversing the decision, that the notices, having been delivered in compliance with section 4 of 6 Vict. c. 18, were well served : Rawlins v. West Derby, 2 C. B. 72 ; 1 Lutw. 373 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 70 ; 10 Jur. 268; B. & Arm 599. S. R 242 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Production of stamped duplicate of duly posted notice of claim (to overseers) sufficient substitute for service- in due time. South Cheshire. A stamped duplicate of a notice of claim to the overseers was produced, showing that the notice was posted at Manchester on the 19th July, 1845. In the ordinary course of post, it would have been delivered on 20th July (as required by section 4 of 6 Vict. c. 18), but it was not in fact delivered until the 22nd. The overseers published this, and other claims, with the following note : — " The whole of these claims, in consequence of negligence at the post-office, were not delivered until after the specified time." All the provisions of sections 100 and 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18, as to sending notices by post had been complied with. Held, in accordance with Bishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45 , post (''Notices of objection — Counties"), that the production of the stamped duplicate was a suffi- cient substitute for service in due time, there being no distinction in this respect between notices of objec- tion and notices of claim : Bayley v. Nantwich, 2 C. B. 118; 1 Lutw. 363, note. Notice of claim not invalidated by reason of its being defectively addressed, if direction be such as to be " commonly understood" within section 101 of 6 Viet. c. 18, to refer to the overseers of the parish at large. East Cumberland. The parish of M. consisted of four divisions popularly, but improperly, called " townships." Four overseers were appointed for the whole parish, NOTICES OF CLAIM COUNTIES. 243 one being selected from the inhabitants of each of the so-called " townships." An assistant overseer was also appointed for the parish at large. In preparing the county lists, the overseers of the parish had never acted as such, but each had always been accustomed to make out, in conjunction with the assistant overseer, a separate list of voters for the particular so-called " township " from which he had been selected. In 1846, the clerk of the peace having sent his precept as usual to the overseers of each of the so-called " townships," each overseer published a separate notice requiring persons entitled in respect of property situate in his so-called " township " to send in their claims to him and the assistant over- seer. Each of such notices was signed by the particular overseer and assistant overseer only, who, after their signatures, designated themselves " overseers of the township of," &c. In consequence of these notices, numerous notices of claim were served upon the different overseers ; but in every case the notice of claim w r as directed to, and served upon, " the overseer of the township of," &c, according to the requirement of the first- mentioned notice. A separate list of claimants was prepared by each of the four overseers in conjunction with the assistant overseer. Each of such lists was headed " The list of persons claiming to vote, &c, in respect of pro- perty situate, &c, within the township of," &c, and was signed by the particular overseer and the assistant overseer only, who designated themselves as " the overseers of the township of," &c. The portion of the register in force for the parish of M. consisted of four separate lists, one for each of the four so-called " townships " above mentioned, .each headed " Township of," &c. Each of these last-mentioned lists, or parts of the k2 244 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. register, was signed by the particular overseer and the assistant overseer only, designated, as above men- tioned, as overseers of the so-called " township." These different lists were published together, and in immediate juxtaposition. The revising barrister having determined that these last-mentioned lists were invalid by reason of their not having been signed by a majority of the over- seers, as required by 6 Vict. c. 18, ss. 5, 101, con- sidered that the register then in force for the parish of M., consisting of the above-mentioned four por- tions, or lists, should be taken to be the list of voters for the said parish for the ensuing year, under sec- tion 27 (a) of the Act. He then proceeded to amend such last-mentioned list under section 40 (b), by ex- punging from the heading of each of the four portions thereof the words " township of," &c, and directing that such four portions should be printed together in one alphabetical list, headed " The parish of M." He then, by virtue of section 37, inserted in the list so amended the name of every person who, being omitted from the list of voters, proved that he gave due notice of his claim to his overseers in manner hereinbefore mentioned, and that he was entitled on the last day of July, 1846, to be inserted in the list of voters for the parish of M. It was objected, in the case of a party who had claimed as aforesaid, and whose name the revising barrister so inserted, that such insertion ought not to be made, as the claimant's notice of claim was addressed to, and served upon, the overseers of the so-called " township " in which his qualification was situate, instead of the overseers of the parish of M. The revising barrister overruled the objection, and (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. \b) This section was virtually superseded by s. 28 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, and formally re- pealed by s. 17 of the Registration Act, 1885, and First Schedule thereto. NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 245 decided that the address in the notice of claim was, under the circumstances, such as "to be commonly understood " to refer to the overseers of the parish at large, that the notice was, therefore, sufficient within section 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18, and that it was well served. The court held, that the decision was fully war- ranted by the facts : Elliott v. St. Man/ Within, 4 C. B. 75 ; 1 Lutw. 575 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 101 ; 8 L. T. 343 ; 11 Jur. 69. If claim be inserted in list of voters under section 5 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is not competent to revising barrister to inquire into sufficiency of the notice. Glamorganshire. The appellant was objected to on the list of claimants. The objector called upon the revising barrister to require proof, that the appellant gave due notice of his claim to the overseers. The barrister doubted whether he had power to require such proof from him, after his name had been inserted and published in the list of claimants ; but, assuming that he had, he required the appellant to prove his notice of claim. Whereupon a notice of claim in proper form was produced, and proved to have been delivered to the overseers in due time ; but the claimant's name at the foot of the notice was not written by himself, but by another at his request. The barrister held this notice sufficient, and re- served for the court the following questions : — 1. Whether the claimant ought to have been put to the proof of his claim. i 2. Whether the notice of claim was sufficient. Held, that, whether or not the notice was sufficient, it was not competent to the revising barrister to inquire into the sufficiency thereof, after the over- seers had acted on it, by inserting the claimant's 246 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. name in the list (a) : Davics v. Hopkins, 3 C. B., N. S. 376; K. & G. 118; 27L.J.C.P. 6; 30 L. T. 152 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 690 ; 6 W. E. 68. £12 occupier (b) need not specify in claim the list in which he claims to have his name inserted. East Devonshire. The appellant (an occupier of land of the rateable value of £12 in the parish of Widdiconibe-in-the-Moor) had, on 25th August (c), (a) Williams, J., in delivering his judgment, said: "No doubt the principle of our decision goes the whole way of holding (and I have not the slightest hesitation in saying so) that if no notice of claim at all had been sent in, and the overseers had put the name on the list, the voter has a right to have his name retained on the list." 27 L. J. C. P. 9. "Willes, J., after expressing his concurrence in the judgment of the court, added — "It is not to be supposed, because we decide, in effect, that the requirements of the legislature are satisfied in such a case as the present without any notice of claim whatever (for I go the full length of my brother "Williams in applying the prin- ciple, factum valet quod fieri non debuit), that the overseers are, therefore, entitled to dispense with the provisions requiring a notice of claim. If, for an improper motive, an overseer were to put a person on a list without a notice of claim, he might, no doubt, be indicted, to say nothing of any penalties imposed by the statute upon such a breach of duty." 27 L. J. C. P. 9, 10. The decision in Davies v. Hopkins does not apply to notices of claim consequent on the omission of parties' names from the list of occupation voters. Persons who claim in consequence of such omission must, notwithstanding that their claims are published by the overseers, prove to the satisfaction of the barrister not only their qualification to vote, but also that they gave " due notice of claim" ; see In re Sale, post, p. 250. The personal signature of occupation claimants (other than those claiming in respect of lodgings) is probably not essential to a " due notice of claim." In the case of lodger claimants the notice of claim is part of the qualification to vote (Hersant v. Halse, ante, p. 191), and must, therefore, be strictly proved. (b) See note (a) ante, on p. 105. (c) The last day for service of notices of claim both in counties and boroughs is now 20th August : see the Registration Act, 1885, s. 3, sub-s. 1. NOTICES OF CLAIM COUNTIES. 247 1871, sent to the overseers a notice of claim in the following form : " To the overseers of the parish of Wicldicombe-in- the-Moor. " I hereby give you notice that I claim to be inserted in the list of voters for the division of East Devonshire, and that the particulars of my place of abode and qualification are stated in the columns below. (Signed) "F. H. Firth." "Dated 25th August, 1871." In the third column the " nature of qualification " was stated to be " land as occupier." Held, that the provisions of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 17, and 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 15, had been sufficiently complied with, and, therefore, that the notice was a good notice of claim to be placed on the list of £12 occupiers (a), although it did not show on its face that it was a claim to be placed on that list : Firth v. Widdi- combe-in-the-Moor, L. R. 7 C. P. 172 ; 1 H. & C. 653; 41 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 833. //' claim be inserted in list of voters under section 5 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is not competent to revising bar- rister to require proof that it was served on the overseers in due time. West Gloucestershire. A notice of claim was served on the overseers on 25th July, instead of, as required by section 4 of 6 Vict. c. 18, on or before 20th July. They published the claim nevertheless, on 29th July. The claimant attended the revision court, and proved his qualification, and the barrister decided that his name should stand. (a) See note («) ante, on p. 105. 248 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, affirming the decision, on the authority of JDavies v. Hopkins, 3 C. B., N. S. 376, ante, p. 246, that it was not competent to the revising barrister to inquire into the lateness of the service of the notice of claim, after the overseers had acted on it, by in- serting the claimant's name in the list : Leonard v. Alloways, 2 H. & C. 411 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 81 ; 40 L. T., N. 8. 197. It was held to be the duty of revising barrister, before allowing the claims of £12 rated occupiers (a), to require proof to his satisfaction under section 37 or section 38 of 6 Vict. c. 18 {whichever of those sections was applicable), that due notice of such claims respectively had been given, the fact of their publication by the overseers not being conclusive on the question of due notice. North Warwickshire. A revising barrister having, on application, refused to state a case for appeal from his decision in disallowing the claim of J. S. to be inserted in the list of £12 rated occupiers, a rule was obtained (at chambers) under section 37 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, calling upon him to show cause why an appeal should not be entertained and a case stated. The affidavit of Gr. N. (a registration agent), upon which the rule was granted, disclosed the following facts : — J. S. had for many years been on the list of £12 rated occupiers for the Northern Division of the County of Warwick in respect of premises occupied by him in the hamlet of Aston, in the parish of Aston, in the said division ; but, in consequence (as the deponent believed) of the said J. S. having changed his residence, the overseers had omitted his (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 105. NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 249 name from the list of £12 rated occupiers for the then current year. A notice of claim (purporting to be signed by the said J. S.) to have his name inserted in the said list was duly sent to the overseers, and they had included his name in the list of £12 occupier claimants pub- lished by them. The claim was unopposed. The qualification of the said J. S., as expressed in the said notice of claim, was proved to the satisfac- tion of the revising barrister ; and it was therefore contended on behalf of the said J. S. (who was not present), that his claim ought to be allowed. The revising barrister objected that no evidence had been laid before him that the said J. S. had either signed a notice of claim himself, or authorized any other person to sign one on his behalf ; and he refused to allow the claim, holding that persons who claim in consequence of the omission of their names from the list of £12 rated occupiers must, notwith- standing that their claims are published by the overseers, prove to the satisfaction of the revising barrister, not only their qualification to vote, but also that they gave due notice of claim. A notice in writing that the said J. S. was desirous to appeal against the said decision was duly given on his behalf to the revising barrister (a), but he refused to state a case for appeal. The court (without professing to lay down any general rule which might have the effect of unduly limiting the discretion of revising barristers) held, that the duty of the revising barrister to insert the claim of J. S. in the list of voters depended on its being proved to the revising barrister's satisfaction, under section 37 or section 38 of 6 Vict. c. 18 (which- ever of those sections applied), that J. S. had given due notice of his claim to be inserted, and that, in (a) It seems that such a notice is a condition precedent to a case being stated : see In re Bane and others, post, " Practice." 250 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the absence of such proof before the revising bar- rister, he was right both in disallowing the claim (a) and in refusing to state a case for appeal. The rule was accordingly discharged with costs: In re Sale, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 152 ; 50 L. J. 0. P. D. 113 ; 43 L. T., N. S. 635. (a) This decision is important as correcting an erroneous notion (which, it is believed, had extensively prevailed), that Davies v. Hopkins (3 C. B., N. S. 376 ; ante, p. 246) was applicable to all claims without distinction: see the third paragraph of note(«), ante, on p. 246. NOTICES OF CLAIM BOROUGHS. 251 NOTICES OF CLAIM— BOKOUGHS. " House " a sufficient description in third column of voter's qualification (consisting of the occupation of two houses in succession), provided the situation of both houses be properly stated in fourth column. City of Lincoln. One whose qualification to vote consisted of the occupation of two houses in succes- sion duly delivered a notice of claim, in the third column whereof the nature of the qualification was described as " house ; " but the situation of both houses was properly described in the fourth column. The barrister thought that the description in the third column was insufficient for the purpose of identifying the qualifying property ; but he altered the statement to " houses occupied in immediate suc- cession," and inserted the claim in this amended form in the list of voters (a) . Held, that the notice of claim was in sufficient compliance with section 15 of 6 Vict. c. 18, Sch. B., form No. 6, for the third and fourth columns taken together showed a qualification in respect of the suc- cessive occupation. Held, also, per Erle, J., that the amendment, if necessary, was warranted by the statute : Hitchins v. Brown, 2 C. B. 25 ; 1 Lutw. 328 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 38 ; B. & Arm 545 ; 9 Jur. 1058 (b). (a) By the Registration Act, 1885, s. 4 (sub-s. o), it is enacted that ' ' The revising barrister need not insert in any list of voters for a parish in a county or borough the names of persons claiming to be inserted in such list, but may revise the list of claimants in like manner as if it were a list of voters, and sign the same as so revised, and deliver it to the clerk of the peace or town clerk as the case requires, and such clerk shall insert in the proper place in the lists of voters the name of each person appearing from the revised lists of claimants so signed to be entitled to vote." (b) See, too, Soutter v. Roderick to the same effect, post, " Suffi- ciency of Description." 252 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The revising barrister has no power, whether in a list or claim, to make an amendment omitting from the third column the word " successive" and from the fourth column the place of previous qualification ; such amendment being an alteration in the nature of the qualification (Blosse v. Wheatley, 54 L. J. U. B. D. 289, post, p. 370, reversed). Borough of West Ham. H. claimed as a par- liamentary elector, and his qualification was described in the third and fourth columns thus : — Dwelling-house successive. 13, Disraeli Road, from 31, Eglinton Eoad. He had occupied during the qualifying period 13, Disraeli road, and applied that the claim in respect of successive occupation, which was made by mistake might be amended by omitting the word " successive " from the third column, and the words "from 31, Eglinton road " from the fourth. The revising barrister, holding that he had no such power to amend, refused the application. The Court of Appeal (affirming the decision) held, that there was in this respect no distinction between lists and claims ; that a qualification in respect of successive houses was different from one in respect of a single house ; and that the revising barrister had no power under section 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 to make any amendment, whether by adding Or omitting words, involving, as that did, an altera- tion in the nature of the qualification : Hurcum v. Hilleary, L. R. (1894) 1 U. B. 579; 63 L. J. Q. B. D. 306; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 345; 70 L. T. 29 ; 42 W. R. 321. NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROUGHS. 253 Where claim was in respect of successive occupation of houses, each of which was numbered, the omission of the number of one of them held fatal to validity of claim. Borough of Scarborough. The appellant claimed a vote in respect of houses occupied in succession. The situation of the house firstly occupied by him was described in the fourth column of the claim as "Queen street ;" that of the second house, " 15, Aber- deen-walk." Both houses were, and always had been, numbered. The claim was opposed on the groimd that the number of the first house was neither inserted in the list, agreeably to form No. 8 (a) in Schedule B. to 6 Vict, c. 18, or in the claim, agreeably to form No. 6 in the same schedule. The revising barrister having held that the omis- sion of the number of the first house disentitled the appellant to be inserted in the list of voters, The court affirmed the decision. Semble, that if the number had been supplied, the revising barrister would have been bound to insert it in the list : Flounders v. Donner, 2 C. B. 63 ; 1 Lutw. 36t ; 15 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 10 Jur. 207 ; B. & Arm 588. (a) In the case as reported, it is No. 3 ; but this is obviously an error, as No. 3 was the form enacted by 6 Vict. c. 18 for the list of voters made out by the overseers, and the appellant does not appear to have been on that list. Form No. 8 was the form, enacted by the above-named statute for the list of claimants. The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (Schedule), gives new forms for notices and lists. 254 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of claim sufficient, notwithstanding claimant'' 's qualification is inaccurately described therein, pro- vided inaccuracy be such that, had it occurred in list of voters, it would have been amendable under section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18. Revising barrister should (in such a case), instead of amending notice of claim, receive proof of qualification under the notice as it stands, and then insert claim in list of voters in an amended form, as established by the evidence. Borough of Cambridge. M. (a claimant for a borough vote) proved due service of a notice of claim, the heading, and third and fourth columns of which were as follows : " To the overseers of the parish of St. Andrew the Great, in the borough of Cambridge. Nature of qualification. Street, lane, or other place in this parish where the property is situate, and number of house, if any. St. Andrew's Hill, in the succes- sive occupation of and from a house, No. 15, Hill's road." It was proved that Hill's road ran into the parishes of St. Andrew the Great and St. Andrew the Less, and that No. 15, Hill's road, was in the parish of St. Andrew the Less. The revising barrister decided that the notice of claim was insufficient, by reason of its stating the qualification to be in respect of successive occupations (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. NOTICES OF CLAIM BOROUGHS. 255 of two houses, both of which, by reference to the heading of the fourth column, appeared to be in the parish of St. Andrew the Great, whereas one of them (No. 15, Hill's road), was in that of St. Andrew the Less. But he amended the claim by adding to " 15, Hill's road " the parish in which it was situate, in order to " enable the claimant to give evidence in support of successive occupations in the two parishes ; " and, as the title to vote was proved in other respects, he inserted the claimant's name in the list of voters in the parish of St. Andrew the Great. The barrister referred to the court the question whether he had power to amend the claim ; and whether he had power, under the circumstances, to receive evidence of a qualification consisting of the successive occupations of two houses in different parishes. Held, that the revising barrister was substantially right, but formally wrong, as he should have received evidence of the successive occupations under the claim as it stood, the amendment thereof being unnecessary; and, on its appearing from such evi- dence that the inaccuracy of description was one which would have been amendable under section 40 (a) of 6 Yict. c. 18, had it occurred in a list of voters, it was his duty to insert the claimant's name in the list under section 38, which it was competent to him to do in an amended form : Eaden v. Cooper, 11 C. B. 18 ; 2 Lutw. 183 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 32 ; 16 Jur. 549. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. 256 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where number of house, omitted from second column of claim (the claim not being altogether illusory), was supplied to the revising barrister : held, that he was warranted by section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18, in inserting it in the list. Borough of Cambridge. The respondent claimed a vote for the borough, and described his qualifica- tion as " house," " Ely place." It was proved that the houses in Ely place were numbered, and that the respondent's house was numbered 16. The revising barrister, on proof that the respon- dent had given due notice of claim, and that he was duly entitled in respect of the qualification described therein, inserted his name in the list of voters in the form of his notice of claim, with the addition of the number of the house in the fourth column. Held, that (the notice of claim not being altogether illusory) such amendment was warranted by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40 (a) : Barlow v. Mum ford, L. R. 2 C. P. 81 ; H. & P. 335 ; 36 L. J. C. P! 65 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 964 ; 15 W. R. 221 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 441. " House " in a notice of claim a sufficient description of claimant's qualification as occupier- of a house, although the borough, where the vote is claimed, has a list of freeholders under section 31 of Reform Act, 1832, ffs well as a list of occupiers under section 27 (b). Such description, if insufficient, held to be amendable tinder section 40 (a). City of Exeter. (x. claimed to have his name inserted in the occupiers' list for the parish of St. David. In the notice of claim, and in the list of claimants (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROUGHS. 257 published by the overseers, the nature of G.'s qualifi- cation was described as " house." He was proved to be qualified as the occupier of a house of the clear yearly value of £10. Exeter is a city and county of itself, having reserved rights of voting as freeholders and freemen under the Reform Act, 1832, and therefore, owners of freehold property have votes for the city ; and the overseers of each parish make out two lists — one of occupiers, and the other of persons entitled by virtue of other rights, except as freemen, which lists, when revised by the barrister, are amalgamated into one list by the town clerk, forming the register of voters for the city. Held, that " house " was a sufficient description of G.'s qualification as occupier of a house under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, although there existed in the borough a freehold, as well as an occupation franchise. Held also, that, if necessary, the revising barrister had power, under section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18, to amend, by inserting the claimant in the list as " occupier of a house " : Ford v. Boon, L. R. 7 C. P. 150 ; 1 H. & C. 668 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 28 ; 20 W. R. 251 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 830. Omission of "amount of rent paid" and of " address of landlord" from a new lodger claim, are not mis- takes in a " list" within section 28, sub-section 1, o/'41 8f 42 Vict. c. 26, but mistakes in a" claim" within sub-section 2 of that section. Power of revising barrister to correct such mistakes, not compulsory. Borough of Chelsea. The appellant claimed as a lodger (b) in respect of residence in the parish of St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (b) The case not stating in express terms whether the appellant S. S 258 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. His notice of claim was defective in the following particulars : — 1. The " amount of rent paid" was not stated in the fourth column, as required by Form (H.), No. 2, in the schedule to the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 2. The landlord's " address " was not stated in the fifth column, as required by the same enact- ment. Satisfactory evidence was supplied both as to the amount of rent paid, and also as to the address of the landlord, but the revising barrister refused (for reasons stated in the case) to amend, and he accord- ingly disallowed the claim. Eight other persons also claimed as lodgers (a) in respect of residence within the parishes of St. Mary Abbotts (Kensington), Fulham, Chelsea, and Ham- mersmith. Their respective notices were defective by reason of the omission of the landlords' addresses from the fifth column. Satisfactory evidence was supplied as to these addresses, but the revising barrister refused (for reasons stated in the case) to amend, and he accordingly disallowed the claims. The court held, affirming the decision : — 1. That the omissions in question were not " mis- takes proved to have been made in any list" within section 28, sub-section 1, of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, and therefore the revising barrister was not bound to amend. 2. That such omissions were " mistakes proved to have been made in a claim," within section 28, sub-section 2, and that the revising barrister had under that sub-section a discretion as to and the other claimants were new or old lodgers, it was admitted by counsel on their behalf that they all claimed in the former character. (a) See note (b), ante, p. 257. NOTICES OF CLAIM BOROUGHS. 259 correcting them : Pickard (a) v. Baylis, L. E. 5 C. P. D. 235 ; Colt, Eeg. Cas. 98 ; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 182 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 509; 28 W. E. 256. (a) The declaration of appeal appended to the revising barrister's statement of the case in the above (consolidated) appeal is as follows : — " On behalf of the above-named Henry Pickard, Charles Skinner, Thomas Francis Dillon Crocker, James Highland, Henry- Pitt, John Scott, Thomas Doling, Simeon .Worthy, and Walter Alfred Young, I appeal from this decision. " Ricuaed Clarence 'Halse, 61, Cheapside." It does not appear that Richard Clarence Halse was himself personally "interested" in the matter of the appeal, and it may be doubted whether, the declarant having made and signed the declaration as a mere agent, the requirements of section 44 of 6 Vict, c. 18, were satisfied. See the observations of the court in Wanklyn v. Woollett, 4 C. B. 97, 98, 99. s2 260 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. NOTICES OF OBJECTION— COUNTIES. Not necessary in point of law that name of county or large toion, in or near which objector's residence is situate, should be added to the description of the latter in a notice of objection sad to the voter, if the facts show that the description gives sufficient information without such addition. Although Form No. 5 in Sched. (A.) to 6 Vict. c. 18, contains the words " on the register of voters for the parish of ," it is sufficient and proper to substitute in notice of objection the word " town- ship "for "parish" if there be a separate list for the township. South Lancashire. A notice of objection sent by post was in the following form : — " To Mr. Samuel Warburton, of Newton, near Hyde, Cheshire — " Take notice, that I object to your name being retained in the Harpurhey list of voters for the Southern Division of Lancashire. " Dated this 18th day of August, 1844. " (Signed) John Gads by, of Poplar grove, Didsbury, on the register of voters for the township of Manchester." The objector's name appeared on the register of voters for the township of Manchester, and the place of his abode was stated in such register to be (as stated in the notice of objection), " Poplar grove,. Didsbury." Poplar grove, Didsbury, was, moreover,, his actual place of abode. The revising barrister decided that the notice was insufficient in fact, and that something ought to have NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 261 been added to the description of the objector's place of abode, as "Lancashire," or "near Manchester" (Didsbury being a few miles only from Manchester, and a township within the polling district of Man- chester) , or the like, as the case might be ; and he retained the voter's name on the list without proof of qualification. The question referred to the court was, whether the notice of objection was, under the facts and circumstances mentioned, sufficient in law. Held, reversing the revising barrister's decision, — 1. That, as there was a list of voters for the township of Manchester, the notice was in sufficient compliance with Form No. 5 in Sched. (A.) to 6 Vict. c. 18, notwithstand- ing the substitution of the word " township " for " parish," being " to the like effect " as the said form, within section 7 of the statute. 2. That, in the absence of proof that there was any other Didsbury than that near Man- chester, or that any practical inconvenience might have followed from the description of the objector's place of abode as given in the notice of objection, such notice was good in law, without any additional descrip- tion, more especially as the description in the notice corresponded with that in the register (a) : Qadsby v. Warburton, 8 Scott, N. E. 775; 7 M. & G. 11 ; 1 Lutw. 136; 14 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 9 Jur. 17 ; B. & Am. 272. (a) It seems from the subsequent cases of Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1, post, p. 270, and Culver v. Roberts, 1 H. & C. 616, post, p. 280, that the objector must describe himself in his notices of objection as of his urinal place of abode, without reference to the description in the second column of the register. 262 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection not vitiated by adding the number and street to the objector's place of abode as described in list of voters. East Gloucestershire. An objector described himself in his notice of objection (to the voter) as of " 398, High street, Cheltenham, on the register of voters for the parish of Cirencester." The objector's name was on the register referred to, but his place of abode, as described therein, was " Cheltenham " only. No. 398, High street, was within the parish of Cheltenham, and was the true place of abode of the objector. Held, that the notice was " to the like effect " as Form No. 5 in Sched. (A.) to 6 Vict, c. 18, and was, therefore, sufficient : Pruen v. Cox, 2 C. B. 1 ; 1 Lutw. 304; 15 L. J. C. P. 17 ; 9 Jur. 994; B. & Arm 514. Production of stamped duplicates of duly posted notices of objection (to voter and overseers) sufficient substitute for service in due time. East Gloucestershire. An objector produced duplicate notices of objection, in the proper form, to the voter and the overseers, bearing the Manchester post mark of 24th August, 1845 (the year of revision) ; and he proved that in the ordinary course of post the notices would have been delivered at the places to which they were respectively addressed some time on the following day (a). The notices were not in fact delivered until 27th August, and had the post mark of 27th at the places (a) This (25th August) was the day for service under section 7 of 6 Vict, c. 18. The day for service of notices of objection both in counties and boroughs i.s now 20th August : see the Registra- tion Act, 1885, s. 3, sub-s. 1. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 263 to which they were addressed also impressed upon them. Held, that the stamped duplicate of a duly posted notice to the voter is made by section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, a sufficient substitute for service upon him under section 7 ; that the provisions of section 100 are extended to notices to overseers by section 101, provided such notices be directed to the overseers at their " usual place of abode " ; that such condition must be assumed to have been complied with in the present case ; and, consequently, that due notice of objection both to the voter and the overseers was sufficiently proved : Bishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45 ; 1 Lutw. 353 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 43 ; B. & Arn. 572 (a). Notice of objection must of itself give sufficient informa- tion of objector's place of abode, and cannot be aided by reference to register. Monmouthshire. An objector described himself in his notice of objection (to the voter) as "of The Oaks, on the register of voters for the parish of St. Woollos." In the list of voters for the parish of St. "Woollos the objector's place of abode was described as " St. Woollos," and his qualifying property as " The Oaks." It was proved that the objector lived at The Oaks, in the parish of St. Woollos. The revising barrister decided, that the notice of objection, although insufficient of itself, by reason of the objector's place of abode being defectively stated therein, yet might be coupled with the register : and that, the two documents so coupled giving the re- quisite information, the notice was sufficient. (a) The two following cases, not being distinguishable from Bishop v. Helps, were determined by the decision therein : Bishop v. Cox, 2 C. B. 59, note; 1 Lutw. 363, note; 10 Jur. 16 ; B. & Arn. 582, note; Hiekton v. Antrobus, 2 C. B. 82 ; 1 Lutw. 363, note; B. & Arn. 586, note. 264 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court held, that as the notice did not contain in itself a sufficient statement of the objector's place of abode, it was bad in law (a) , and could not be aided by reference to the register : Woollett v. Davis (b) , 4 C. B. 115 ; 1 Lutw. 607 ; 16 L. J. 0. P. 185 ; 11 Jur. 477 ; 8 L. T. 470. An external address, essential to duplicate notice of objection. Monmouthshire. To prove that notice of objec- tion had been duly given to one, Francis Brittain, an alleged duplicate notice, bearing the postmark "Pontypool, Aug. 24, 1847," was produced. On the face and at the top of such alleged duplicate there were the words " To Mr. Francis Brittain, Garndiffaith." But there was no address on the outside. It was proved that on the back of the notice, which was delivered to, and retained by, the post- master at Pontypool, to be forwarded by post to Francis Brittain, the words "To Mr. Francis Brittain, Garndiffaith," were written so as to form, when the paper was folded into the shape of a letter, an ex- ternal direction to him. Held, that as the paper produced as -a duplicate had no external address, it was not a " duplicate notice duly directed" within section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, and, consequently, was not available to the objector, under the provisions of that section : Birch v. Edwards, 5 0. B. 45 ; 2 Lutw. 37; 17 L. J. C. P. 32 ; 12 Jur. 18 ; 10 L. T. 206. (a) See per Wilde, C. J., in Sheldon v. Matcher, 5 C. B. 14, and the note to that case, post, p. 301. (b) The heading of this appeal in the Common Bench Reports is " Thomas Woollett, on behalf of John Llewellyn and eighty- three others, Appellant, Henry John Davis, Respondent ; " and the learned reporter refers to Wanklyn v. Woollett, t C. B. 86 : see the note to that case post, "Practice."' NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 265 Notice of objection to name being retained " on the list of voter* for the parish of S., in the southern divi- sion of the count// of W." instead of {as the form prescribes) "in the parish of S. list of voters for the southern division, tyc." held a sufficient com- pliance with 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 7, Sched. (A.), Form No. 5. South Wilts. A notice of objection was in the following form : — " To Mr. J. L., of the parish of Milford, in the county of Wilts. " Take notice that I object to your name being retained in the list of voters for the parish of St. Thomas, New Sarum, in the Southern Division of the county of Wilts. " Dated, &c. " (Signed), &c." It was objected at the revision court, that the notice was bad, as not being in accordance with the Form No. 5 in Schedule (A.) of 6 Vict. c. 18, or "to the like effect." It did not appear from the case that there was any other list to which the notice could apply. The revising barrister having decided that the notice was sufficient, The court, affirming the decision, held, that the notice was "to the like effect" as Form No. 5 in Schedule (A.) of the statute, and that the county list described in the notice was " so denominated as to be commonly understood," within section 101, to mean the parish of St. Thomas, New SarUm, list of voters for the southern division of the county of Wilts : Lambert v. St. Thomas, New Sarum, 12 C. B. 642 ; 2 Lutw. 222 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 31 ; 20 L. T. 80. 266 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection sent by post, addressed to overseers of the parish or township of [naming it), without adding name of county, sufficient, if received in due time. West Kent. A duplicate notice of objection, produced before the revising barrister, was addressed " To the overseers of the parish or township of Bethersden, near Tenterden," without naming the county, as directed by section 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18. It bore the London post-office stamp of the 24th August, 1855 (the year of the revision). The notice, of which that referred to above was the duplicate, was proved to have been duly received on or before 25th August (a), by the overseers of Bethersden. Held, that the notice having been found to have duly reached the overseers, the address was " such as to be commonly understood," within the saving clause in section 101 of the statute, and that, con- sequently, the notice and service thereof were suffi- cient (b) : Jones v. Innous, 17 C. B. 290 ; K. & Gr. 21; 25 L. J. C. P. 78; 1 Jur., N. S. 1112; 4 W. E. 84. Notice of objection sent by post, addressed to. overseers of the parish or toumship of (naming it), without adding name of county, sufficient, if acted on by the overseers, such conduct on their part affording a prima facie presumpt ion that they received the notice in due time. West Kent. A duplicate notice of objection, (a) Now 20th August: Registration Act, 1885, s. 3, sub-s. 1. lb) It will be observed that the stamped duplicate notice in the above case was not addressed to the overseers at their "usual place of abode.'''' Without such addition, pursuant to section 101, the provisions of section 100 as to stamped duplicates do not apply to notices to overseers: see Bishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45, ante, p. 263. The attention of the court, however, does not appear to have been directed to the defect in question. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 267 produced before the revising barrister, was addressed, "To the overseers of the parish or township of Banning, in Maidstone," without naming the county, as directed by section 101 of 6 Yict. c. 18. It bore the London post-office stamp of 24th August, 1855 (the year of the revision), and the notice of which it was the duplicate would in the ordinary course of post have been delivered on or before 25th August (a), 1855. It did not appear whether the overseers had or had not received the notice (sent by post) on or before the day last mentioned ; but it was proved that they did, on or before 29th August, send to the clerk of the peace a list of persons objected to, including the name of the person, to the retention of whose name on the list of voters for the parish or township of Barming the notice in question related. It was also proved that they had published such list. Held, in accordance with Jones v. Innous, supra, that the notice and service thereof were sufficient, for, the overseers having acted on the notice, it was to be assumed, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that they had received it in due time (b) : Godsell v. Innous, 17 C. B. 295 ; K. & G. 24 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 1 Jur., N. S. 1112 ; 4 W. R 85. (a) Now 20th August: see note (a), p. 266. (b) See note (b) to Jones v. Innous, supra. Where a notice of objection does not reach the overseers within the time limited by statute, and that fact appears, their acting on such notice by publishing the objection will not, it is submitted, operate as a waiver of the irregularity : see Barton v. Ashley, 2 C. B. 4, 10, 11, post, p. 296. An objector can always protect himself against such a contingency by availing himself of the pro- visions of sections 100, 101, of 6 Vict. c. 18, relating to stamped duplicates : see Bishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45, ante, p. 263, and Eornsby v. Robson, 1 C. B., N. S. 63, post, p. 269. 268 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Wot ice of objection sent by post to voter at Ms place of abode as described in list, sufficient, without adding to the address the name of township contained in heading of list. West Riding of Yorkshire. The respondent was objected to as not being entitled to have his name retained in the list of voters for the township of Pudsey. That list was headed as follows : — " The list of persons claiming to be entitled to vote in the election of knights of the shire for the West Riding of the county of York, in respect of property situate in whole or in part within the township of Pudsey." The respondent's name was inserted in the above- named list in the following form : — Sharp, Emanuel Lidget hill. Freehold Church lane, Low- Brown. houses town, Robin lane, and land. and Bichardshaw lane. A notice of objection was directed " Mr. Emanuel Brown Sharp, Lidget hill," and was duly posted at Leeds. Held, that the direction in the notice was sufficient and proper, without the addition of " Pudsey," such description not being necessarily incorporated in the description of the place of abode, by reference to the heading of the list : Flint v. Sharp, 17 C. B. 281 ; K. & G. 13; 25 L. J. C. P. 36; 26 L. T. 90; 4 W. R. 24; Uur., N. S. 1141. Production of stamped duplicate, conclusive evidence of service in ordinary course of post, although such service has been, in fact, prevented by delay at post office. North Durham. Notices of objection, directed to the overseers and to the person objected to, were delivered, open and in duplicate, to the post-master, at the post-office in Durham, within the usual busi- NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 269 ness hours, on 22nd August, 1856 (the year of the revision). It was proved at the revision court that such notices would, in the ordinary course of post, have been delivered to the persons to whom they were respectively addressed on that or the following day at latest. Owing to a delay at the post-office at Durham, the notices did not reach their respective destinations until 26th August. The stamped duplicates were produced before the revising barrister, bearing the Durham post-office stamp of 22nd August. Held, in accordance with Bisliop v. Helps, (ante, p. 263), that the production of the stamped dupli- cates was a sufficient substitute for proof of the notices having been delivered to the parties to whom they were addressed in the ordinary course of post : Homsby v. Robson, 1 C. B., N. S. 63 ; K. & G. 66 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 55 : 3 Jur., N. S. 674. Objector must describe himself in notice of objection btj his actual place of abode, /n't/tout regard to second column of register ; if, instead of so describing himself, he copy his address from register, notice mil be bad; error not cured by section 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18. South Derbyshire. An objector described him- self in his notice of objection (to the voter) thus : — " James Melbourne, " Of Cowhill, Belper, on the register of voters. for the parish or township of Belper. " Dated August 15th, 1859." The objector's name appeared on the register of voters for the township of Belper, and was therein described as follows : — Melbourne, James. I Cowhill, I Freehold houses and I Gutter. Belper. | land. He had removed from Cowhill, Belper, in October, 1858, to a place called Gutter, in the same township 270 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. of Belper, and was not living at Cowhill, when he signed the notice of objection. Held 1, that the objector's " place of abode " required by the Registration Act, 1843, to be appended to a notice of objection, is his actual resi- dence at the time of his signing such notice, and not his place of abode as described in the register (if he has removed therefrom), and that the notice in question, being deficient in that respect, was bad ; 2, that such defect was not cured b} r section 101 of the statute, that section applying only to an unintentional error, and not to a misdescription, where the party has written what he intended to write : Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1 ; K. & G. 261 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 6 Jur., N. S. -310 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 93. Production of stamped duplicate not in- of objection, duly signed by objector, is evidence of objector Juicing also signed notice lift /cit/t jio.st-mastcr to he forwarded to voter. West Kent. A document purporting to be a duplicate notice of objection, stamped at the proper post-office on the 24th August, 1861, was produced before the revising barrister, pursuant to section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18 ; and it was proved, that the notice left with the post-master would in due course of post have reached the person objected to on the 25th August (a). The signature to the stamped duplicate produced was proved to be in the handwriting of the objector, but no proof was given beyond that, that the notice sent by post had been signed by him, as required by section 7 of the statute. Held, that the production of the stamped duplicate notice signed by the objector sufficiently proved that the notice sent bv post was also signed by him : Lewis v. Roberts, 11 C. B., N. S. 23 ; K. & Gh 402 ; 31 L. J. (a) See note (a) on p. 266, ante. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 271 C. P. 51 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 485 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 351 ; 10 W. E. 80. Objector may send notice of objection to overseers by post in the ordinary way (without adopting statutory mode), but in that case it mast appear that notice reached overseers in due tune. Middlesex. [The case [named below was sub- stantially the same as Smith v. Huggett, post, p. 310, and is governed by the same decision, the only difference between the two cases being-, that, whereas in Smith v. Huggett the notice of objection related to a borough vote, that in the present case referred to a vote for the county] : Smith v. James, 11 C. B., N. S. 62; K &G-. 448; 31 L. J. C. P. 38; 5L.T.,N.S. 425 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 619 ; 10 "W. E. 131 (a). Objector's usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a person unacquainted with his hand- writing, sufficient, if written with due care to give requisite information to person objected to. North Eiding of Yorkshire. To prove service of due notice of objection on the person objected to, a duplicate notice was produced, signed by the objector, who was on the register of voters as " Sedgwick Leonard, M.A., Fencote Hall, Freehold house and land, The Hall." Such duplicate was signed by the objector with his usual signature ; but, though his christian name, and the rest of his descrip- tion, except his surname, were legible, the surname was so illegible, that an ordinary person, unacquainted with the objector's handwriting, could not by ordinary (a) James v. Smith (11 C. B., N. S. 65, note), in which the facts were the same as in Smith v. Huggett and Smith v. James, except that there each notice was in a separate envelope, was (the learned reporter states) taken to be disposed of by the decision in those cases. 272 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. diligence, without reference to the register, arrive at any reasonable conclusion as to what the surname was intended to designate. Held, reversing the revising barrister's decision, that the notice was sufficient, inasmuch as the signa- ture thereto was the objector's usual signature, and there did not appear to have been any want of due care on his part, when signing the notice, to give due information to the person objected to (a) : Trotter v. Walker (Aylan's case), 13 C. B., N. S. 30; K. & G. 534, 543 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 60, 63. Objector's usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a person unacquainted with his hand- writing, sufficient, if written with due care to give requisite information to person objected to. North Riding of Yorkshire. [This case was, with the exception of one fact which was immaterial, the same as Aylan's case, supra, and is governed by the same decision] : Trotter v. Walker (Hallam's case), 13 C. B., N. S. 40 ; K. & G. 534; 32 L. J. C. P. 60, 61 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 603. Objector'' a usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a person unacquainted with his hand- writing, sufficient, if written with due care to give requisite information to person objected to. North Riding of Yorkshire. [This case was in substance the same as Trotter v. Walker (Aylan's case), supra, except that the objector in stating his place of abode (Fencote Hall), had written the word "Fencote" illegibly in the same degree as he had (a) The court added, ' ' Cases of fraud stand on their own ground ; and cases of utter illegibility, of the objector's inability to write his name, and of the total absence of signature, admit of other considerations ; and we desire to give no opinion upon them." NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 273 written his surname : it was held, that this additional fact carried the case no further than Trotter v. Walker'] : Sedgwick v. Treror, 13 C. B., N. S. 42 ; K. & G. 534, 544 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 60, 64 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 603, 606. Not necessary to give a separate notice of objection to overseers in respect of each voter objected to. Cambridgeshire. A notice of objection was in the following form : — " To the overseers of the parish of Whittlesey, in the county of Cambridge. " I hereby give you notice that I object to the names of the persons mentioned and de- scribed below being retained in the. list of voters for the county of Cambridge." [Here followed a schedule, with four columns re- spectively headed : " Christian and surname of the voter objected to, as described in the list or register;" "Place of abode, as described ; " " Nature of qualification, as described ; " " Street, &c, where the qualifying property is situate, &c, as described in the list or register," in which columns were inserted the names, places of abode, and alleged qualifications of the several persons objected to.] "Dated the 11th day of August, 1865. " George Moore Smith, of Whittlesey." Held, that the notice was to " the like effect," as Form No. 4 in Sched. A. to 6 Vict. c. 18, and, there- fore, a sufficient compliance with section 7 : Smith v. Hollowai/,~L. R. 1 C. P. 145 ; H. & P. 281; H. & R. 315; 12 Jur, N. S. 164; 35 L. J. C. P. 100; 13 L. T, N. S. 468 ; 14 W. R. 202. 274 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection need not be dated the day on which it is signed. It is sufficient (so far as the date is concerned) if it be dated on a day on which objector is qualified to object, and within period allowed for objecting. Merionethshire. A notice of objection to the voter was dated 18th of August, 1865 (the year of the revision), but the notice to the overseers was dated 12th of August, 1865. Both notices were signed by the objector on the 18th of August, 1865. Held, that the notice to the overseers being dated on a day on which the objector was qualified to object, and within the period allowed for the making of objections, was valid, although the objector's signa- ture was not actually written on that day (a) : Jones v. Jones, L. E. 1 C. P. 140 ; H. & P. 320; H. & E. 341 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 123 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 94 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 633 ; 14 W. E. 204. Revising barrister has no power to expunge voter's name unless properly objected to, if qualification, as stated in list, be good on the face of it. Middlesex. The qualification of a voter was stated in the list to be " freehold share in Fulharn Bridge." His vote was not objected to, but the revising barrister expunged his name, on the ground that the court, in Tepper v. Nichols, 18 C. B., N. S. 121, ante, p. 46, had decided that the shareholders in Fulham Bridge had no qualification in respect of their shares. (a) It is clear that the above decision would apply equally to a notice to the voter, and, as observed by Byles, J. (L. JR.. 1 C. P. 144), to notices of claims. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 275 It was admitted that there was no distinction between that case and the present. Held, that the qualification as stated in the list being good on its face, the revising barrister had no power to expunge the name unless it was properly objected to : Smith v. James, L. R. 1 C. P. 138 ; H. & P. 317 ; H. & E. 338 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 125 ; 14 W. R. 201 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 469. Note to Form No. 10 in Sehed. B. of 6 Viet. c. 18 does not apply to notices of objection (to overseers) in counties, notwithstanding there are, since 30 Sf 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 30, and 31 8f 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 19, more than one list of voters for a count)/. South-East Lancashire. E,. was objected to on the register of voters for the township of Moss Side, his qualification being stated to be " freehold house and land." Besides the copy of the register and list of claimants, forming together the list of voters for the township, in pursuance of 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 6, there was a separate list of £12 occupiers (a), made out pur- suant to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 30, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 19. The notice of objection (to the overseers) did not specify the list on which the name of the person objected to appeared, but it gave his qualification as described in the register, and was in accordance with Form No. 4, Sched. A. to 6 Vict. c. 18. Held that, notwithstanding that it is the duty of the overseers to make out a separate list of £12 occu- piers (a) under the provisions of section 30 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and section 19 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, the distinction between notices of objection (to overseers) in counties and boroughs respectively is unaffected by those provisions, and consequently, the notice in (a) See note {a), ante, on p. 105. t2 276 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. question was good, although it did not specify the list to which the objection referred, as directed (in the case of boroughs) by the note to Form No. 10 in Sched. B. of 6 Vict. c. 18 : Chorlton v. Johnson (Pee's case), L. R. 4 0. P. 400; 1 H. & C. 54; 38 L. J. 0. P. 39 ; 17 W. R. 119 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 530. A £12 occupier (a), whose rote was objected to teas held entitled to a specific statement of the grounds of objection. South- West Lancashire. A. was objected to on the list of voters, as £12 occupiers, for the town- ship of Bootle-cum-Linacre. The notice of objection served upon him was in the following form : — " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained in the list of voters for the south-west division of the county of Lancaster." Held that, A. not being a claimant within the exception of 28 Yict. c. 36, s. 6, the notice of objec- tion was bad for not specifying the ground or grounds of objection : Bennett v. Brumfitt (Alderson's case), L. P. 4 C. P. 407 ; 1 H. & C. 80 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 17 W. P. 202 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 283. Where, in a notice of objection, served on the voter, the sufficiency of description of objector s place of abode is doubtful, it is matter of evidence for revising barrister whether the notice in fact gives the requisite information. Merionethshire. In a notice of objection served on the voter (b), the objector's place of abode was («) See note (a), ante, on p. 105. (b) The notice of objection was in accordance with Form No. 5 in Schedule A. to 6 Vict. c. 18 ; but it appears from the case, as reported in 1 H. & C. 91, that the objection referred to the voter's NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 277 described as " Bonnygraig " simply (without any addition) . It was proved and admitted that the objector could be easily found on inquiry at the place where his qualifying property was situate, and that " Bonnygraig" was well known there, and could be found without any difficulty. Held, reversing the barrister's decision, that the notice was not bad in law on the face of it, and that evidence was admissible to show that, under the particular circumstances, it gave the requisite infor- mation : Jones v. Pritchard, L. P. 4 C. P. 414; 1 H. & C. 91 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 67 ; 17 W. P. 175 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 563. If objector fail to prove stamped duplicate notice of objection, and voter produce original notice duly received by him, objector may have recourse to the latter to prove the service. East Kent. An objector having produced a document purporting to be a stamped duplicate of a notice of objection sent by post, under sections 100 and 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18, the person objected to, with the view of proving that it was not in fact a dupli- cate, produced the original notice duly received by him by post, when it was found that the two docu- ments did not correspond. The revising barrister having decided that the statute had not been complied with, the objector claimed to take up the original notice produced by the person objected to, and to make it evidence on his (the objector's) behalf that the notice of objection had been duly served. alleged qualification as a £12 occupier. Such being 1 the case, the notice in question should have been according to Form No. 2 in Sched. A. to 28 Vict. c. 3fi. The error was fatal to the validity of the notice (Bennett v. Brumfitt (AJderson's case), supra), but was not taken advantage of. 278 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court held, reversing the decision of the revising barrister, that it was competent to the objector to do so : Norris v. Pilcher, L. R. 4 C. P. 417 ; 1H.&C. 173 ; 38 L. J. 0. P. 69 ; 17 W. R. 225 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 563. Wliere revising barrister states his reasons for arriving at a conclusion of fact, the court will entertain the question of their validity, and reverse the decision, if the reasons given appear insufficient to justify it. East Kent. In a notice of objection duly served on the person objected to, the objector's abode was described thus : — (Signed) "Frederick Norris. (Place of abode described on the Register), "22, Southampton Street, Bloomsbunj, London, W.C, (Present place of abode), " 110, Guildford Street, Russell Street, W.C" The revising barrister decided that the description of the objector's present place of abode was incorrect, defective, and misleading, for the following reasons : — 1. It was not stated therein in what city, town, or place Guildford Street, Russell Street, W.C, was situate. 2. There was, in ordinary parlance, no such street as Guildford Street, Russell Street, in the west central postal district of Lon- don, the only streets within such district bearing the name of "Russell," being Rus- sell Street, Covent Garden, and Great Rus- sell Street, both of which were a long way from Guildford Street. Held, that the reasons (a) stated were insufficient (a) Bovill, C. J., in his judgment, said, "It is perfectly plain, that, as a general rule, the revising barrister must decide all questions of fact, and that upon a pure question of fact the court NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 279 to justify the conclusion that the notice was mis- leading ; that London might be supplied in the second address from the preceding one, and Russell Street rejected as surplusage, and, therefore, the decision was wrong : Norris v Pitcher, L. R. 4 0. P. 417 ; 1 H. & 0. 173 ; 38 L. J. 0. P. 69 ; 17 W. R. 225 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 563. Objector must, in his notices of objection, describe him- self as of his actual place of abode. South Essex. An objector described himself, in his notices of objection, as of " Pembroke Road, Walthamstow, E., on the register of voters for the parish of Walthamstow, in the southern division of the county of Essex." Some time previously to August, 1871, next pre- ceding the revision, he had resided at a house in Pembroke Road, Walthamstow, and his place of abode was so described in the register of voters for the time being. A few days before signing the notices of objection he had removed to a house, then just completed, numbered 1, Grrosvenor Park Terrace, Grrosvenor Park Road, and he had let his house in Pembroke Road to a tenant, who was in occupation of it when the notices were signed. The two houses were very near each other, and the objector being well known in the locality, could be easily found. Held, in accordance with Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1, ante, p. 270, that the notices of objection were bad, for not giving the objector's cannot review his decision ; but in this case the barrister has stated his reasons for arriving at his conclusion, and, as I under- stand it, has referred to the court whether those reasons ought, in law., to have led him to the conclusion at which he arrived. TaMng the case in this view, I think his decision cannot be sup« ported on either of the grounds suggested." 280 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. actual place of abode : Calver v. Roberts, 1 H. & C. 616; 20 W. E. 147; 25 L. T., N. S. 751 (*). Where part of a township is in one polling district, and the other part in another, it is sufficient (although each part be a "separate parish " within 31 Sf 32 Vict. c. 58, .9. 22) if objector describe himself in notice of objection as " on tin" register of voters for the township," without specifying the list in which his name appears. South-East Lancashire. The 22nd section of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, enacts, that " where any parish in a county, city, or borough forms part of more- than one polling district, the part of such parish situate in each polling district shall be deemed to be a separate parish for the purposes of the revision of voters, and the lists and register of voters." The township of Spotland was divided into two polling districts, that of Brandwood Higher End, and of Eochdale. The overseers of the township published separate lists for each district under the above section. In a notice of objection sent to a county voter, the objector, whose name appeared only on the list for the Eochdale district, described himself " as on the register of voters for the township of Spotland." Held, that the notice, being in accordance with the form given in 6 Yict. c. 18, Sched. A. No. 5, was sufficient, and that, notwithstanding section 22 of («) Willes, J., is reported (1 H. & C. 624) to have said, that the court had no power to overrule Melbourne v. Greenfield, even if they desired to do so. But see per Beett, J., in Orme's case, L. It. 8 C. P. 299 ; 2 H. & C. 80 ; and per Bovill, C. J., and Beett, Geove, and Denman, JJ., in Hadfield's case, L. R. 8- C. P. 311, 313, 314, 318, 320, 321 ; 2 H. & C. 103, 104, 112, 113, 120, 124, 125 ; also per Geove, J., in Leonard v. Alloways, 2 H. & O. 419. Roberts v. Percival, 18 C. B., N. S. 38, 39, may also be- referred to as bearing on the same question. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 281 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, there was no need of its specify- ing on which of the two lists the objector's name appeared : Choriton v. Tonge, L. P.. 7 C. P. 178 ; 1 H. & C. 632 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 20 W. R. 338 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 25. Under a notice of objection stating that objection is grounded on third column, and relates to nature of voter's interest in the qualifying property, objector may shoic that the property, being situate in a borough, is such as to entitle voter to the borough franchise, and consequent/// such as to disqualify him as a count// voter, under section 24 of Reform Act, 1832. North Durham. The name of a person objected to appeared on the register of voters as follows : — Cocken, "William. The Rectory, Bishop wear- mouth. Freehold | Bishopwearmouth benefice. parish. The voter was the rector of Bishopwearmouth, and the qualification, the nature of which was described in the third column of the register, was the parsonage house of the rectory, to which he was entitled in right of his benefice. The notice of objection was in the form given by 28 Vict, c. 36, Sched. A. No. 2, and stated that the objection was grounded on the third column of the register, and that it related to the nature of the voter's interest in the qualifying property. The objection sought to be proved was, that the house was situate within the parliamentary borough of Sunderland, and that the voter had occupied it for a time sufficient to entitle him to a borough vote. Held, that the notice of objection was' sufficient, within 28 Vict. c. 36, s. 6, to allow of such proof being given : Simey v. Dixon, L. B-. 7 C. P. 190 ; 1 H. & 0. 626; 41 L. J. C. P. 18; 20 W. R. 238; 25 L. T., N. S. 811. 282 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection sent to the voter {already on the register), by post pursuant to section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, must contain his place of abode as described in list of voters transmitted to overseers by clerk of the peace, although voter may have changed his residence, and overseers hare {im- properly) altered and published such list accord- ingly. East Devonshire. The appellant was objected to on the list of voters for the parish of Buckland-in- the-Moor. On the copy of the part of the register relating to that parish transmitted by the clerk of the peace to the overseers, the appellant's name appeared as follows : — Robert Xoscworthy. I Boddaclearc, in I House and land I Boddacleave. | this parish. | as occupier. The overseers, knowing that the appellant had removed from Boddacleave to a farm called Bowden, before publishing the list expunged " Boddacleave " in the second and fourth columns, and inserted Bowden in each of those columns in lieu thereof. In the list published by the overseers, therefore, the name appeared as follows : — Robert Noseworthy. Boddaolmiw, in this parish. Bowden. House and land as occupier. Boddaoloave . Bowden. The copy of the register sent to the overseers was printed, and the alteration was in writing. The objector duly sent by post to the appellant a notice of objection founded on the third and fourth columns of the register, which notice was addressed as follows : — " To Mr. Robert Noseicorthy, of Bowden Farm, Buckland?in-the-Moor" This was the correct address at the time the notice was sent. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 283 Held, that the words in section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, " directed to the person to whom the same shall be sent at his place of abode as described in the said list of voters" referred to the place of abode described in the list of voters transmitted to the overseers by the clerk of the peace, and that the objector, having adopted the description of the abode as altered by the overseers, had failed to comply with the above section, and consequently could not avail himself of his duplicate notice of objection as a substitute for proof of service: NoseivortJn/ v. Buckland-in-the-Moor, L. E. 9 C. P. 233; 2 H. & C. 127; 43 L. J. 0. P. 27 ; 22 W. E. 155 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 675. Where there is no delivery of letters at voter's place of abode, except by some private accidental convey- ance, service of notice of objection must be proved otherwise than by stamped duplicate, section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18 not being applicable. Pembrokeshire. Section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, enacts, that it shall be sufficient if the notice of objection be sent by the post, free of postage, " directed to the person to whom the same shall be sent, at his place of abode as described in the list of voters," and that the production of a stamped dupli- cate of it shall be " evidence of the notice having been given to the person at the place mentioned in such duplicate, on the day on which such notice would in the ordinary course of post have been delivered at such place." To prove service of a notice of objection, the stamped duplicate thereof was produced, addressed to the voter at " Wern," which was his place of abode as described in the list of voters. The nearest post town to Wern was a place called Efailwen, two miles distant. The notice was posted so as to reach Efailwen, in 284 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the ordinary course of post, at 10 a.rn. on 19th August. There was no postal delivery at Wern, and the voter could not have received the notice unless by some private accidental conveyance. No other evidence was given as to the service of the notice. Held that, there being no evidence that on any known day there would be a delivery at Wern, section 100 of G Vict. c. 18, did not apply, and consequently that service in due time under section 7 of the statute was not proved : Lewis v. Evans, L. R. 10 C. P. 297 ; 2 H. & C. 279 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 31 L. T., N. 8. 487 ; 23 W. R, 244. The statement of theyear of our Lord, an essential addi- tion to date of notice of objection (to overseers). West Riding of Yorkshire (Southern Divi- sion). The claim of O. J. E. to have his name inserted in the list of voters for the township of Alverthorpe-with-Thornes was objected to by W. F., who, on the 18th August, 1883, gave to the overseers a notice of objection which concluded as follows : — " Dated the 18th day of August, 1880. " (Signed) Wm. Fitton, "of Church Street, Moldgreen, " Hucldersfield." The above-mentioned notice was on a printed form, which had the date " 1880 " printed upon it. Another and a correctly dated notice of objection was given by the said W. F. to the claimant him- self, whose name was included by the overseers in the list of objections published by them. It was objected by the claimant at the revision court that the notice to the overseers was void in law, inasmuch as the year of our Lord was incorrectly stated therein. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 285 The revising barrister found as a fact that the claimant was not inconvenienced or misled by the defective notice in question. The court held that the omission of the proper date from such notice was fatal to its validity, and that the overseers had no power to waive the defect : Freeman v. Newman, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 342 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 108 ; 32 W. E. 246 ; 51 L. T., N. S. 39G. Where in a notice of objection to a name on one of the voters' lists for the Petersfield Division of the County of Hants, objector (whose real address teas " Churchyard, Petersfield") described himself as " of Churchyard, on the list of parliamentary voters for the parish of Petersfield, " it was held that such description was insufficient, and the notice, therefore bad. County of Hants, Petersfield Division. The appellant was objected to on the occupiers' list for the parish of Hambledon. The concluding part of the notice of objection was as follows: — " (Signed) George Chapman, of Churchyard, on the list of parliamentary voters for the parish of Petersfield/' The objector lived in a house in Petersfield churchyard, and his address, as given in the occupiers' list for the parish of Petersfield, was " Churchyard, Petersfield." It was contended at the revision court that the notice was bad on the ground that " of Churchyard" was not a sufficient description of the objector's place of abode. The revising barrister, being of opinion that these words were a sufficient description, and that the notice was accordingly good, expunged the appellant's name from the list. The court (reversing the decision) held that the description of the objector's place of abode was de- fective, and that the notice of objection therefore did not satisfy the requirements of 48 Yict. c. 15, s. 18, and Sched. II. Part II., form I., No. 2, of that 286 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. statute : Humphrey v. Earle, L. E. 20 Q. B. D. 294 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Oas. 39 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. D. 125 ; 58 L. T., N. S. 403. It is not good ground of objection to a voter who has a right to be on the list, in respect of a good qualifica- tion, that some other person is also, perhaps wrong- fully, on the list for the same premises. County of Huntingdon. A. C. was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List on the ground that he was not the tenant of the qualifying dwel- ling-house ; but that W. 0. was, who was already on the list in respect of the same dwelling-house, and was not objected to. As to W. O.'s title no evidence was given ; but enough was given as to A. C.'s title to satisfy the revising barrister, who, accordingly, decided in favour of A. C.'s right to be on the list. The court (affirming the decision) held, that the person who was entitled to his vote ought not to be deprived of it merely because another name, perhaps wrongfully, was on the list in respect of the same premises : Warren v. Maule, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 400 ; 71 L. T. 731. Where an objector's name at the date of his notice of objection appeared on the occupiers' list published by the overseers, but was struck off before his objection teas reached, he is, nevertheless, entitled to object. Borough of Middlesborough. W.'s name had been placed by the overseers on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List of Linthorpe township in the said borough. W. gave notice of objection in proper form on August 20th to the name of P. being re- tained on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List of the Middlesborough township in the said borough. On the same day W. received notice of objection, also in proper form, to his own name being retained NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 287 on the list aforesaid; which objection prevailed before the revising barrister on September 21st, and his name was struck off, in the revision of the Linthorpe township list. Later on the same day, on the re- vision of the Middlesborough township list, "W.'s objection to P. was reached, and it was argued that " a list of voters " in 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 17, where it is enacted " that every person whose name shall have been inserted in any list of voters . . . may object," meant a list of persons in fact entitled to vote ; and that, therefore, the words must refer to either the old register, or some list signed by the revising barrister for the purpose of the new register, and that, therefore, W., who neither was on the old register nor on the new, was not entitled to object. The revising barrister held, that W. at the time of his notice of objection had satisfied all the require- ments of section 17, and allowed W. to object. The court affirmed the decision : Pease v. Town Clerk of Middlesborough, L. B. (1893) 1 Q. B. 127; 63 L. J. Q. B. D. 94 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 286 ; 68 L. T. 766. Omission by an objector in 7/is notice of objection to count// voters of the name of the town in which the street where he tired was situate (the revising barrister having found as a fact that no one had been misled or inconvenienced), does not invalidate the notice. Cornwall (Bodmin Division). J. B.'s notices of objection to certain county voters on ownership, occupiers', and lodgers' lists in different parishes in the division were signed "J. B. of Burnard's Terrace, on the register of electors for the township of Bodmin Borough," omitting to state " Bodmin," the name of the town in which " Burnard's Terrace" was situate. It was contended before the revising barrister that the notices were on this account invalid and insufficient. The revising barrister held that, if the addresses 288 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. were insufficient, he had power to amend, and amended them. The court held, affirming the decision, without deciding as to the power to amend, that the notices, according to the authority of Sheldon v. Fletcher (p. 301), were sufficient without it, under the Regis- tration Order, 1889, form 5 (a, b) : Hides v. Stokes, L. E. (1892) 1 U. B. 124 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 303 ; 41 W. R. 123. Where a notice of objection state// the voter's name and number on the list, but omitted the name of his parish, as required by the form in the Registration Order, 1895, revising barrister, having found that the omission was a bona fide mistake, and not misleading, has power to amend by inserting the ■name of the parish. Borough oe Exeter. Notice of objection to J. S. on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List for the borough ran as follows : — " To Mr. Joseph Sandford— "No. on List 1, 337. " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List as a parliamentary voter for the parliamentary borough of Exeter, and as a burgess for the municipal borough of Exeter,'&c." S. contended that the notice was bad for omitting the words " for the parish of." The revising barrister amended it by inserting the words, on the ground that no inconvenience, or misleading, or deception had resulted, and that the omission was a mistake. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the notice referred unmistakeably to J. S. by his number on a specified list, could have referred to no one else, was not calculated to mislead, and was rightly amended : Sandford v. Beal, 65 L. J. Q. B. D. 73 ; 1 Smith's Reg. Cas. 1. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 289 NOTICES OF OBJECTION— BOEOUGHS. WJiere notice of objection to the parti/, though, in strict compliance with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, was in fact a misdescription, it was held insufficient. City of Bristol. A notice of objection duly served on a voter was signed " William Tudball, Hotwell Road, on the list of voters for the parish of Clifton." The objector's name did not appear on either the householders' or freeholders' list of voters for the parish of Clifton, but it was on the alphabetical " list of the freemen of the city of Bristol," where he was stated to be " of the parish of Clifton." Held, that the notice being in too strict con- formity with the Form No. 11 given in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, contained a misdescription which was fatal to its validity : Tudball v. Bristol, 7 Scott, N. E. 486 ; 5 M. & G-. 5 ; 1 Lutw. 7 ; 13 L. .J. C. R 49 ; 7 Jut. 1041 ; B. & Arn. 8. Postmaster's duties with regard to stamped duplicates mag be legally performed bg his managing clerk. Borough of Bradford. By section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is enacted, that persons desirous of sending notices of objection by post shall deliver the same, duly directed, open and in duplicate, to the postmaster of any post-office, &c, and that the postmaster shall compare the notice and duplicate, and, on being satisfied that they correspond, shall forward one by post, and return the other to the party bringing the same, duly stamped, and that the production by the party, who posted such notice, of s. u 290 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. such stamped duplicate shall be evidence of the notice having reached the person to whom it was directed, in the ordinary course of post. A notice of objection, directed to a voter for the borough of Bradford, was delivered, open and in duplicate, to the postmaster's managing clerk, instead of the postmaster himself, who was absent from Bradford when the notice was delivered. The duties prescribed by section 100 of the above- mentioned Act, as well of comparing the notice with the duplicate, as of stamping and returning the latter to the party bringing the same, were performed by the managing clerk, and not by the postmaster himself. The stamped duplicate was produced at the revision court by the party who posted the notice, in order to prove that such notice had reached the person to whom it was directed, in the ordinary course of post. Held, that the postmaster's duties being minis- terial, the performance of them by his managing clerk was a sufficient compliance with the statute, and that, consequently, the stamped duplicate was ad- missible for the purpose for which it was tendered : Allan v. Waterhouse, 8 Scott, N. E. 68; 1 Lutw. 92; 13 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 8 Jur. 426. Production of stamped duplicate notice of objection by objector himself, a good production within section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, although notice was posted by his clerk. Borough of Totnes. By section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is enacted, that persons desirous of sending notices of objection by post shall deliver the same, duly directed, open and in duplicate, to the post- master of any post-office, &c, and that the post- master shall compare the notice and duplicate, and, on being satisfied that they correspond, shall forward one by post, and return the other to the party • NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 291 bringing the same, duly stamped, and that the pro- duction by the part// who potted such notice of such stamped duplicate shall be evidence of the notice having reached the person to whom it was directed, in the ordinary course of post. A notice of objection addressed to a voter, and the duplicate thereof, were delivered by the objector to his clerk to take to the post-office. The clerk imme- diately took them away, and shortly returned with the duplicate stamped with the post-office stamp, "21st August 0), 1844." In the absence of the clerk, through illness, from the revision court, the duplicate was produced by the objector himself. Held, that this was evidence that due notice of objection had been given, within section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18 : Cuming v. Toms, 8 Scott, N. E. 827; 7 M. & Q. 29 ; 1 Lutw. 151 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 54 ; 8 Jur. 1052. Notice of objection and stamped duplicate thereof must be signed by objector personally. Borough of Totnes. A document, purporting to be the stamped duplicate of an original notice of objection (to the party), posted pursuant to section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, was tendered in evidence under that section. It corresponded in all respects with the original, except that, whereas the latter had been signed by the objector himself, the document in question had been signed by another with the name of the objector, by his direction, and in his presence. Held, that the document was inadmissible — 1. Because being a notice of objection within the meaning of section 17 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it had not the personal signature of the (a) This was within the time for service enacted by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 7: see as to alteration of date, note (a), ante, on p. 266. u2 292 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES, objector which was rendered essential by that section for every notice of objection. 2. Because, not being absolutely identical with the posted notice, it was not a duplicate thereof, as required by section 100 : Toms v. Cuming, 8 Scott, N. E. 910; 7 M. & GK 88 ; 1 Lutw. 200 ; 9 Jur. 90 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 67; B. &Arn. 347. If objector $ name be mis-spelt in list, he need not adopt mistake in his notice of objection, provided the name be so stated in list as to be commonly understood to be that of objector — whether it be so or not, a ques- tion of fact for revising barrister. Borough of Wenlock. An objector whose name was William Nicholas, but who through the negligence of the overseers, appeared on the Madeley list of voters under the name of " William Nickless," signed his notice of objection (to the party) thus : — "William Nicholas, of Colebrook Dale, in the parish of Madeley, on the list of voters for the parish of Madeley." The name of " William Nicholas " sent by the objector was on the Madeley list of claimants. The revising barrister held the notice valid, and, the objection prevailing, expunged the name of the person objected to from the list. Held, that the validity of the notice depended upon whether the objector's name had been so stated on the list of voters as to be commonly understood to mean "William Nicholas," and that this was a question of fact for the revising barrister, and not for the court. The appeal was accordingly dismissed : Hinton v. Einton, 8 Scott, N. E. 995; 7 M. & G. 163; 1 Lutw. 259 ; 9 Jur. 91 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 58 ; B. & Am. 421. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 293 Foot note to Form No. 10, Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, held not to apply to notice of objection to voter (a), nor to notice of objection to overseers in the city of London, because, although there are more lists than one in the city, only one is made out by the over- seers. City of London. Q,. was objected to on the list of voters for the city of London. The notice of objection to the overseers was as follows : — " To the overseers of the parish of St. Anne and St. Agnes, in the city of London. " I hereby give you notice, that I object to the name of Patrick Quigley being retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of London. " Dated this 16th day of August, 1844. " (Signed) Robert Thomas Perkins, " 11, Meredith Street, Clerkenwell. " On the list of voters for the Company of Patten Makers." The notice of objection to the voter was as follows : — " To Mr. Patrick Quigley, 6, Four-dove court. " I hereby give you notice, that I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of London. "Dated this 16th day of August, 1844." (Signed) as above. In the city of London there are the lists of freemen and liverymen, made out by the clerks of the respective companies, and the lists of £10 occu- piers made out by the overseers. («) See now the Pailiamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, Schedule, Form I., Nos. 1 and 2, not: 294 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. There are as many of these latter lists as there are parishes in the city. Held, that the note at the foot of Form No. 10, in Schedule B. to 6 Yict. c. 18, did not apply to Form No. 11 in that Schedule, and only to Form No. 10 in those cities and boroughs, where the overseers made out more lists than one, and that, consequently, the notices of objection in the above case were good, without specifying the particular list or parish to which the objection referred : Wansey v. Perl-ins (Quigley's case), 8 Scott, N. E. 954 ; 7 M. & G% 127 ; 1 Lutw. 235 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 60 ; B. & Arn. 386 ; 9 Jur. 113. Notice not vitiated by insertion of superfluous words, if they be not calculated to mislead. Borough of Taunton. There were two lists for the borough made out by the overseers, one a list of £10 occupiers, the other, a list of potwallers. A potwaller, according to the usage of the borough, was considered to be " one, whether a householder or lodger, who had the sole dominion over a room with a fireplace in it, and who furnished and cooked his own diet at his own fireplace, or at some other place within the same house, at which fireplace he had a legal right so to do, and who also had actually cooked his diet at such fireplace." In the list of potwallers, the names, places of abode, and qualifications of the voters were inserted, and the nature of the qualification was described as " a potwaller." In the list of occupiers, the name of the appellant was entered as follows : — Allen, John. | East Street. | Dwelling-house. | East Street. His name was not on the potwallers' list, or on the list for any other parish within the borough, than that in which the dwelling-house above described was situate. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 295 The following notice of objection had been duly served upon him. " To Mr. John Allen, of East Street, Southside. " I hereby give you notice, that I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote as householders in the election of members for the borough of Taunton. " Dated this 23rd day of August (a), 1844. " (Signed) Thomas House, " of Silver Street, Taunton." " On the list, &c." The words " as householders " were interlined. Held, that the insertion of the words " as house- holders " not being calculated to mislead, the notice was sufficient : Alien v. House, 8 Scott, N. R. 987 ; 7M.&G. 157 ; 1 Lutw. 255 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 79 ; 9 Jur. 230 ; B. & Am. 415. Wliere overseers made out two lists, it teas held that notice of objection (to overseers) must specif// list to which objection referred, although name objected to appeared in one list only. Publication by overseers of list of objections, no ivaiver of informality of notice. City of Lichfield. In the city of Lichfield it was the duty of the overseers to make out and publish two lists of voters, one of £10 occupiers, and the other of persons (not freemen) having reserved rights. The name of the respondent appeared in the list of £10 occupiers only. A notice of objection delivered to the overseers (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. 296 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. was, " I object to the name of T. A." (the respon- dent) " being retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of Lichfield." In the list of objections published by the overseers the respondent was described as in the list of £10 occupiers. Held, that the notice was bad for not specifying the particular list to which the objection referred, as directed in the note to Form 10 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 1 8, and that the defect was not cured by the overseers' publication of the objection : Barton v. Ashley, 2C.B.4; 1 Lutw. 307 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 36 ; B. & Arn. 518. Validity of new ice through the post, not affected by the fact of delivery in the ordinary course of post falling on Sunday. City of Rochester. A notice of objection in the proper form, and duly directed, was posted at Chatham, on Saturday, 23rd August (a). The day on which the notice would in the ordinary course of post have been delivered, was Sunday 24th. It was objected that the notice was invalid by reason that the service thereof was effected on Sunday (b). The revising barrister decided in accordance with this view. But the court reversed his decision : Colvill v. Leivis, 2 C. B. 60 ; 1 Lutw. 380, note ; B. & Arn. 608. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (n), ante, on p. 266. (b) The case does not expressly find that the notice reached the voter's house on Sunday; nor does it appear that a stamped dupli- cate was produced. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 297 Notices of objection .signed by objector with his actual place of abode, which differed from that appearing against f/is name in list, held a sufficient compliance with 6 Vict. c. 18. Borough of Dartmouth. An objector signed his notices of objection thus : — " John Brooking, " of Higher street, Dartmouth, on the list of voters for the parish of St. Saviour's." The objector's place of abode was stated in the St. Saviour's list of voters to be " New road." He had offices in New road, but did not live there, either at the time of the publication of the list of voters, or when the notices of objection were served. His true place of abode was that stated in the notices of objec- tion. Held (Maule, J., dissentiente), that the notices were sufficient (a) : Knowles v. Broolwig, 2 0. B. 226 ; 1 Lutw. 461 : 15 L. J. C. P. 197 : 10 Jur. 289. Description of objector's place of abode in notice of objection need not be identical with description thereof in li*t. New Sarum. The parliamentary borough of New Sarum comprised, among other parishes, part of the parish of Fisherton Anger. An objector signed his notice of objection (to the voter) thus : — " Charles Adey, " Of the parish of Fisherton Anger, in the said borough, on the list of voters for the parish of Fisherton Anger." (a) Although the question of the sufficiency of the notices was the only one before the court, it is clear from the decision, that an objector has no option but to give his true place of abode : see the observations of the court in Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1, p. 270, ante. 298 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The objector's name appeared on the Fisherton Anger list of voters as follows : — Charles Adey. I Fisherton street. I House and I Fisherton street. G-arden. | Fisherton street was one of several streets or places in the parish of Fisherton Anger. There was no other person of the name of Charles Adey on the Fisherton Anger list. It was objected at the revision court, that the notice was insufficient by reason of the objector's place of abode not being described therein as described in the list of voters. The revising barrister having held the notice suffi- cient, The court (in accordance with Knowles v. Brooking, supra), affirmed the decision: Wills v. Adey, 2 0. B. 246; 15 L. J. C. P. 205; 1 Lutw. 481, note; B. & Arn. 782. Although objector on list of freemen could not literally comply with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Viet. c. 18, it was held that he was, nevertheless, required by the statute to specify in notice of objection the list in which his name appeared. Borough of Lancaster. An objector described himself in his notice of objection (to the voter) thus: — " Richard Farrer, " Canal side, near Penny street, cotton manufacturer, Lancaster ; on the list of voters for the borough of Lancaster." The register of voters for the borough of Lancaster was composed of four separate lists, viz., one of £10 householders for each of the three townships iu the borough, made out by the respective overseers, and one list of freemen of the borough at large, made out by the town clerk. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 299 The objector's name was on the last-mentioned list, with his place of abode, as stated in the notice. Held, 1. That, although the notice of objection could not, by reason of the objector being on the list of free- men, be in literal compliance with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, it was, nevertheless, insufficient, for not specifying the particular list in which the objector's name was to be found ; 2. That the defect in the notice was not an " in- accurate description," and, therefore, was not cured by section 101 of the statute : Eids forth v. Farrer, 4 0. B. 9 ; 1 Lutw. 517 ; 16 L. J. 0. P. 132, sub. tit. Farrer v. Edsicorth; 10 Jur. 1012, sub tit. Farrer v. Edsworth. The statement of the year of our Lord, an essential addition to date of notices of objection. Borough of Dartmouth. Notices of objection (to the overseers, and the party) were signed by the objector on 22nd August (a), 1846 (the year of the revision), and were dated thus: — "Dated this 22nd August "(a). Held, that the non-insertion of the year of our Lord was fatal to the validity of the notices : Beenlen v. Hockin, 4 C. B. 19 ; 1 Lutw. 526 ; 10 Jur. 1059 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 8 L. T. 143. Service of notice of objection on a parish officer who had not joined in signing the list of voters, held, never' theless, a good service. Borough of Dartmouth. The list of voters for the borough, made out by the overseers for 1846 (the year of the revision), was signed by three of the overseers, and one of the churchwardens. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. 300 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. A notice of objection was served upon another churchwarden, who had not signed the list. Held, that the notice was well served : Beenlen v. Jlockin, 4 C. B. 19 ; 1 Lutw. 526 ; 16 L. J. 0. P. 49 ; 10 Jur. 1059. Service of notice of objection by leaving it at voter's qualifying premises (not his place of abode), held insufficient, although overseers had wrongly stated his place of abode in list. Borough of Bewdley. The overseers had inserted the respondent's name in the list as follows : — Greensill, Edward. I Lower Mitton. I Office and I Lichfield Wharf. J street. A notice of objection, addressed to the respondent at Lower Mitton, was left at the office and wharf, which were situate at Lower Mitton. The respondent had formerly resided at Lower Mitton, but had ceased to do so when the notice was served for several years. He had never lived at the office and wharf. Held, that the objector had failed to comply with 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 17, and that, consequently, the service of the notice was insufficient (a) : Allen v. (a) Cbesswell, J., is reported in Lutwyche to have said in the argument : " If the objector had left the notice at the respondent's 'former place of abode at Lower Mitton, he would have brought himself within the words of the Act: " 1 Lutw. 594. But the judg- ment of the court points to the opposite conclusion. Wix.de, C. J., in delivering judgment, said, "When the Act of Parliament comes to prescribe the duty of the objector, and requires him to serve his notice of objection in one of three different modes, I apprehend it is iu the power of the objector to select which he pleases. If he chooses to select the particular mode of service which is described in the 17th section by the words ' cause to be left at the place of abode of the person objected to,' he must take care to see that the place at which he serves the notice is the party's place of abode ; and he has no just ground for contending that the notice has been duly served there, because he can show that the overseers have made a mistake, and have supposed that place to be the residence NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOKOUGHS. 301 Greensill, 4 C. B. 100 ; 1 Lutw. 592 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 142 ; 11 Jur. 476. A notice of objection (to a voter for Cheltenham) in which objector gave, as his place of abode, the street and number of house where he resided, without adding the town or parish, was held prima facie sufficient. Borough of Cheltenham. A notice of objection was in the following form : — " To Mr. C. S., 1, Olney place. " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Cheltenham. " Dated, &c. " (Signed) John Flatcher, of 5, Sher- borne street, on the list of voters for the parish of Cheltenham." Held, that the description " 5, Sherborne street," meant " 5, Sherborne street, Cheltenham," and was prima facie sufficient (a) : Sheldon v. Matcher, 5 C. B, of the voter, when in fact it was not. He may always guard him self against the effect of any such mistake by adopting either o the other two modes of service, namely, personal service, or send- ing the notice by post according to the directions of the Act : " 1 Lutw. 596, 597. (a) "Whether or not the description of an objector's place of abode is sufficient, may either be a matter of law or of fact, according to tbe circumstances of each particular case. Wilde, C. J., in delivering his judgment in the above case, explains the distinc- tion thus: — "Suppose an objector in London were to describe himself of King Street, simply, that would be a description of his place of abode from its extreme generality so manifestly insuffi- cient, that a decision upon it might be reviewed by this court as a matter of law. But if the description was so particular and defined, as to be as generally understood as the one supposed would be likely to be misunderstood, then the question would be for the barrister ; and his decision upon it could not be inquired into by this court, because his decision would in such case be pro- 302 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 14 ; 2 Lutw. 11 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 34 ; 11 Jur. 949 ; 10 L. T. 136. Service of notice of objection by leaving it at voter's residence (as stated in list) between 9 and 10 p.m. on 25th August (a), under circumstances affording no presumption that notice duly reached voter, having been held by revising barrister to be insufficient, the court affirmed his decision. Borough of Bewdley. A notice of objection was attempted to be served in the following manner : — A man, on behalf of the objector, went to the place of abode (as described in the list) of the person objected to, between 9 and 10 in the evening of 25th August (a), 1847 (the year of the revision), and knocked at the usual entrance door several times, but no one answered. He thereupon put a due notice of objection inside the door and left it there. This was the only occasion on which he attempted to serve the notice. The revising barrister decided that there was no sufficient service of the notice of objection, on the ground that the time and mode of service was un- reasonable, and that a further attempt to leave the notice with some person at the voter's house should have been proved. The court considered that the question was one of fact (b) for the revising barrister, but added that he nounced on a matter of fact: " 17 L. J. C. P. 37. See further, as to the jurisdiction of the court in relation to matters of law and matters of fact, the observations of the court in Norris v. Pitcher, L. R. 4 C. P. 417, 420, 421, 422. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. (b) Matjle, J., in referring- to the above case in Points v.Attwood, said : " Watson v. Pitt does not decide that the sufficiency of the service is always a question of fact." For further observations of that learned judge on this point, see note (a), post, on p. 304. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 303 had correctly determined it : Watson v. Pitt, 5 C. B. 77 ; 2 Lutw. 73 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 143 ; 12 Jur. 121 ; 10 L. T. 418. Assistant overseer appointed in general terms under 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, held to be an " overseer " within 6 Vict. c. 18. Service on him of notice of objection by leaving it at his place of abode, held not to be invalidated by the fact of such service taking place between 11 and 12 at night on 25th August (a). Borough of Harwich. A notice of objection, viz., that required by section 17 of 6 Yict. c. 18 to be given to " the overseers who shall have made out the list " in which the name of the person objected to is inserted, was left at the place of abode of an assistant overseer at 11*20 p.m. on 25th August (a). There were two regularly appointed overseers for the parish of Dovercourt (the parish to which the objection related) for the year 1848 (the year of the revision), and they together made out and signed the list of voters and list of persons objected to. The assistant overseer, who had been appointed to act as such about two years previously, and had con- tinued to do so ever since, took no part in making out, and did not sign, either of the lists. His appointment, which had not been confirmed by the Poor Law Commissioners, was made under 59 Greo. III. c 12, s. 7, and was in general terms, and he had, by virtue of such appointment, habitually discharged all the ordinary duties of the overseers. The notice of objection left at the abode of the assistant overseer was acted on by the overseers, who (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. 304 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. inserted the name of the person objected to in the list of objections. Held, 1. That the appointment having been made under 59 Greo. III. c. 12, s. 7, the confirmation thereof by the Poor Law Commissioners was not essential to its validity. 2. That the assistant overseer having been ap- pointed in general terms to perform all the duties of an overseer was, by virtue of section 101 of 6 Yict. c. 18, one of the overseers whose duty it was under section 13 to make out a list of persons entitled to vote, and, consequently, that the service on him of the notice of objection was a sufficient compliance with section 17, although he had not personally interfered in making out the list. 3. That the lateness of the hour at which the notice was left at the assistant overseer's place of abode did not invalidate the service (a) : Points v. Attwood, 6 C. B. 38 ; 2 Lutw. 117 ; 18 L. J. 0. P. 19 ; 13 Jur. 83. (a) Per Maule, J., in the above case: — "I think it may be fairly presumed from the statement in this case, that the door was opened, and that the notice was left with somebody in Cooper's" (the assistant overseer's) "house. It is not to be understood as a general proposition that questions of fact are in all cases questions of fact for the decision of the revising barrister. A notice might be delivered at 12 o'clock at night to the wife of the party for whom it was intended, and that would be enough. On the other hand, a letter may be put inside a door in such a manner that there is no reasonable probability of its reaching, in due course, the party to whom it is addressed. It might be put under the door mat : " 2 Lutw. 122, 123. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 305 Where revising barrister decided that description of objector's place of abode was bad, such description being neither bad on the face of if, or shown by evidence to be insufficient in point of fact, the court reversed his decision. Borough of Kidderminster. A notice of objec- tion was in the following form : — " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster. " Dated, &c. " (Signed) Thos. Powell, of Hall street, on the list of voters for the borough of Kidder- minster." The borough of Kidderminster consisted of two parishes, called respectively the borough, and the foreign of the borough of Kidderminster, and there were separate lists of voters for each. There were only these two parishes in the town of Kidderminster. The towns of Bewdley, Stourport, Stourbridge, and Kniver were within seven miles of Kidderminster. The objector's place of abode was situate in a Hall street in Kidderminster. His name was on the list of voters for the borough of Kidderminster, and his place of abode, and the local description of his qualifi- cation were therein stated to be " Hall street." It was contended before the revising barrister that the notice was bad for not stating in what parish or town "Hall street" was situate, but there was no evidence to show that the notice was insufficient in point of fact. The revising barrister held that the notice was bad, on the ground that it did not give a sufficient state- ment of the objector's place of abode, in compliance with 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 17. The court reversed the decision : Powell v. Caswell (not reported except in relation to a point of practice on appeal). 306 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Objector's description of himself as "on the list of freemen for the city of Carlisle" instead of ( 'on the list of freemen entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of Carlisle" held sufficient. City of Carlisle. An objector described himself in liis notice of objection as being " on the list of freemen for the city of Carlisle." The town clerk made out and published each year a list, the heading of which was " The list of freemen of the city of Carlisle entitled to vote in the election of members for the said city." The objector's name appeared on that list. The town clerk also made out (but did not publish) another list of the freemen of Carlisle, which was the roll of all the freemen of the city, made out and kept for municipal purposes, in pursuance of section 5 of 5 & 6 Will. IV. c. 76, and called the freemen's roll. Held {dissentiente Maule, J.), that the notice of objection was sufficient under section 17 of 6 Yict. c. 18, inasmuch as any person of ordinary intelligence would understand the words " on the list of freemen for the city of Carlisle" to mean "on the list of free- men entitled to vote in the election of members for that city:" Feddon v. Sawyers, 12 C. B. 680 ; 2Lutw. 246 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 15 ; 20 L. T. 127 ; 17 Jur. 141. The words " list of persons entitled under the Reform Act to rote" fyc., held sufficiently descriptive of £10 occupiers'' lint, to distinguish it from that of persons possessing reserved right*. City of Westminster. A notice of objection was as follows : — " To the overseers of the parish of St. Clement Danes. I hereby give you notice that I object to the name of Alford, James, being retained on the list of persons entitled NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 307 under the Reform Act to vote in the election of members for the City of "Westminster. " Dated, &c. " (Signed), &o." In the city of Westminster the overseers made out two lists of voters, one of occupiers, according to Form No. 3 in Sched. (B.) to 6 Yict. c. 18, and the other of voters in respect of reserved rights, accord- ing to Form No. 4 in the same Schedule. The name of James Alford appeared only in the former list. The note to Form No. 10 in the above-mentioned schedule contains the following direction : — " If more than one list of voters, the notice of objection should specify the list to which the objection refers." It was contended at the revision court that the words " under the Reform Act " introduced into the notice of objection in question were not a sufficient compli- ance with the above direction. The revising barrister having decided that the notice was insufficient, The court reversed the decision (a) : Hugqett v. Lewis, 15 C. B. 245 ; K. & G. 1 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 1 Jur., N. S. 19 ; 3 W. E. 109 ; 24 L. T. 133. Notice of objection served by post (as directed by statute), not vitiated by the fact of postmaster having received it out of the duly appointed business hours. Borough of Ashburton. An objector delivered a notice of objection (to the party), in duplicate, to the postmaster of the post office at Ashburton, at («) Mauie, J., is reported to have said in the course of the argument in the above case : — " The notice of objection to over- seers seems to be a thing between the objector and the overseers. I do not see what right a voter has to take the objection." But it was observed by Williams, J. , that section 40 of 6 Vict. c. 18 makes the notices a condition precedent to the right to expunge the name : see K. & G. 4. 308 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 6 a.m. on Monday, 25th August (a), 1856 (the year of the revision). He produced before the revising barrister one of the duplicates, bearing the Ashburton post mark of 25th August (a), 1856, and he proved that the notice would, in the ordinary course of post, have been delivered on that day at the place of abode to which it was addressed. During August, 1856, the hours for registering letters, and for receiving the duplicate notices under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 100, were (on week days) from 7 a.m. until 3.50 p.m. ; and it was not compulsory on the postmaster to register any letter, except within the above-named hours. Public notice was given at the post office that these were the hours of business. It was contended before the barrister, that the objector having failed to prove that he had delivered the notices to the postmaster within the appointed business hours, as directed by section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, could not avail himself of the stamped duplicate as evidence, under that section, of due notice having been given to the person objected to. The revising barrister decided that, the postmaster having consented to receive the notices out of business hours, although not bound to do so, the statute had been sufficiently complied with, and the notice of objection proved. The court affirmed the decision : Hannaford v. Whiteway, 1 C. B., N. S. 53 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 75 ; K. & G-. 61; 28 L. T. 143; 3 Jur., N. S. 673; 5 W. E. 75. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 309 Notice of objection sent by post (as directed by statute), not vitiated by the fact of postmaster having received it out of the duly appointed business hours. Borough of Ashburton. Notices of objection were delivered in duplicate to the postmaster of the post office at Ashburton at 6 p.m. on Sunday, 24th August {a), 1856 (the year of the revision). The duplicates produced before the barrister had the Ash- burton post mark of 24th August (a) , and it was proved that they would, in the ordinary course of post, have been delivered on 25th August (a), at the places of abode to which they were addressed. During August, 1856, the Ashburton post office (in accordance with a public notice) was opened to the public on Sundays from 7.30 a.m. until 10 a.m., and it was not compulsory on the postmaster to register any letter on Sunday, except within those hours. The same objection was taken as in Hannaford v. Whiteway, supra ; the barrister having come to the same conclusion as in that case. The court affirmed the decision : Taddon v. White- way, 1 C. B., N. S. 62 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 75, 77 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 673, 674. Notice of objection to borough voter sent by post in the statutory mode, need not on the face of it, show voter's place of abode. Borough of Macclesfield. A stamped duplicate notice of objection was duly addressed on the bach to the voter at his place of abode : but it did not show on the face of it the voter's place of abode. Held, that the notice, being in accordance with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, was a good notice: Barclay v. Parrott, 1 C. B., N. S. 49; K. & G. 59 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 77 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 672 ; 5 W. E. 75. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 266. 310 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Objector may send notice of objection to overseers by post in the ordinary ivay {without adopting statutory mode), but in that case it must appear that notice reached overseers in due time. City of Westminster. The revising barrister having called upon an objector to prove the service of his notice of objection on the overseers of the parish of St. Anne, it appeared that this notice was inclosed in the same cover with others intended to be served in the same parish; that the cover was addressed, " To the overseers of the parish of St. Anne, in the city of Westminster," and that a parcel of notices thus made up was despatched by post. The regulations as to posting prescribed by section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, were not followed ; but the notice of objection reached the overseers in due time, and was by them included in their published list of objections. Held, that the objector was not bound to adopt the statutory mode of posting pointed out by section 100 of the statute, and that, the notice having reached the overseers in due time, he had sufficiently complied with section 17 (a) : Smith v. Huggett, 11 C. B., N. S. 55 ; K & G. 434 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 8 Jut., N. S. 617 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 425 ; 10 W. R. 131. (a) Byles, J., is reported to have doubted whether section 100 applied to notices of objection to overseers ; however, the court, in Bishop v. Helps, ante, p. 263, held, that that section did, by virtue of section 101, apply to such notices, if they were directed to the overseers at their " usual place of abode." NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 311 Objector must describe himself in his notices of objection as of his true place of abode ; and if he has two places of abode, he may state either. Whether, or not, a house of which objector was tenant at will was properly stated to be his place of abode, held to be a question of fact, depending on the circumstances of the particular case. Borough of Devonport. The name of an objector (the appellant) appeared in notices of objection (to the overseers and the voter) as follows : — " James Webb Curtis, of 25, Clowance Street, on the list of voters for the parish of Stoke Danierell." The appellant had lived at 25, Clowance street for two years before February, 1861 (the year of the revision) . The house was his mother's, but much of the furniture was his ; and it was verbally agreed that he should occupy the house as tenant at will, rent free, and that his mother should live with him. In February, 1861, he removed with his wife to 94, Fore street, and had there carried on the trade of a licensed victualler ever since. It being necessary for the conduct of the business that the appellant and his wife should live and sleep on the premises in Fore street, they had lived and slept there continuously from February, 1861, save that the appellant and his wife slept at 25, Clowance street one night, and the appellant himself slept there ten nights. They were both living and sleeping at 94, Fore street when the notices of objection were signed (23rd August). The appellant, however, continued in the occupation of 25, Clowance street, and intended returning to live there whenever it might suit his convenience to do so. After the appellant's removal to Fore street, his mother had no other permanent home than 25, Clowance street, and she occasionally resided there, 312 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and during such residence the appellant kept a servant to wait upon her. But she frequently lived elsewhere, and during her absence from 25, Clowance street, no servant was kept there, so that it often happened that the house was left for two or three weeks at a time without anyone living in it, and such was the case durirjg July, August, and September, 1861. The revising barrister was of opinion, 1 . That the appellant was required to state his true place of abode at the time of signing the notices. 2. That if he had two bond fide places of abode, he might state either. 3. That 25, Clowance street was not shown to have been his place of abode when the notices were signed, and, consequently, the notices were bad. The court affirmed the decision, adding that, whether or not 25, Clowance street, was the objector's place of abode, as well as 94, Fore street, when the notices were signed, was rather a question of fact than law, and that the revising barrister was not bound in law to find Clowance street to be the true place of abode, by reason of the tenancy at will, under the circumstances stated : Curtis v. Blight, 11 C. B., N. S. 95 ; K. & G. 475 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 48; 5 L. T., N. S. 450 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 619 ; 10 W. E. 172. Notice of objection (to the party), wherein objector described himself in literal compliance with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, held sufficient, although overseers made out tiro lists for the parish, viz., one of £10 occupiers, and another of possessors of reserved right*. Borough of Bedford. The appellant (an ob- jector) described himself in his notice of objection (to the party) as of " Water Lane, St. Paul, Bed- ford, on the list of voters for the parish of St. Paul." . There were two lists made out by the overseers for NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 313 the parish of St. Paul, viz., a £10 list and a reserved rights list. It was objected that the notice was bad, on the ground that the appellant had not specified therein the particular list on which his name was to be found. The court, reversing the barrister's decision, held that the notice was good, being in literal compliance with Form No. 11, Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18 : Samuel v. Hitchmough, 13 0. B., N. S. 3 ; K. & Gr. 522; 32 L. J. C. P. 55 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 360; 11 W. E. 92 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 414. Where there were more districts than one in a horough, each having a -separate lid of voters, it was held that notices of objection were insufficient, for not- stating distinctly in which list objector s name was to be found. Borough of Kidderminster. The ancient parish of Kidderminster consisted of the municipal borough of Kidderminster, the foreign of Kidderminster, and a hamlet (not within the parliamentary borough), each of which had its separate overseers and separate rates. There were two lists of voters for the parlia- mentary borough of Kidderminster, one of persons entitled in respect of property occupied within the municipal borough, and the other of persons entitled in respect of property occupied within the foreign ; the former was signed by the overseers of the muni- cipal borough, the latter by the overseers of the foreign. An objector (on the former list) described himself in his notices of objection to the overseers of the borough and foreign respectively, and to the party, as " on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidder- minster in respect of property occupied within the parish of Kidderminster." 314 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that the notices were insufficient, as they did not specify the list on which the objector's name was to be found : Crouiher v. Bradney, 15 0. B., N. S. 536; H. &P. 63; 33 L. J. C. P. 70; 9L.T, N. S. 444; 12 W. E. 176. Notice of objection {to the party) in the words "I object to the name of " (the name of the person objected to) " being retained," 8fc, instead of the words " I object to your name being retained" 8fc., held a sufficient compliance with section 17 and Form No. 11, Sched. B. of 6 Vict. c. 18. Such notice held not to be vitiated by the fact that the christian and surnames in the body thereof were not written in -same order as in the heading, such transposition not being misleading. City of Exeter. A notice of objection (to the party) was in the following form : — " To Mr. Sidney Eice Force. " I hereby give you notice that I object to the name of Force, Sidney Eice " (the name being stated as in the overseers' list) " being retained," &c, &c. It was contended at the revision court that the notice was bad : — 1. Because it was not in literal compliance with Form No. 11 in Sched. B. of 6 Vict. c. 18. 2. Because the names in the heading of the notice were transposed in the body thereof. In support of the first contention great stress was laid on the circumstance, that section 17 of 6 Vict. c. 18, requires the notice of objection (to the party) to be " according to the Form numbered 11, Sched. B.," omitting the words " or to the like effect," which occur in sections 15 and 17, in relation to other notices. In support of the second contention it was urged, NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 315 that the transposition of names was calculated to mislead. It was found by the revising barrister, that there was no other person of the same name on any list of voters for the city of Exeter, and that the person objected to was not in fact misled, or likely to be so. He therefore decided that the notice was good. Held, affirming the revising barrister's decision, that the notice satisfied the requirements of the statute, and that, if there was any inaccuracy, it was cured by section 101 : Force v. Floud, 15 C. B., N. S. 543 ; H. & P. 56 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 71 ; 12 W. E. 174; 9 L. T., N. S. 508. Where objector in borough of D. {consisting of parish of S. J)., and township of E. S., each having sepa- rate lists) described himself in notice of objection as " on the list of voters for the borough of D., and township of E. S." held a sufficient description within 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 17. Borough of Devonport. Notices of objection to the overseers and the party were signed as follows : — " Edward "William Cole, of 69, Durnford street, on the list of voters for the borough of Devonport and township of East Stone- house." It was objected, that it did not appear from these notices on what list the objector's name was to be found, and further, that there was in fact, no such list as that described in the notices. The borough of Devonport consisted of the parish of Stoke Damerell, and the parish or township of East Stonehouse. Each parish had distinct parish officers, and sepa- rate lists of voters ; which separate lists were pub- lished by the churchwardens and overseers at the several places of worship in their respective parishes. 316 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The list published in Stoke Damerell was headed : — " List of persons entitled to vote for the borough of Devonport, iu respect of property occupied within the parish of Stoke Damerell." The list published in East Stonehouse was headed : — " List of persons entitled to vote for the borough of Devonport, in respect of property occupied within the township of East Stonehouse." On this list the objector's name appeared, with his place of abode as stated in the notice of objection. There was no other Durnford street in the borough of Devonport than that in which the objector lived, and it was situate within the township of East Stonehouse. The revising barrister decided that the notices ful- filled the requirements of section 17 of 6 Vict. c. 18, Sched. B., Forms Nos. 10 and 11. The court affirmed the decision : Oram v. Cole, 18 C. B., N. S. 1 ; H. & P. 87 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 52 ; 13 W.R.268; 10Jur.,N.S. 1206; 11 L. T.,N. S. 451. Stamped notice of objection, produced under section 100 of 6 Vict. e. 18, not the less a duplicate because it differs from notice retained by postmaster by having the word " copy" at the top of it. City of London. Upon a duly stamped notice of objection (to the party) being produced at the revision court under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it was found to be headed with the word " copy." The notice was so headed before it was taken to, and stamped at, the post office. The notice left with the postmaster was not so headed. Held, that the notice produced was not vitiated as a duplicate by the insertion of the word " copy " at the head thereof : Benesh v. Booth, 18 0. B., N. S. Ill ; H. & P. 223 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 99 ; 13 W. R. 271 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 479. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 317 Notice of objection (to the party) sent by post under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, not vitiated by reason of t he post totcn and county being added to voter's place of abode "as described in the list." City of Rochester. A. was described in the list of voters for the parish of Frindsbury as follows : — Akenhead, James. I Canal road, Frinds- I House. I Canal road, bury. A notice of objection was sent by post under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, addressed " Mr. James Akenhead, Canal road, Frindsbury, Rochester, Kent." Held, that the addition of " Eochester, Kent," to A.'s place of abode, as described in the list of voters, did not prevent the notice from being in compliance with the statute: Cotton v. Frail (Akenhead's case), L. R. 2 C. P. 86 ; H. & P. 355 ; 36 L. J". C. P. 67 ; 12 Jul-., N. S. 1018; 15 W. E. 223; 15 L. T., N. S. 468. Notice of objection (to the party) sent by post under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, not vitiated by reason of the county being added to voter's place of abode "as described in the list." City of Eochester. F. was described in the list of voters for the parish of Frindsbury as follows : — Frankenstein, Leon. I St. Margaret, I House. I Cazeneuve street. Rochester. | A notice of objection was sent by post, under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, addressed " Mr. Leon Frankenstein, Cazeneuve street (a), St. Margaret, Eochester, Kent." (a) The following statement is appended to the report of this case in the Law Reports: — "It does not appear- from the case that the voter's place of abode was in Cazeneuve street, and a very different question might have been raised ; but this point of dis- tinction " (i.e., between this and Akenhead's case) "was not brought in any way to the notice of the court." 318 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that the addition of " Kent " to F.'s place of abode as described in the list of voters, did not prevent the notice from being in compliance with the statute : Cotton v. Pratt (Frankenstein's case), L. R. 2 C. P. 87, note; H. & P. 357, note; 12 Jur., N. S. 1019. Objector entitled to insist on objection, although he may have published a notice of its withdrawal (a). City of Carlisle. Notices of objection having been duly served upon several voters, the objector published in the local paper of 31st August a notice that he withdrew his objections. Afterwards he sent a notice to each voter that the objection to him was not withdrawn, and that it would be necessary for him to attend before the revising barrister to answer it. The objector appeared at the revision court in support of his objections, and proved the statutory notices : but it was contended, on behalf of the voters objected to, that they ought not to be called on to prove their qualifications, as the notices of objection to their names had been withdrawn. The revising barrister decided, that such notices had been withdrawn, and he therefore allowed the names to remain on the list, without requiring proof that the voters were qualified. The court held, reversing the decision, that, on proof by the objector of his notices of objection, the revising barrister was bound by the terms of section 40 of 6 Yict. c. 18, to require the voters objected to to prove their qualifications ; and, inasmuch as such notices were matters of public concern, he had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not they had been withdrawn (a) : Proudfoot v. Barnes, L. E. 2 C. P. 88 ; H. & P. 342 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 68 ; 12 Jur. 1017 ; 15 W. R. 222 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 439. (a) See now the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, s. 27, sub-sect. 1, and the notices of withdrawal of objection enacted in Schedule 3, Form (N.) of the Registration Act, 1885. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 319 Whether notice of objection sufficiently describes objector's place of abode, a question of fact for revising bar- rister. If the description be such that person objected to could easily find objector by inquiry, on going to the place stated, it is sufficient. City of Hereford. The appellant described himself in a notice of objection as " Charles Henry Pilcher, of Bartonsham, on the list of voters for the parish of St. Owen." His place of abode as stated in such list of voters was " Bartonsham." There had been from time immemorial, and still existed, in the parish of St. Owen, a farmhouse and farm called "Bartonsham." A portion of the land formerly occupied with the said farm had recently been laid out in building- allotments ; and streets had been formed, and houses built there, and the whole district had become known as Bartonsham ; and the district so known consisted of four streets, some houses or blocks of houses within which had been distinguished by their owners as terraces, places, or villas, and there were altogether forty-two such terraces, places, or villas. The objector lived at 1, Argyle place, Green street, which was in the district known as " Bartonsham." It was objected that "Bartonsham" was too general a description of the objector's place of abode, and that the description thereof should have been " Green street," or " 1, Argyle place." The revising barrister found that a letter addressed " Charles Henry Pilcher, Bartonsham," would have reached the objector by post ; and that the person objected to could, by inquiry at Bartonsham, have easily found the objector's residence, although not so easily by only knowing that such residence was in the district called " Bartonsham," as he would if he knew that it was in Green street, Bartonsham, or at 1, Argyle place, Bartonsham. Under these circumstances, the barrister decided that the description was sufficient. 320 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the sufficiency of the description of the objector's place of abode was a question of fact (a) for the revising barrister, and that he had rightly found it to be suffi- cient in the present case : Thackway v. Pilcher, L. R. 2 C. P. 100 ; H. & P. 378 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 443 ; 15 W. R. 223. Where notice of objection to the party, though in strict compliance with Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, was in fact a misdescription, it was held insufficient. Borough of Maldon. The borough list consisted of a list of freemen (comprising all freemen residing within the borough, or within seven miles thereof), and a list of occupiers for each of four parishes, of which that of St. Peter, Maldon, was one. The respondent was on the freemen's list, wherein he was described as of St. Peter's, Maldon, but he was not on the occupiers' list for that parish. In a notice of objection (to the party), the respondent described himself as of " Full Bridge street, St. Peter, Maldon, on the list of voters for the parish of St. Peter, in the said borough." Held, on the authority of Tudball v. Bristol (ante, p. 289), that the notice was insufficient': Bright v. Derenish, L. E. 2 C. P. 102; H. & P. 373; 36 L. J. C. P. 71 ; 15 W. P. 225 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 1019 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 471. (a) Whether a notice of objection describes on the face of it an objector's place of abode, is a question of law; -whether the description, being sufficient in law, gives the requisite information, is a question of fact for the barrister. See Sheldon v. Flatcher, 5 C. B. 14, and the note to that case, ante, p. 301. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 321 Notices of objection stamped by objector with facsimile of signature are sufficiently signed, within 6 Vict, c. 18, s. 17. Borough of Liverpool. The respondent (an objector) had himself, by means of an instrument on which was engraved a fac-simile of his usual signa- ture, impressed with his own hand his stamp on a notice of objection. Held, that the notice of objection was " signed " by the objector, within the meaning of 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 17 : Bennett v. Prumfift, L. E. 3 C. P. 28 ; H. & P. 407 ; 37 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 16 W. E. 131 ; 17 L. T., N. S. 213. Where objector in the parliamentary borough of P. (consisting of sir several places, of which the municipal borough of P. arts one, each having a separate list of voters) described himself in notice of objection as " on the list of voters for the borough of P. ;" held a sufficient indication that he was on the list for the municipal borough, although the words " borough of P." occurred in the first part of the notice, being there used for the parliamentary borough. Borough of Penryn. The parliamentary borough of Penryn consisted of six several places, viz., the borough (municipal) of Penryn, the town of Fal- mouth, and the parishes of St. Gluvias, My lor, Falmouth, and Budock. Each of these six places had separate overseers and rates, and separate lists. An objector, whose name was on the list for the first of the above places, sent a notice of objection to a voter as follows : — " To Mr. William Andrew, of Porham street, in the town of Falmouth. " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on the list, for the S. Y 322 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. town of Falmouth, of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the borough of Penryn. " Dated, &c. " Charles Moon, of St. Thomas street, Penryn, on the list of voters for the borough of Penryn.'" The revising barrister decided that the description of the objector did not sufficiently indicate on which of the six lists his name was to be found. Held, reversing the decision, that the words " borough of Penryn " at the close of the notice referred to the municipal borough of Penryn, and were a sufficient description within the statute (6 Yict. c. 18) : Moon v. Andrew, L. E. 4 0. P. 461 ; 1 H. & 0. 75 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 97 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 452. A notice of objection [to overseers) to a borough voter, which did not specify in which of two lists the name of the person objected to appeared was, tender very peculiar circumstances, held to be sufficient. Borough of Horsham. There were two lists of voters for the borough (consisting of only one parish), viz., a list of occupiers, and a list of pos- sessors of reserved rights. The appellant, on the former list, was objected to by the respondent, whose name was the only name on the latter. The respondent in giving his notice of objection to the overseers did not specify the list to which the objection referred, as required by the note to Form 10, Sched. B. of 6 Yict. c. 18. It was proved that the overseers knew to which list the objection was intended to apply, and that they were not in any way misled. Held, that the peculiar facts of the case warranted the finding by the revising barrister that the notice NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 323 of objection was sufficient : Aldridge v. Meduin, L. B. 4 C. P. 464 ; 1 H. & C. 67 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 45 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 453. Where objector in the borough of W. {consisting of three townships, each having a separate list) described himself in notice of objection as " on the list of voters for G. street, in the borough of W." and if was found by the barrister, that such description would be commonly understood in the borough to designate the list for the township in which O. street was (wholly) situate : held, that the description was sufficient. Borough of Warrington. A notice of objection was served on the appellant, signed, " Samuel Dun- bobbin, on the list of voters for Grolborne street, in the borough of Warrington." The borough consisted of three townships, one of them being Warrington. Each township had a separate overseer, and a separate list of voters, and the borough register was composed of these three lists. There was only one Golborne street in the borough. It lay wholly in the township of Warring- ton, and the description given in the notice was such as to be commonly understood in the borough to refer to the list for that township. Held, that the notice, although not specifying the particular list in which the objector's name was to be found, as directed by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 17, Sched. B., Form No. 11, was nevertheless sufficient, being such as to be " commonly understood," and, therefore, oured by section 101 of that statute : Allen v. Gecldes, L. E. 5 C. P. 291 ; 1 H. & C. 413 (a). (a) S. C, nom. Allen v. The Town Clerk of Warrington, 39 L. J. c. p. 113 ; 18 w. b, 317 ; 22 l. t., n. s. 169. y2 324 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Service of notice of objection on overseers by service at "place for transacting parochial business." Semble, that a collector of poor rates (appointed under 4 8f 5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 46), who, by consent of the overseers, performs their ordinary duties (includ- ing those connected with parliamentary registration), is an " overseer " within 6 Vict. c. 18. Borough of Bedford. By section 101 of 6 Yict. c. 18, it is enacted that " the word ' overseers,' shall mean all persons who by virtue of any office or appointment shall execute the duties of overseers of the poor, by whatever name or title such persons may be called, and in whatsoever manner they may be appointed." The borough of B. consisted of five parishes, for which one collector of poor rates was appointed by the guardians under 4 & 5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 46. By the terms of his appointment his duties were' " to assist the churchwardens and overseers " in the matters therein specified relating to poor rates, " and to obey all lawful orders and directions of the guar- dians, and of the majority of the churchwardens and overseers ;" but by consent of the overseers he had been in the habit of discharging all their ordinary duties, including that of making out lists for revision purposes, and of attending the registration court. Semble, per Lord Coleridge, C. J-., that such collector was an " overseer," within 6 Yict. c. 18,, ss. 17 and 101, on whom a notice of objection could be well served. By the same section roperly do so, because the notice, being in terms an objection to the appellant both as a parliamentary voter and as a county elector, indicated Division 1 as that to which the objection referred, and was therefore unlikely to mislead. The notice of objection was accordingly amended by the insertion of the words " Division 1 " after the word "list," and, the ground of objection having been proved, the name of the appellant was expunged from the list. The court (affirming the decision) held that, whether or not the notice of objection would have been good without amendment, the formal defect arising from the omission of the words " Division 1 " was a "mistake" within the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, s. 28, sub-s. 2, and that the revising barrister had rightly exercised his discretion by amending it : Hartley v. Raise, L. R. 22 Q. B. D. 200 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 118 ; 37 W. R. 302 ; 60 L. T., N. S. 322; 58 L. J. Q. B. D. 100. It is a sufficient compliance with the Reg ist red ion of Electors Acts, and the Registration Order, 1889, Schedule 2, Form L, No. 1, if the signature of the objector precedes the names objected to, instead of being placed after them at the foot of the notice of objection. It is no objection to a notice of objection that it contains a list or schedule of names objected to, although no such list or schedule is expressly authorized by the Forms. City of Norwich. The appellant's name was on Division 1 of the list of voters. The respondent had duly signed and served on the appellant a notice of objection to his name being retained on the said 342 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. list. The respondent had also served on the Guar- dians of the Poor of the Norwich Incorporation, who, under the Norwich Corporation Act, 1889, s. 38 (3), perform the duties of overseers of the parish of Norwich, a notice in the following form : — " Polling District No. 1. "Notice of Objection to be given to Overseers. " [Parliamentary and Local Government.] " To the Guardians of the Poor of the Norwich Incorporation, acting as and being the Over- seers of the parish of Norwich. " I hereby give you notice that I object to the names of the persons mentioned and described below being retained on the List No. 1, Division No. 1, as parliamentary electors for the parliamentary city and county of the city of Norwich, and as citizens for the municipal city and county of the same city. " Dated this 18th day of August, 1890. " (Signed) William Arthur Wade, "Of No. 13G, Bull Close Eoad, Saint James, in the City of Norwich, " On Division No. 1 of List No. 1 of parliamentary electors and citizens for Polling District No. 24 of the parish of Norwich, in the city and county of the city of Norwich. "Name of person objected to as described in the list. Place of abode as described. [Here followed 17 names and addresses, including the name and address of the appellant.] The whole of the notice was written and printed on the same side of a sheet of paper. The name of William Arthur Wade therein appearing was the signature of the respondent. The notice was not otherwise signed by him. The name of the appellant was duly published in the list of persons objected to. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 343 It was contended by the appellant at the Revision Court that the notice to the guardians was bad, on the grounds that the name of the appellant did not appear in the body of the notice, and that, as the signature of the respondent thereto preceded the names of the appellant and the other persons ob- jected to, the notice was not signed at the foot thereof as required by the statutory form. The revising barrister decided that the name of the appellant was sufficiently incorporated by reference in the body of the notice, and that, regard being had to the proviso in section 18 of the Registration Act, 1885, the notice in question was a good notice ; and on failure of proof of qualification he expunged the appellant's name, and the other names comprised in the schedule, from the list. The court affirmed the decision (a) : Sutton v. Wade, L. R. (1891) 1 U. B. D. 269 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. D. 28; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 170 ; 63 L. T., N. S. 588 ; 39 W. R. 223. The revising barrister has power to admit evidence against a declaration by a person objected to, made under section 24 o/41 8f 42 Vict. e. 26. Borough of Liverpool. T. was objected to on the ground that he had not occupied as stated in division 1 of the occupiers' list, and had made a declaration, pursuant to section 24, in which he corrected his place of abode, and also the description of the qualifying property, successive dwelling- houses, in column 4. The declaration was in proper (a) In Gale v. Overend and Moore v. Atkinson (argued together with the above case), there was a like notice of objection to over- seers, except that in Moore v. Atkinson the objector's signature had been placed after the list of names objected to, but it had been contended that the notice was bad because the forms made no provision for a list or schedule at all. The revising barrister in each case having held that the notice was bad, the court reversed their decisions. 344 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. form ; but the objector satisfied the revising barrister by evidence not on oath (appellant not appearing, nor any application being made for a postponement) that the declaration did not remove his objection, and that there was still one successive dwelling-house not stated in column 4. The revising barrister removed T.'s name. The court held, affirming the decision, that, if there was not such a power, a person need only make a false claim and amend it by a false declaration to preclude all examination, and that the name was rightly removed : Tranior v. Starbuck, Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 340. Where notices of objection to soldiers in barracks were duly addressed there, and registered under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 100, and posted in time to have been delivered there on or before August 20 by postmen in the ordinary course of post obtaining at all places in the borough except the barracks (where delivery is made by orderlies), such posting is, within the above section, " in the ordinary course of post" and production of the stamped duplicates is evidence of due service of the notices. Borough of Colchester. Notice of objection to some 47 soldiers on the list as occupiers of dwelling- houses in Colchester Barracks had been duly posted on August 19, so as to reach, in the ordinary course of post at Colchester, the voters on or before August 20. Objector produced duly stamped duplicates, and tendered them as evidence of due postage in the ordinary course of post. It was contended that objector could not rely on the service by post, because there was a practice (which was proved) under military and postal rules, that barrack letters are not delivered by postmen, but by orderlies, who fetch them from the post office for that purpose ; and, on August 19, when (had these soldiers been at NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 345 Colchester) they would have received the notices from the orderlies, the soldiers were on duty at Aldershot, and, consequently, did not receive the notices till after August 20 because they were not re- addressed in time. The revising barrister and the Divisional Court held themselves bound by the authority of Childs v. Cox, p. 366, that there was here no ordinary course of post, and that, therefore, the stamped duplicate could not be relied on. The Court of Appeal held, that " the ordinary course of post " in section 100 means the course ordinary in the district, that delivery b}^ orderlies was extraordinary, and therefore, overruling Childs v. Cox, that as the notice would, in the ordinary course of post, have been delivered in time, the stamjaed duplicates were evidence of due service : Kemp v. Wanklyn, L. E. (1894) Q. B. 583 ; 63 L. J. Q. B. D. 520 ; Fox & Smith Reg. Cas. 360 ; 70 L. T. 478 ; 42 W. E. 369. 346 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. DECLARATIONS FOR CORRECTINGl MISDESCRIPTION IN LIST. Revising barrister was held not to be empowered by the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to amend description of qualification by chang- ing a single into a successive occupation, although declaration pursuant to section 24 of that Act had been duly delivered to town clerk (a). Borough of Burnley. L. was objected to on the list of parliamentary and municipal voters (Division 1), on the grounds (inter alia) that the nature of his qualification, and the name and situa- tion of his qualifying property, were not correctly described. His description as entered on the list was as follows : — Ludlow, Arthur I 8, Birley Place. I House. I 8, Birley Place. Speight. | L. had duly delivered to the town clerk two declarations pursuant to section 24 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. The first, headed " Parliamentary," was a formal declaration for correcting misdescription in the list. The declarant stated that he was the person referred to in the above-mentioned entry (which was set out in the declaration), and that his correct name and place of abode, and the correct particulars respecting his qualification, were and ought to be stated, for the purposes of the register then about to (a) But see now Foskett v. Kaufman, post, p. 372, in case of a declaration. MISDESCRIPTION IN LIST. 347 be made up of voters for the parliamentary borough of Burnley, as follows : — Ludlam, Arthur Speight. 9, Birley Place. I Houses in succession. 8, Birley Place, and 9, Birley Place. The second declaration was for the correction of the burgess list, but was in other respects identical with the first. The revising barrister was of opinion that, as the declarations proposed to substitute a new and different qualification for that stated in the list of voters, they were beyond the scope and meaning of section 24, and that he had no power to make the proposed amendments in the third and fourth columns. He therefore expunged L.'s name from the list. The court, affirming the decision, held that the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, does not authorize an amendment of the description of qualification by adding premises to those described in the list so as to make up the necessary qualification, and, consequently, that the declarations in question were of no avail (a) : Por- rett (b) v. Lord, L. P. 5 0. P. D. 65 ; 1 Colt. Peg. Cas. 46; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 176; 42 L. T., N. S. 28; 28 W. P. 393. (a) Expressly overruled by Foskett v. Kaufman, p. 372. \b) This was a consolidated appeal, and Porrett made and signed the declaration of appeal simply as agent for the persons "inte- rested as appellants." He does not appear by any statement in the case to have been himself personally "interested" in the matter of the appeal. As to the sufficiency of such a declaration in a consolidated appeal, see the observations of the court in IVanldi/n v. Woollett, 4 C. B. 97, 98, 99, and sections 42 and 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18. 348 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Revising barrister held to have no power to act upon a declaration as to misdescription under section 24 of 41 fy 42 Vict. c. 26 (as amended for the year 1885, by section 30 of 48 fy 49 Vict. c. 23), unless it has been sent to the town cleric in due time. Borough of Ipswich. The respondent's name having been expunged from the overseer's list on objection by the appellant, a declaration under section 24 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (correcting the description of the respondent's qualification), was handed to the revising barrister by the town clerk. The said declaration purported to have been made before a justice of the peace on the 7th of September, 1885, and the indorsement thereon by the town clerk was that it was received by him at noon on that day. The revising barrister decided to accept the decla- ration as evidence of the respondent's qualification, and reinstated his name in the list with the corrected description set out in the declaration. The court reversed the decision on the ground that the sending declarations as to misdescription to the town clerk within the statutory time was a condition precedent to their being received as evidence of the facts declared to : Baking v. Fraser, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 252 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 455 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 11 ; 34 W. R. 366. ( 3 49 ) SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS (a). Where qualification consists of two houses occupied in immediate succession, both houses must be described in list. If one be omitted, revising barrister not empowered to supply it. Borough of Lewes. The appellant's qualification was described in the third and fourth columns of the list of voters as follows : — House. East street. He had for seven months previous to 31st July (b), 1843 (the year of the revision), occupied, as tenant, house numbered 10, East street, having removed thither direct from house 16, West street, which he had occupied, as tenant, for more than six months next preceding his removal therefrom. Held, that the appellant's title to be registered rested on his occupation of the two houses in imme- diate succession, and both houses should, therefore, have been described in the list, as forming his quali- fication to vote. Held, further, that the addition of the premises in "West street to the qualification inserted in the list, would be a change in the description of the qualifica- tion, not warranted by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40 (c) : Bartlctt v. Gibbs, 5 M. & G-. 81 ; 1 Lutw. 73 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 40 ; 7 Jur. 1158 ; B. & Arn. 98. (a) See now the provisions of section 24 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enabling borough voters to make declarations as to misdescription, and Foskett v. Kaufman, post, p. 372. (b) The period of occupation necessary to qualify is now com- puted by reference to 15 th July : see section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. (c) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. 350 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. If premises (jiving a county vote he situate in a " street, lane, or other like place" and are not numbered, they are well described in claim, and list of voters, as being in the particular " street," fyc., icithout name of occupying tenant being substituted for number. South Lancashire. The respondent's qualifi- cation was described in the list of claimants as follows : — Undivided moiety of two free- j Tinker lane, Hollinwood. hold cottages. There were more than forty cottages in Tinker lane, but they were not numbered ; and neither of the two cottages in respect of which the respondent claimed was known by any particular name ; but each of them had an occupying tenant. It was contended before the revising barrister, that the description in the fourth column was not sufficient within the statute (G Vict. c. 18), reference being also had to the forms in Schedule A., and that, neither of the cottages being numbered, and the property not being known by any name, the names of the occupying tenants ought to have been given. The revising barrister having decided that the description was in sufficient compliance with the statute, The court affirmed his decision (a) : Echersley v. (a) Tindai, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the court, said, "Although it is contended that the 5th section of the Act requires the overseers to make out, according to the form numbered 3, an alphabetical list of claimants, containing, among other things, ' the nature of his qualification, and the local, or other description of his property, and the name of the occupying tenant thereof,' and that, consequently, the name of the occupying tenant must be inserted in each case ; yet it appears a sufficient answer, that this direction is qualified and restricted by the words which immediately follow, namely, that the same shall be written 'as they are stated in the claim.' The direction at the head of Form No. 2 " (the notice of claim) " appears to us to intend, that if a house be in a ' street, lane, or other like place ' in the parish, the ' street ' or ' lane ' shall be mentioned ; and that, if the houses be numbered, the number also shall be given ; but that, if the SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 351 Barker, 8 Scott, N. E. 899 ; 7 M. & GL 76 ; 1 Lutw. 190 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 9 Jur. 331 ; B. & Am. 334. A building calculated for a dwelling-house, though not used as such, is a " house " within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (a). City of Bristol. F. was objected to in respect of a qualification described in the list as " bouse." He rented a building, consisting of apartments, and which had the usual conveniences of, and was in every way calculated for, a dwelling-house, and was in fact once used as such ; but it had ceased to be so used, and no one resided on the premises. F. occu- pied the greater portion of the building himself, partly for warehousing goods, and partly for a sale room. Some of the rooms not so occupied he let off as workshops. Held, that F.'s qualification was properly described as "house": Daniel v. Coulsting, 8 Scott, N. E. 949; 7 H. & GK 122 ; 1 Lutw. 230 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 70 ; 9 Jur. 258 ; B. & Arn. 380. In a list of occupiers it is sufficient to date nature of qualifying property, without stating the extent of voter's interest therein. City of Bristol. The respondent's qualification was described in the list as " house and shop." house and premises be not in a 'street' or 'lane,' 'or other like place,' but are in a road, or on a common, or the like, then the name of the property shall be given, if known by any, or the name of tbe occupying tenant." The heading of the fourth column in Form No. 2 (referred to above) is as follows: — "Street, lane, or other like place, in this parish (or township), and number of house (if any), where the property is situate, or name of the property, if known by any, or name of the occupying tenant ." v The heading of the fourth column of the form of claim in respect of ownership given in the 2nd Schedule of the Registration Act, 1885, is simply "Description of qualifying property." («) Repealed, save as appears in note (£), ante, on p. 114. 352 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. He occupied the premises so described jointly with another person. The value was sufficient, and all the other requisites of qualification had been complied with. Held, that the respondent's qualification was suffi- ciently described, without a statement of the fact that the occupation was joint : Daniel v. Camplin, 7 M. & Gk 167 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 999 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 121 ; 1 Lutw. 264 ; 9 Jur. 403 ; B. & Am. 425. Whether property be sufficiently described for the purpose of being identified, a question of fact for revising barrister, and the court will not review his decision thereon, if not shown by the evidence to hare been erroneous. Middlesex. H. was described in the register for the parish of Willesden as follows : — Hall, Henry. ] The Grove, Neasdon, House and land as occupier. Neasdon. I in this parish. It was contended at the revision court, that the property was not sufficiently described for identifi- cation, and that the name either of the property, or of the occupying tenant, should have been given in the fourth column. It was shown that Neasdon was not a street, lane, or other like place, and that the property was not situate in any street, lane, or other like place, but was known by the name of " The Grove, Neasdon." The revising barrister having ruled that the descrip- tion was sufficient, The court held, that the question was one of fact for the revising barrister, and, there being nothing to show that he had come to a wrong conclusion, they refused to interfere : Wood v. Willesden, 2 C. B. 15 ; 1 Lutw. 314 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 9 Jur. 1100 ; B. & Am. 527. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 353 " Travelling abroad" a sufficient statement in second column of register, where such statement is in accordance with fact, and voter has no fixed place of abode. Middlesex. G. was objected to ou the register of voters, on the ground that he was described in the second column thereof as " travelling abroad." It was proved that Gr. was, and for several years had been, travelling abroad, and had no fixed place of abode ; but it was contended before the revising barrister that, as no place of abode was given, the name ought to be expunged. The barrister was of opinion, that the description in the second column, was, under the circumstances, sufficient, and retained the name. The court affirmed the decision : Walker v. Payne, 2 C. B. 12 ; 1 Lutw. 324 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 9 Jur. 1014; B. &Arn. 541. A wholly untrue statement of voter's place of abode, an " Insufficient description," and amendable under section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18. City of London. The respondent's place of abode was described in the list of occupiers as " Greenwich ; " his actual place of abode was Queen square, Blooms- bury, and not Greenwich, both places being within seven miles of the city of London. Held, that the erroneous statement was an " insuffi- cient description" within, and amendable under, 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40 (a) j upon the matter being supplied to the satisfaction of the revising barrister : Luckett v. Knoivles, 2 C. B. 187 ; 1 Lutw. 451 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 87 : B. & Am. 730. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. S. A A 354 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Part of a house so separated from residue as to con- stitute a " house " within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832, sufficiently described as "part of a house" although such description of qualification is not included among those enumerated in above-named section. City of London. The appellant was described on the list of voters as follows : — William Henry I 22, Cannon street. I Part of I 22, Cannon street. Judson. [ a house. | He occupied as tenant the upper part of the said house and the kitchen, having a distinct and separate entrance thereto, of the key whereof he had the exclusive possession. His landlord occupied the ground floor as a shop, having a distinct and separate entrance thereto. Held, reversing the revising barrister's decision, that as part of a house may be so separate from the rest as to constitute in itself a house (b), the descrip- tion of the appellant's qualification was sufficient : Judson v. Luchett, 2 C. B. 197 ; 1 Lutw. 490 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 163 ; 10 Jur. 252 ; B. & Arm 707. Qualification in respect of premises occupied in succes- sion must be described accordingly, notwithstanding that such premises are so situate as to fall under one and the same designation. South Northamptonshire. A voter's name stood thus on the register : — David Attfield. I Cold Ashby. I Occupier of land I Own occupa- above £50 (c) . | tion. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. (b) See the judgment in Cook v. Humber, 11 C. B., N. S. 40, 48. And see now section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. (c) See note (a), ante, on p. 102. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 355 Attfield had occupied during the qualifying year two farms (severally of the prescribed rental) in the parish of Cold Ashby. The description of qualification appearing in the register applied equally to both properties. Held, that the description was insufficient as not indicating a successive occupation under section 73 of 6 Vict. c. 18: Burton v. Gen/, 5 C. B. 7; 2 Lutw. 4; 17 L. J. C. P. 66 ; 11 Jur. 948 ; 10 L. T. 135. WJiere two houses are occupied in immediate succession, and one of them onhj is described in fourth column, revising barrister has no power to amend bij insert- ing a description of the other, although the words " in succession " appear in third column. Borough of Shrewsbury. The appellant was on the £10 occupiers' list, and his qualification was described in the third and fourth columns thus : — House in succession. Butcher row. He had, during the qualifying year occupied two houses in immediate succession in different parishes within the borough, the first house being in Coleham, and the second in Butcher row. Held, that the revising barrister was not em- powered by section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18, to amend the fourth column by inserting Coleham therein, as such amendment would have described a different qualification from that stated in the list (b) : Onions v. Bowdler, 5 C. B. 65 ; 2 Lutw. 59 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 70; 11 Jur. 1041; 10 L. T. 165. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (b) See now section 24 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enabling borough voters to make declara- tions as to misdescription. A A 2 356 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. "£50 occupier" (a), a sufficient description in law of qualification under Chandos Clause, and, if insuffi- cient for identification, may be amended. Huntingdonshire. The appellant's name was on the list of claimants for the parish of St. Neots, as follows : — Howitt, Henry. | St. Neots. | £50 occupier. | Cambridge road. It appeared that the appellant had occupied, for a sufficient time prior to 31st July next preceding the revision, a farm on the Cambridge road in the parish of St. Neots, for which he was bond fide liable to a yearly rent of £50 (a). It was objected that the qualification, as stated in the third column, was insufficient, and the revising barrister held the objection valid. On being asked to amend the description by sub- stituting the words " farm as," for " £50," the barrister held that he had no power to do so, and expunged the appellant's name from the list. Held, that the qualification, as stated in the list, was sufficient in law, as pointing to a qualification under section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that, if the revising barrister was of opinion that the descrip- tion thereof was not sufficient for the purpose of identification, he ought, having the materials before him, to have amended it under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40 (b) : JSowitt v. Stephen*, 5 C. B., N. S. 30 ; K. & G. 183 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 32 L. T. 162 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 123; 7W.E. 55(c). (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 102. (b) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (c) Per Williams, J. — "I must say that I think it would he very mischievous, if a revising 1 barrister could hold that a claimant is bound to describe his qualification in the terms which a lawyer would use ; it is sufficient that he describes it, so that a man of ordinary sense would not be misled as to its nature : " 28 L. J. O. P. 107. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 357 Description of qualification in third column as " a fee- farm rent" instead of " a fifty-oneth share " therein, held, if insufficient as it stood, amendable. In description in fourth column of fee farm rent, charged on lands belonging to tiro persons, it was held, sufficient to name one of such persons only, the sum assessed on that one's land being alone sufficient to Buckinghamshire. A.'s qualification was de- scribed in the third and fourth columns of the list of voters for the parish of Hartwell, as follows : — Freehold fee farm rent out John Lee, Esq., of houses and lands. Hartwell. A. and fifty other persons were entitled in fee, as tenants in common, each to a fifty-oneth share of £105 8s. lid., land tax, as a fee farm rent sold by the commissioners under 42 Greo. III. c. 116. £104 lis. 4d. of the above sum was charged upon land belonging to John Lee, of Hartwell, and the remainder (17s. 7d.) upon land belonging to one Lowndes. Held, that the description of the qualification in the third column was, if not sufficient as it stood, one which the revising barrister had power to amend under section 40 (a) of 6 Yict. c. 18, by prefixing thereto the words " one undivided fifty-oneth part of and in." Held also, that, inasmuch as the amount of land tax charged on Lee's land was enough to entitle A. to the franchise, the entry of Lee's name in the fourth column was sufficient, without mentioning the name of Lowndes : Cooper v. Ash field, 5 C. B., N. S. 16 ; K & G. 200 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 35 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 293; 32 L. T. 161. («) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. 358 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The word " tenant" a sufficient description in law of qualification under Chandos Clause (a), and may be amended for greater accuracy of definition. North Riding of Yorkshire. A voter was described on the register as follows : — Brisby, William. | Thornton. | Tenant. | Newstead Grange. The revising barrister held, on objection, that the description "tenant" was sufficient in law, as de- noting a qualification under section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and he amended the description for the purpose of more accurately denning it, under section 40 of 6 Vict. c. 18, by changing it into " farm, as occupying tenant." The court affirmed his decision : Birlcs v. Allison, (Brisby's case), 13 C. B., N. S. 12 ; K. & G. 507 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 51 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 786 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 692 ; 11 W. E. 90. The word " tenant" a sufficient description in law of qualification under Chandos Clause (a), and may be amended for greater accuracy of 'definition. North Riding of Yorkshire. The case named below was substantially the samo as the preceding one, and is governed by the same decision : Birks v. Allison (Dixon's case), 13 C. B., N. S. 24. "Leasehold" sufficient description of lease for life. Merionethshire. J. was on the list of claimants, wherein his qualification was described as " leasehold house and garden." He held the premises in ques- tion on a lease for life. Held, that although the interest was technically freehold, the description was such as to be commonly understood, within 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 101, and there- («■) See note (a), ante, on p. 102. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 359 fore, sufficient : Jours v. Jones, L. R. 4 C. P. 422 ; 1 H. & C. 95 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 17 W. 11. 204 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 561. Publication of £12 (a) list not necessarily vitiated by in- terpolation of heading applicable to property list. South Northumberland. The published lists of voters for the parish of Allendale, consisted of five sheets, numbered respectively, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Sheets 1, 2, and part of sheet 3, comprised an alphabetical list of persons entitled in respect of property situate in the parish, and were headed accordingly. The list of persons so entitled ended in the middle of sheet 3 ; then there was a line, and under it the proper heading for voters as occupiers of rateable value of £12 or upwards. Underneath that heading commenced an alphabetical list of £12 occupiers (a), which was continued on sheets 4 and 5, but, by a printer's error, the heading, applicable to voters in respect of property, at the top of sheets 1, 2, and 3, was repeated at the top of sheets 4 and 5. The sheets were fixed in the places of publication one upon another, sheet 1 being outermost, and the others following in the order of number, and they were attached together by the left upper corner, so that, to a person turning over the upper to look at the lower sheets, no portion of the heading would be covered. It did not appear that any person had in fact been misled. The revising barrister decided, that the interpolated heading was not a misnomer of a thing " so denomi- nated as to be commonly understood," within section 101 of 6 Vict. c. 18, but was positively misleading, and consequently, that there had been no sufficient {a) See note (a), ante, on p. 102. 360 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. publication of the entire £12 list; he, therefore, refused to amend, and expunged all the names on sheets 4 and 5. The court, reversing the decision, held, that the publication was sufficient, as the interpolated heading could not have misled any reasonably careful man ; and that the revising barrister should have amended, under section 40 (a) of the statute: Mather v. Allendale, L. R 6 C. P. 272 ; 1 H. & C. 461 ; 40 L. J. 0. P. 76 ; 19 W. R 284 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 539. Where qualification was described as "Freehold rent- charge [b) is.su ing out of freehold houses" and the evidence proved an ownership in fee ; held a fatal variance. South Essex. The appellant was on the list of claimants in respect of property in West Ham. The entries in the third and fourth columns, which were in accordance with the notice of claim, were as follows : — Freehold rent-charge (b) of £16 per annum issuing out of freehold houses. 1, 2, 3, and 4, Stanley cottages, Tower Hamlets road. The appellant was the owner in fee simple of the plot of land on which stood the cottages described in the fourth column, and he had, more than six months before the last day of July (next preceding the revision), let it on a long lease at a yearly rent of £16. The lease was an ordinary building lease with a reservation of rent in the usual manner, and with the usual covenants. The appellant had not parted with his reversion expectant on the determination of the term, nor had he dealt with his freehold estate in the land otherwise than by granting the above- named lease. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (b) See note {b), ante, on p. 14. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 361 Held, that the qualification proved was different from that described, and that the description was not amendable under section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18 (Willes, J., dubitante) : NichoUs v. Bulwer, L. R. 6 C. P. 281 ; 1 H. & C. 472 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 19 W. R. 282 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 542. Voter not restricted by description " dwelling-house " to proof of qualification under section 3 of Representa- tion of People Act, 1867 ; but may show that he is qualified under section 27 (b) of Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Marylebone. B. was on the list of voters in respect of a qualification described as " dwelling-house." The premises so described, consisted of a shop, with dwelling rooms above. B. had occupied the premises in question, jointly with another person, for the twelve calendar months next previous to 31st July (e), 1871 (the year of the revision) . The conditions of section 27 (b) of the Reform Act, 1832, as to the voter's residence within the borough, his being rated, and his payment of rates and assessed taxes, had all been duly complied with. The clear yearly value of the premises gave a sum of more than £10 for each occupier. The names of the occupiers of houses, &c, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27, and of the inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses, within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3, were included by the overseers in one list. It was objected, that B.'s qualification being described as dwelling-house, his title to be on the (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. (c) The period of occupation necessary to qualify is now to be computed by reference to 15th July : see section 7 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 362 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. register could only be under section 3 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867, and, consequently, that he was disqualified by the proviso in that section by reason of his being a joint occupier. The revising barrister substituted " house " for " dwelling-house," and retained B.'s name on the list. Held (Brett, J., dissentiente), that the term " house " in section 27 of the Reform Act, 1832, included " dwelling-house," and that the name was rightly retained, but that the amendment was un- necessary : Tou-nshend v. St. Marylebone, L. R. 7 0. P. 143 ; 1 H. & C. 606 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 20 W. R. 148; 25 L. T., N. S. 749. Revising barrister should substitute the correct number of a house (the qualifying property) for a wrong one, provided the qualification erroneously described as to number be, when corrected as to number, the same as that to be proved. East Cumberland. A voter's qualification was described in the third and fourth columns of the register as follows : — Freehold house and shop. | 4, English street, Carlisle. The above description of the premises was right when the voter's name was placed on the register, but subsequently (some years before the revision) , the number had by competent local authority been changed from " 4 " to " 9," and had remained " 9 " ever since. There were at the time of the revision other premises in English street numbered " 4," which did not belong to the voter, and in respect of which he did not claim to be entitled to vote. The vote was objected to, and the barrister was asked to amend ; but he, being of opinion that the inaccurate description could not be amended, and was SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 363 fatal to the voter's title to be registered, expunged the name. Held, reversing the decision, that the qualification described being the same as that which was to be proved, the inaccurate description thereof was an "insufficient description," within 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 40 (a), and therefore, one which the barrister ought to have amended : Bendlc v. Watson, L. R. 7 C. P. 163 ; 1 H. & C. 591 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 15 ; 20 W. R. 145 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 806. The description, " rent-charge (b) on freehold house" held sufficient, as importing a freehold rent-charge (b). South Derbyshire. The appellant's qualification was described in the list of voters as " rent-charge (b) on freehold house." The revising barrister, on objection, expunged his name, being of opinion that a freehold tenure did not appear upon the list either by absolute statement, or by necessary implication, and tbat, consequently, the description was insufficient in law, and not one which he had power to amend under section 40 (a) of 6 Vict. c. 18. Held, reversing the decision, that the description was sufficient, as importing a freehold rent-charge, but that if it was not, the revising barrister, upon being satisfied of the freehold nature of the rent- charge, should have amended : Shericin v. Why man, L. R. 9 C. P. 243 ; 2 H. & C. 185 ; 43 L. J. O. P. 36 ; 22 W. R. 127 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 680. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. {b) See note (b), ante, on p. 14. 364 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION OASES. "Where a borough voter's qualification was described in list of occupiers as " house" and it appeared that, although qualified under section 3 of 30 8f 31 Vict. c. 102, he was not qualified under section 27 (a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 : held, that revising barrister was empowered by section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 8f 42 Viet. c. 26, to amend such description by prefixing " dwelling " to " house." City of Exeter. The respondent was objected to on the occupiers' list (parliamentary and municipal), on the ground that his alleged qualification was of insufficient value. His name was entered in the said list in the following form : — Towers, Thomas | 4, Bonhay road. I House, j 4, Bonhay road. Hoskins. The yearly value of the house described above was less than £10. The respondent had, during the whole of the qualifying period, occupied the house, as tenant, using it as a dwelling-house. After argument in support of, and against, the objection, the revising barrister decided that the term " house " was sufficient to include " dwelling-house," and was not so appropriated to the franchise created by section 27 (a) of the Eeform Act, 1832.(2 Will. IV. c. 45), as to exclude proof under it of a " dwelling- house " under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), but that the question whether a house was a " house " as required by the Reform Act, 1832, or a " dwelling- house " under the Representation of the People Act, 1867, was a matter of evidence, and although (in his opinion) it was not necessary to do so, he, neverthe- less, amended the description by prefixing the word " dwelling " to " house " for the purpose of more (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 3G5 clearly defining the qualification, and retained the name of the respondent on the list. The court (without expressing an opinion whether or not the word " house " is a sufficient description of the " dwelling-house " franchise) (a) held that the case before the court was provided for by sub-section 12 of section 28 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, and that the revising barrister in making the amendment had acted in accordance with the provisions of that sub- section. His decision was therefore affirmed : Friend v. Towers, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 310 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. D. 109 ; 31 W. R. 247. Where the nature of a voter's qualification was described in the third column of the overseers' list as "dwelling- houses in succession," and the voter had successively occupied during the qualifying year three houses, of which (through an inadvertence of the overseers) two only were described in the fourth column of the list, viz., that which was firstly, and that which teas lastly, occupied by the voter; it was held by a majority of the court that the mistake was amend- able under section 28 o/41 fy 42 Vict. c. 26, by supplying in the fourth column a description of the intermediate house (b). Held, by Stephen and Cave, JJ. (Lord Coleridge, C. J., dissent iente), that the revising barrister had power under section 28 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, to correct the mistake, but that, instead of striking out the figures 44 and 34, he should have added " and (a) Willes, J., seems to have been of opinion that the franchise under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, was not to be treated as a distinct franchise, but as an expansion of the franchise (as regards a dwelling-house) created by section 27 of the Reform Act, 1832 ; and, accordingly, that if a claimant failed under that Act, he might have had recourse to the Act of 18G7, and vice versa : see 1 H. & C. on p. 612. (b) But see Foshett v. Kaufman, post, p. 372. 366 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 31 " after Oxford Street : Ford v. Soar, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 507 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 351 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. D. 286 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 44 ; 33 W. R. 566. Revising barrister has no power to substitute " lease- hold" for "freehold" in third column of an owner- ship list. Cheshire (Altrincham Division). P. A. was objected to on the Cheadle list of ownership electors. The nature of his qualification was stated in the third column to be "freehold house." The objection was grounded on that column, and related to the nature of his interest in the qualifying property. It was proved that the house in question was leasehold, and not freehold, and that P. A.'s interest was sufficient in law to constitute a qualification of a leasehold nature. It was admitted that the objection was good if the list were not amended, and the revising barrister was asked to amend the list by altering the word " freehold " to " leasehold " in the third column. The revising barrister held that he had power to do as requested, and accordingly substituted " leasehold " for " freehold " in the third column, and retained the name in the list. The Divisional Court (Vaughan Williams and Lawrance, JJ., dis- sentiente Grantham, J.) reversed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted, under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, the Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. R., Lopes, and Kay, L. JJ.) affirmed the decision of the Divisional Court {a) : Plant v. Potts, L. R. [1891] 1 Q. B. 256 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 206 ; 60 L. J. Q. B. D. 33 ; 63 L. T., N. S. 730. (a) There was a second appeal of Robinson v. Potts from the same revising' barrister. Plant v. Potts only was argued in the Divi- sional Court, and Robinson v. Potts only in the Court of Appeal. The point raised in both cases was identical, and only one judg- ment given. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 367 Where the nature of a voter's qualification was mis- described in Division III., and revising barrister (with a view to amend such misdescription) gave effect to a declaration wider section 24 of 41 fy 42 Vict. c. 26, by transferring the voter's name to Division I., it was held that he had no power to do so in the absence of a claim by the voter for the insertion of his name in that Division. Borough of Burnley. R. S. was objected to on Division III., where the nature of his qualification was described in the third column as "house (joint)." He had duly sent in a declaration for correcting misdescription, wherein he declared that he was qualified, both as a parliamentary elector and a burgess, in respect of a " house." It appeared to the revising barrister, on reading this declaration, that the declarant (R. S.) was qualified for being entered on Division I. One of the political agents (not the objector) thereupon requested the revising barrister to transfer the name of R. S. from Divi- sion III. to Division I. R. S. had made no claim to have his name inserted in Division I. The ob- jector, who appeared in person, objected to the revising barrister transferring the name of R. S. from Division III. to Division L, on the ground that he had no power in law so to transfer it, the two lists being entirely distinct, and R. S. having made no claim as a parliamentary elector. But the revising barrister held that he had power to transfer the said name, and he transferred it accordingly. The court (reversing the decision) held that R. S. having made no claim to have his name inserted in Division I., the revising barrister was not empowered to make the transfer, such transfer involving a change in the description of the qualification which was not within the powers of amendment given by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28 : Lord v. Fox, L. R. [1892] 1 Q. B. 199 ; 61 L. J. Q. B. D. 60 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Oas. 266 ; 65 L. T., N. S. 617. 368 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where a claim for a borough vote in respect of the occupation of two houses in succession specified the tu'O houses in column 4, but described the nature of qualification in column 3 as " dwelling-house," it icas held that, although under the Registration Order, 1895, Sched. II, Pt. I, section 19, sub- section 1 (b), the qualification was insufficiently described, the revising barrister had power to amend. Borough of Southwark. thus : — Le B.'s claim ran Le Blonde, Alfred George. 3, Hamilton square. Dwelling- house. 69, Richmond road, Stamford hill. 3, Hamilton square. Proof was given that Le B. had duly occupied the two houses stated in column 4 in succession for the qualifying period. It was contended that there was no power to amend the claim, as desired, by in- serting the word " successive " in column 3, as that would give a different qualification. The revising barrister decided that the claim was, as it stood, sufficient, as column 3 and 4 together showed a successive occupation ; but amended by adding the word " successive." The court (upholding the decision), though holding that the claim was, since the Registration Order, 1895, insufficient originally, held, that, giving the claim a reasonable construction, the qualification stated must be taken to be for successive occupation, and the revising barrister had power, under section 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 to amend the description " for the purpose of more clearly and accurately describing the same." In Foshett v. Kaufman there was, on the face of the claim, no ambiguity ; here there was : Souttcr v. Roderick (Le Blonde's case), 65 L. J. Q. B. D. 145; 1 Smith's Eeg. Cas. 23. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 369 Where a voter *s place of abode was incorrectly stated in the list by mistake, the revising barrister, having so found, has power, even without a declaration of misdescription undo- section 24 of the Registration Act, 1878, to amend. Borough of Southwark. B. was objected to on the ground that his place of abode was incorrectly stated in the list ; whereupon, on proof of the correct place, the revising barrister amended column 2 accordingly. The court (affirming the decision) held that the revising barrister, having found that the mistake in the place of abode was bond fide, had rightly amended : Soutter v. Roderick (Barker's case), 44 W. R. 205; 1 Smith's Reg. Cas. 36. The omission from Ms claim by mistake, by an old-lodger claimant, of tin' name of the borough in which the parish lay, being a mistake which, tender the cir- cumstances, had not and could not have misled anyone as to the borough referred to, held amend- able by the revising barrister. Borough of Grantham. T. on the old lodger list for the borough claimed again on 24th July, 1894, "for the parliamentary borough of ." The claim was in all respects unobjectionable, save for his omission of the name of the borough. It was contended that, in the absence of any notice of objection, the revising barrister had no power to examine the claim, nor to amend it. The revising barrister declined on this ground to amend. The court (reversing the decision) held, that the revising barrister had power both to examine the claim and also to amend it, and ought to have exer- cised his discretion accordingly, as that would not have amounted to making a new claim, the omission s. b B 370 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. being a mistake which could not have, and had not, misled the overseers or anyone : Treadgold v. Town Clerk of Grantham, L. R. [1891] 1 Q. B. 163 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. D. 29 ; 1 Smith's Eeg. Cases, 402. Where a qualification wax by mistake described in the overseers' list as " offices, successive occupation^ and it consisted' in point of fact of a single occupa- tion, the mistake was held to be amendable under 41 $ 42 Vict. c. 26. The court held that the amendment was autho- rized by 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26 : Blosse v. WJieatley, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 364 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. J). 289 ; 53 L. T., N. IS. 49 ; 8. C. Lynch v. Wheatley, L. R. 14 a B. D. 504(a). The power of amendment given by section 28 of 41 8f 42 Vict. c. 26, ■sub-sect ion 1, is, in the absence of a declaration under section 24, restricted by -sub- section 13 to cases which involve no alteration of the description of the nature of qualification. Borough of Tower Hamlets (Whitechapel Division). The name and description of the appel- lant appeared in the hamlet of Mile End New Town list of voters as follows : — Foskett, Henry. | 5, Victoria I Dwelling-house. I 5, Victoria | Cottages. I j Cottages. The appellant was objected to on the ground that he had not occupied the premises described in the list for the requisite period. The following facts were proved at the Revision Court : — The appellant had occupied in the borough, during the whole of the qualifying period, two dwelling- houses in immediate succession, namely, one in High Street, Wapping, and the other, the said 5, Yictoria («) Reversed by the Court of Appeal in Hurcum v. Hilkary, ante, p. 252. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 371 Cottages, and his successive occupation of those two dwelling-houses would have given him a complete qualification if, in addition to his name and place of abode, as above stated, the nature of the qualification had, in the third column of the list, been described as " dwelling-houses in succession," and the name and situation of the qualifying property had been described in the fourth column as " High Street, Wapping, and 5, Victoria Cottages." The reason why the overseers had filled up the third aud fourth columns as they had done, was that they had obtained from the person rated, or liable to be rated, in respect of 5, Victoria Cottages, a return according to Form [A.] of the General Forms to Schedule 3 of the Registration Act, 1885, in which it was by mistake stated that the appellant was on the 15th of July, 1884, and had been up to the date of the return, an inhabitant occupier of the dwelling- house, 5, Victoria Cottages, and the appellant had been found by the overseers to be inhabiting that dwelling-house at the date of the inquiries made by them pursuant to the provisions of the Act, and his name had been placed, and still remained upon their rate-book in consequence of the said return. The revising barrister was asked to amend the third column of the list, by altering " dwelling-house " to "dwelling-houses in succession," and the fourth column by altering "5, Victoria Cottages" to "High Street, Wapping, and 5, Victoria Cottages," upon the authority of the cases of Hitchins v. Brown, 2 C. B. 25, and Ford v. Hoar, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 507, ante, p. 366. The revising barrister decided that neither of these cases applied, and that he was bound by the case of Torrett v. Lord, L. R. 5 C. P. I). 65, and he ex- punged the appellant's name from the list. The court (Lord Coleridge, C. J., Grove, J., dis- sentiente Cave, J.) affirmed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. R., Cotton B b2 372 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and Bowen, L.JJ.), affirming the decision of the court below, held, that the general power of cor- recting mistakes given by sub-section 1 of section 28 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, was, in the absence of a declaration under section 24 of the Act, limited to cases in which no change in the description of qualification was involved, and as the proposed cor- rection in the appellant's case was the substitution of a successive for a single occupation, and there had been no declaration under section 24, the revising barrister was not empowered to make the amend- ment (a) : Foskett v. Kaufman, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 279 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 466 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 1 ; 34 W. R. 90 ; 54 L. T., N. S. 64 (b). Where the nature of a county voter s qualification {of the annual value of lens than £10) was described in a list of voters as "tenement and garden" and the situation of the proper!// as "part of bailiff's tene- ment" and it was proved that the voter teas the inhabitant occupier of such "part of bailiff's tene- ment" as his "dwelling-house" it was held that the revising barrister /cas justified in amending the list by striking out the /cords " and garden" and placing the /cord "dwelling-house" before " tene- ment" as he did not thereby alter the description of the qualification, but ///ore clearly and accurately defined it; the formal amendment, ho/cever, should have been to expunge the words " tenement and garden" and substitute " dwelling-house." Dorsetshire (Northern Division). The appel- lant objected to the name of James Ayles being (a) In Jones v. Friend (an appeal from the revising barrister for the city of Exeter, in 1885), the facts were substantially the same as those in Foskett v. Kaufman ; the decision in the latter case therefore applies. (b) In this judgment, Forrett v. Lord, p. 347, was expressly overruled. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 373 retained in the parish of Hammoon list of occupiers, wherein he was entered as follows : — Ayles, James. I Hammoon. I Tenement and I Part bailiff's tene- garden. ment. James Ayles occupied a dwelling-house and garden only in the said parish, of the annual value of less than £10. The appellant duly served him with a notice of objection alleging that the nature of the qualification was wrongly described. The names of thirteen other persons in the parishes of Hammoon and Manston (whose names and qualifi- cations were set out in schedules attached to the special case) were objected to under similar circum- stances. It was proved that the respondents were inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses, and entitled to be so described in the lists, and that the alleged misdescrip- tion was wholly " a mistake " of the overseers. The revising barrister decided that he had power under sub-sections 1, 6, 12 and 13, of section 28 of 41 & 42 Yiet. c. 26, or otherwise, to expunge the words " and garden " from the third column, and to prefix the word " dwelling-house " to " tenement," making the nature of qualification read, " dwelling- house tenement," and he retained the names of the respondents on the list so amended. The court (Lord Coleridge, C. J., Grove, J., dis- sentiente Cave, J.) reversed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. R., Cotton and Bowen, L.J J.), reversing the decision of the court below, held that the word " tenement," not being limited to the description of a qualification by reason of the occupation of land, but being also capable of signifying a dwelling-house, the revising barrister was justified in making the amendment, as he did not thereby alter the description of the quali- fication, but more clearly and accurately defined it ; 374 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the court added, however, that the formal amendment should have been to expunge the words " tenement and garden," and substitute " dwelling-house " : Dashwood v. Ayles, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 295 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 486 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 8 ; 34 W. E. 53 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 588. Where the nature of a county voter's qualification (of the annnal value of less than ,£10) was (/escribed in a list of voters as " tenement and garden,'''' and the situation of the property as " school yard," and it appeared from the schedule attached to the special ease that, with respect to thirty-three other voters in the same list, the nature of their qualification was described in the same way, and the situation of the qualifying property was, as to two of thou, stated to be " school yard ; " as to five, " Cat Lane ; " as to three, *' High Street," and so forth, it was held that, all the cases in the schedule being looked at together, the revising barrister might fairly conclude that the description " tenement and garden, " was intended to indicate a dwelling-house, and therefore that he was entitled to amend the description. Dorsetshire (Northern Division). The appel- lant objected to the name of the respondent being retained in the occupiers' list for the parish of Stourton, Caundle, in which list he was entered as follows : — Banger, Isaac. I Stourton, I Tenement and I School-yard. I Caundle. j garden. The respondent occupied a dwelling-house and garden only in the said parish, of the annual value of less than £10. The appellant duly served him with a notice of objection, alleging that the nature of the qualification was wrongly described. The names of thirty-three other persons (whose SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 375 names and qualifications were set out in a schedule attached to the special case) were objected to under similar circumstances. It was proved to the barrister that the alleged misdescription was wholly " a mistake " of the over- seers, and he decided that he had power, under sub- sections 1, 6, 12 and 13, of section 28 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, or otherwise, to expunge the words " and garden " from the third column, and to prefix the word " dwelling-house " to " tenement," making the nature of qualification in the third column read " dwelling-house tenement," and he retained the names of the respondent, and the thirty-three other persons in the said list so amended. The court (Lord Coleridge, C. J., Grove, J., d/'s- sentiente Cave, J.) reversed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. E., Cotton and Bowen, L.J J.), reversing the decision of the court below, held, that, all the cases in the schedule being looked at together, the revising bar- rister might fairly conclude that the description " tenement and garden " was intended to indicate a dwelling-house, and therefore that he was entitled to amend the description : Miii/Jie v. Banger, L. R. 16 U. B. D. 302 ; 1 Colt, Eeg. Cas. 493 ; 55 L. J. U. B. D. 10 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 590. 376 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. EATING (a) AND PAYMENT OF EATES. Payment of rates and taxes by the postmaster-general on behalf of a public officer, as part remuneration for his services, held a payment of rates and taxes by such officer. Borough of Chatham. B. was objected to on the ground that he had not paid his rates and assessed taxes. He was the master rope-maker in Chatham dock- yard, and, as such, had occupied a house therein of the requisite value for a borough vote. He was rated to the rates and assessed taxes in resj)ect of the house in question, and such rates and taxes were paid for him by the paymaster-general's clerk, at the pay office at Chatham as part remune- ration for services. Held, affirming the revising barrister's decision, that the payment, being one to which B. was liable, and having been made on his account by those whom he procured to make it by giving value for it, was a sufficient payment within section 27 (b) of the Eeform Act, 1832 : Hue/lies v. Chatlmm (Burton's case), 7 Scott, N. E. 581 ; 5 M. & G. 54; 1 Lutw. 51 • 13 L. J. C. P. 44 ; 7 Jur. 1136 ; B. & Arn. 61 (c). (a) The omission of a tenant-occupier's name from the rate would seem (in so far as his franchise is concerned) to have ceased to be of importance : see section 19 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. See also Smith v. Seghill, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, and Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393. For the definition and application of the Rating- Acts, see section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. (e) The three following cases, substantially resembling Burton's case, were decided in accordance with the judgment therein: — Parker's case, Brook's case, Smith's case, 7 Scott, N. R. 581, 601, 602, 603, 608 ; 5 M. & G. 54, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81 ; 1 Lutw. 51, 52, 53, 54, 68, 72 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 44, 46, 47 ; 7 Jur. 1136, 1138 ; B. & Arn. 61, 90, 91, 96, 97. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 37' Where, in the ease of tiro houses occupied successive///, the latter had not been rated to a poor-rate wade during the qualifying period, the occupier is not entitled to cither the parliamentary or municipal franchise. City of Norwich. P.'s name was objected to on Division 1 of the occupiers' list, on the ground that his house in Gloucester Street had not been rated to the poor. Rates had been made on August 24th, 1892, February 9th, 1893, and 25th August, 1893 ; but the house was not comprised in any rate before that made on August 25th, 1893 ; nor had any claim to be rated or tender of rates been made, either by owner or voter, before August, 1893. If it had been rated before then, the owner would have compounded for the rate. The revising barrister allowed the parliamentary, but not the municipal vote, and transferred P.'s name to Division 2. The court, reversing the decision, held that, in accordance with the case of McGaffigan v. Riddall, in the Court of Appeal in Ireland (28 L. R. Ir. 257), sub-section 9 of section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1881, implied that, except in the case of exempt premises, no one is entitled to be registered . in respect of any dwelling-house for which no one is rated, and no rates are paid ; and that it would be un- meaning to require the names of inhabitant occupiers of exempt premises to be entered on the rate book, if rating was not in all other cases essential. The voter, therefore, was not entitled to either franchise : Wade v. Palmer, L. R. [1894] 1 Q. B. 268 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 323. 378 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Joint rating of landlord and tenants, and payment by landlord of entire rate, in respect of premises, the nature and occupation of which arc described in Wright v. Stockport, ante, p. 113, held a rating of, and payment by, each occupier. Borough of Stockport. A factory being let, in distinct portions (a), to a number of persons, the landlord retaining a part, the names of the landlord and his several tenants were inserted in the rate-book in the column headed " name of occupier." The entire premises were assessed under the head " gross estimated rental," at £129. The amount of "rate," and the " total amount to be collected," were stated to be £25. The " amount actually collected " was stated to be £23 2s. 6d. ; and in the column headed " empty " was inserted the sum £1 17s. 6d. It was part of the agreement between the landlord and each tenant, that the landlord should pay the rates, and the rent was higher in consideration of such pay- ment. The whole of the rate, excepting what was allowed for the empty portions of the premises, had been duly paid by the landlord. Held, 1. That each tenant was duly rated, within section 27 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, for the premises occupied by him ; 2. That the landlord's payment of the entire (b) rate was virtually a payment by each occupier : Wright v. Stockport, 7 Scott, N. E. 561 ; 5 M. & G. 33 ; 1 Lutw. 32 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 50 ; 7 Jur. 1112 ; B. & Arm 39. (a) For a description of the premises, and of the nature of their occupation, see Wright v. Stockport, ante, p. 113. (b) The rate having heen paid for " every part of the premises that was in the actual occupation of any one," the court considered non-payment in respect of the empty portions immaterial. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 379 Omission of name of one of tivo joint occupiers from rate (a), through ignorance of overseers that he was a joint-occupier of premises rated, not a " misnomer, or inaccurate, or insufficient description" within section 75 of b Vict. c. 18. Moss v. Lichfield, 8 Scott, N. B, 832 ; 7 M. & G. 72 ; 1 Lutw. 184 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 56 ; 8 Jur. 1075 ; B. & Am. 330. A claim to be rated (b), made under section 30 of Reform Act, 1832, held to be good only for the rate in force when the claim was made. Held, that the operation of the claim was limited to the rate for the time being when the claim was made (c), and, consequently, that L. could not "be deemed to have been rated " in respect of the pre- mises during the time of his occupation thereof required by section 27 (d) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and was therefore not entitled to the franchise : Wanserj v. Perkins (Lockey's case), 7 M. & Gr. 145 ; 1 Lutw. 249 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 59 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 970 ; B. & Arn. 402. (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. (b) A claim to be rated is no loiiger necessary : see section 19 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. (c) The necessity of renewing the claim was dispensed with by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14, s. 1. (d) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. 380 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. " Rate for the time being" within .section 30 of Reform Act, 1832, held to mean last rate perfected by allowance and publication, notwithstanding the period for which it was made had expired. City of London. The appellant on the list of occupiers was objected to on the ground that he had not been duly rated. A rate was made on 28th September, 1844, allowed on the 4th October following, and published on 6th, and it purported to be made for thirteen weeks, from 16th September to 16th December. A new rate was made 23rd December, 1844, allowed on 3rd January, 1845, and published on 5th, purporting to be made for thirteen weeks from 16th December, 1844, to 17th March, 1845. The appellant, not being in the first-mentioned rate, claimed on 27th December to be rated (a). He was duly rated to the rate of 23rd December, 1844, and to the subsequent rates. The court held, that, as the claim was made before the second rate was allowed and published (b), the first rate was in point of law the rate for " the time being," within section 30 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and, consequently, that the appellant, having claimed to be rated (a) thereto, must " be deemed to have been rated," within the meaning of the above-mentioned section; Tindall, C. J., saying (2 0. B. 116), "It was never intended in a case like this, that, because the time had expired for which a rate was made, the rate itself must be held to have expired " : Bushell v. Luckett, 2 C. B. Ill ; 15 L. J. 89; 1 Lutw. 398; 10 Jur. 113. (a) See note (!>), ante, on p. 379. (b) See section 17 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41). RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 381 A mere expression of readiness to pay whatever rates may be due, not a " tendering " of such rates, within section 30 of 2 Will 4, c. 45. City of Westminster. The appellant claimed to be registered in respect of his occupation, as tenant, of a house. He had never been rated (a) for the premises. On 20th July (next preceding the revision) there remained a sum of £3 2s. 6el. unpaid of rates due the preceding 6th April. In the previous June the appellant delivered to the overseer a notice of claim to be rated (b) , and asked him "whether there were any rates due ; the overseer saying that he did not know, the appellant added : — " If there are, I am prepared to pay them ;" but he did not produce or offer any money : the overseer said, " I'll see to it." The appellant then went away, and nothing more was said or done in the matter. The revising barrister decided that there was no proof of a sufficient tender, within section 30 of the Reform Act, 1832 ; that the appellant could not, therefore, be deemed to have been rated (ei) within the meaning of that section, and, consequently, was not entitled to be registered. Held, affirming the decision, that whether or not anything short of a leejal tender would be a compli- ance with the Act, what occurred in the present case was clearly insufficient : Bishop v. Smedley, 2. C. B. 90 ; 1 Lutw. 384 : 15 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 10 Jur. 269. (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. (b) See note (b), ante, on p. 379. 382 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Wliere name of occupying tenant of a house was inter- lined in rati' book between that of his landlord, who teas rated for the house in question, and that of a person rated for other premises, nothing being carried out opposite tenant's name, which arts not bracketed with landlord's; this iras held a sufficient rating of tenant. Statement of overseers that in thus placing tenant's name in rate they did not intend to rate him, immaterial. City of London. The appellant, the occupying tenant of a house for which his landlord was rated and paid the rates, claimed to be rated (a) in respect thereof. In consequence of such claim, the overseers in- serted the appellant's name in the rate immediately under that of his landlord, but without connecting the two names by a bracket or otherwise, and without filling up the columns opposite the appellant's name. The rate appeared in the following form : — Thomas Haynes. Joshua Pariente. A. B. (another party). House. House. 18, Coleman Street. &c, &c. £ 67 &c . &0. &e. &c. One of the overseers stated that in thus inserting the appellant's name in the rate they had no inten- tion to rate him for anything. Held, that the appellant was sufficiently rated, and that the statement of the overseers was im- material : Pariente v. Luekett, 2 C. B. 177 ; 1 Lutw. 441 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 83 ; 10 Jur. 115 ; B. & Arm 700. (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 383 Payment of rate* by landlord in pursuance of agreement with tenant, a bona, fide payment by tenant, within section 75 of Registration Act, 1843. Insertion of /crony number of house in rate book, an " inaccurate description," within same section. City of London. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a " house, No. 4, Grolden lane." He also claimed as occupier of a " house, No. 3, Golden lane." By a mistake of the overseers, he was inserted in the rate book for No. 4, instead of No. 3. He occupied the house, No. 3, at an annual rent of £27, under an agreement with his landlord that the latter should pay the rates. His landlord had called upon him to pay, and he had paid all the rent due in respect of the house. And the landlord had been called upon to pay, and had paid, all poor rates due in respect thereof. Held, that the appellant had, under the circum- stances stated, been bond fide called upon to pay, and had, through his landlord, bond fide paid, the rates within the meaning of 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 75. Semite, that the appellant was sufficiently rated within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (a), notwithstanding that No. 3 was described as No. 4 ; but Held that, at all events, such " inaccurate descrip- tion " was cured by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 75 : Cook v. Luckett, 2 C. B. 168 ; 1 Lutw. 432 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 78 ; 10 Jur. 116 ; B. & Arn. 647. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. 384 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where name of occupying tenant teas inserted in rate book tinder that of his landlord, against whose name alone the premises were entered in the rede, nothing being carried out opposite tenant's name, which was not bracketed with landlord's ; this teas held a suffi- cient rating (a) of tenant. City of London. The appellant's name was on the list of voters in respect of " part of a house," which part he occupied as tenant. The landlord occupied that part of the house not occupied by the appellant. The appellant's name was, in all the rates made in the qualifying year, under that of his landlord. The house in qiiestion was carried out against the landlord's name alone, nothing being carried out opposite that of the appellant, nor were the two names connected by bracket or otherwise. Held, that the appellant was sufficiently rated : Judson v. Luehett, 2 C. B. 197 ; 1 Lutw. 490 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 163 ; 10 Jur. 252 ; B. & Arn. 707. Poor rate not allowed by tiro just ices, a nullity: voter not disqualified by non-payment thereof. Borough of Shaftesbury. The appellant was objected to on the list of scot and lot voters for the parish of Shaston St. Peter, on the ground that he had not paid a poor rate. The rate in question was made in June, 1848, and the allowance thereof was made in the following terms : — " The foregoing rate or assessment is allowed and confirmed by us, two of her Majesty's justices of the peace for the borough of Shaftesbury. "A B ) " C T) I Churchwardens." (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 385 A. B. was a justice of the peace for the borough, and churchwarden of the parish of Shaston St. Peter, and C. D. was churchwarden of the parish, but not a justice of the peace for the borough. Held, that the rate not having been allowed by two justices, as required by 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1, was a nullity, and, consequently, the appellant was not disqualified by reason of his not having paid it (a) : Fox v. Barnes, 6 C. B. 11 ; 13 Jur. 155; 18 L. J. 0. P. 48 ; 12 L. T. 244 ; S. C. nom. Fox v. The Over- seem of Shaston St Peter, Shaftesbury, 2 Lutw. 97. Occupier of premises in succession, within section 28 of 2 Wilt. 4, c. 45, may acquire tin' franchise without ha ring been rated (b) in respect of the second house. Borough of Reading. J. was on the list of voters at the revision of 1859, in respect of successive occupation. He occupied a house in Crown Street from July to December, lb58, and was duly rated (6) in respect of it. In December, 1858, he moved to a house in Boult's Walk. A rate was made in April, 1859, in which his name was not inserted. J. made no application to be rated (b) , but the col- lector called on him and he paid the rate, for which the collector gave the usual receipt. (a) Want of due publication is equally fatal to the validity of a poor rate ; see 17 Geo. II. c. 3, s. 1 ; 7 Will. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 45, s. 2 ; Bex v. Newcomb, 4 T. R. 368 ; Sibbald v. Roderick, 1 1 Ad. & E. 38 ; and Ormcrod v. Chadwieh, 16 M. & W. 367. As to non-payment of a iuly published poor rats, the allowance of which was possibly defective, but which was good on its face, see Baker v. Locke, 18 C. B., N. S. 52, post, p. 388. {/>) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. s. c c 386 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that whether or not J. was properly rated (a) within section 27 (b) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, in respect of the second house, he was entitled to be registered as an occupier of premises in succession under section 28, inasmuch as he had paid all rates in respect of such premises (c) : Rogers v. Leuis, 7 C. B., N. S. 29; K. & Gr. 279 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 85 ; 8 W. R. 279 ; 6 Jur., N. S. 612. Claim to be rated (d) held to be well served upon one, who had been duly appointed assistant overseer under 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, and who had acted as such ever since he teas so appointed, although prior to such claim his salary had been increased by the vestry without any fresh appointment by justices. Gaunter v. Addams, 15 C. B., N. S. 512 ; H. & P. 50 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 68 ; 12 W. E. 1105 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 1295 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 391. (a) Eele, C. J., inclined to think that the same construction ought to be put upon ' ' rating ' ' for the purpose of conferring a qualification to vote, as that which, in settlement cases, had been put upon the word "charged " or " assessed " for the purpose of a settlement under the poor laws, and, therefore, that the voter in the above case (assuming the necessity of his being rated for the second house) being the person intended to be rated, was sufficiently " rated " to satisfy the statute. It may be doubted, however, whether, inasmuch as section 30 of the Reform Act,' 1832, provided for claims in consequence of omission from the rate, the settlement cases were analogous. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. (c) Some of the expressions of the court seem to favour the supposition, that two distinct franchises were created by sections 27 and 28 respectively, and that, whereas both rating and payment of rates were requisite to qualify in respect of a continuous occu- pation of the same premises under section 27, payment alone sufficed in cases of successive occupation under section 28. (d) See note (b), ante, on p. 379. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 387 Rate, good on the face of it, and unappealed against, is " payable from " a voter under section 27 (a) of Re- form Act, 1832, though it mag not have been signed by a majority of the parish officers, as required by 43 Eliz. c. 2, s.l. Borough of Taunton. The appellant was on the list of voters for the parish of T. as an occupier, and was objected to for non-payment of poor-rate. The parish of T. had two churchwardens, four overseers, and an assistant overseer. The latter was appointed under 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, and his warrant of appointment required him to assist the overseers in the performance of all the duties incident to the office of overseer of the parish, except the col- lection of rates ; he was also duly appointed collector of rates by the board of guardians. During the qualifying period of the appellant's occupation, a poor rate was made and signed by the two churchwardens, one of the overseers, and the assistant overseer. It was allowed by two magis- trates (b) , who, in the usual form, appended their signatures to the certificate of allowance, and it was duly published. The appellant had not paid that rate (e) . It had not been appealed against, and the time for appealing had expired. The appellant's name having been struck out at the revision, it was contended on his behalf, on appeal, that the rate was void, on the ground that it was not signed by a majority (d) of the parish officers, as the assistant overseer had no power to join in making it. Held, that whether or not the assistant overseer (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. {b) 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. (c) It is not stated in the case that the rate, although made during the qualifying year, was made at a time consistent with its having become payable from the appellant previously to 5th January in such year. See 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90. {d) 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. cc2 388 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. could legally join in making the rate, it was appa- rently valid on the face of it, and, consequently, the non-payment thereof by the appellant disentitled him to be registered as a voter under section 27 of 2 Will. IY. c. 45. Semble, that an assistant overseer appointed under 59 Greo. III. c. 12, s. 7, may legally join in making a poor rate if his warrant of appointment do not exclude that duty: Baker v. Locke, 18 C. B., N. S. 52 ; H. & P. 137 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 65 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 567 ; 13 W. E. 258. Revising barrister having found that voter had been sufficiently rated and had paid all rates, the court, being of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such findings, would not review the decision. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent owned and occupied a house and garden within the borough ; he also owned two other houses therein. Some years prior to the revision he compounded under a local Act (4 & 5 "Vict. c. 72) for the rates upon the three houses and garden for one year. At the expiration of the year and down to July, 1864 (the year of the revision), the overseers con- tinued to assess the premises as before, although no new composition was entered into. Subsequently to the respondent compounding, as above stated, and previously to 31st July, 1863, he made improvements in the house and garden in his occupation, and they consequently became worth more than £10 a year. In October, 1863, the respondent claimed to be rated separately and to the full rate in respect of the last-mentioned premises, for the purpose, as he then stated to the overseer, of " getting his vote," but he RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 389 did not at the time pay or tender the rates then due. No alteration was made in the rating. The re- spondent afterwards, and before 20th July, 1864, paid to the overseers a sum more than sufficient to cover the rates due before 5th January, 1864, in respect of the house and garden in his own occupation, but not sufficient to cover the rates due before that time in respect of such premises jointly with the other two houses. The respondent made no specific appropriation of the sum paid by him, and the overseers applied it in reduction of the whole amount due. The revising barrister having found that the re- spondent was sufficiently rated in respect of the house and garden occupied by him, and that he had paid all his rates in respect of them, The court held, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such firj dings, and therefore refused to interfere : Powell v. Jones, 18 0. B., N. S. 83 ; H. & P. 165 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 600 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 17 ; 13 W. E. 273. Revising barrister having found that voter had been sufficicnth/ rated (a) and had paid all rates, the court, being of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such finding*, would not review the decision. Borough of Kidderminster. This was a similar case to Powell v. Jones, 18 C. B., N. S. 83, supra, as to the rating point. There were, however, no arrears unpaid. It was agreed that the case should abide by the judgment in Powell v. Jones : Powell v. Pugh, H. & P. 171, note. (a) See note [a), ante, on p. 376. 390 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Proportion of rate, which incoming tenant was " liable to pay " under 17 Geo. II. c. 38, s. 12, held, in the absence of a demand from the overseers, not to " have become payable from him" within section 27(a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. Borough of Cheltenham. The 12th section (b) of 17 Greo. II. c. 38, after reciting that " persons frequently remove out of parishes and places without paying the rates assessed on them, and other persons do enter and occupy their houses or tenements part of the year, by reason whereof great sums are annually lost to such parishes and places," enacts that " where any person or persons shall come into or occupy any house, &c, out of or from which any other person assessed shall be removed, or which at the time of making such rate was empty or unoccu- pied, that then every person so removing from, and every person so coming into or occupying the same, shall be liable to pay to such rate in proportion to the time that such person occupied the same re- spectively .... which said proportion, in case of dispute, shall be ascertained by any two or more of his Majesty's justices of the peace." B., an occupier, was objected to for non-payment of a portion of one of the poor rates. The poor rates for the parish in which the qualifying premises were situate, were made twice a year. A rate was made in April, 1863, and another (the next) in the following September, which extended to March, 1864 (the year of the revision) . B. went into occupation during the currency of the April rate, and before the 1st of August, 1863 ; he had paid no portion of such rate (c), which was («) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. \b) Repealed by 32 & 3:i Vict. c. 41, s. 16. (c) It was not stated in the case, but the court assumed, that the rate was not paid by the outgoing tenant. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 391 not demanded of him, neither was his name inserted therein. Held (Williams, J., dissentiente), that in the absence of a notice from the parish officers to B. that his proportion of the April rate was unpaid, such pro- portion had not " become payable from him " within section 27 (a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and, therefore, he was not disqualified for the franchise by reason of his not having paid it (b) : Fldtcher v. Boodle, 18 C. B., N. S. 152 ; H. & P. 238 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 67 ; 13 W. E. 340 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 77 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 630. A poor rate allowed during the twelve months com- mencing 31s/ Jul)/, 1867, but signed by the over- seers before that date, held not a rate " made " during qualifying //ear, 1867-8, within 30 8f 31 Vict. 2. 102, s. 3, sub-s. 3. Borough of Malmesbury. The respondent, on the list of inhabitant occupiers at the revision of 1868, was objected to on the ground that he had not been duly rated. («) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. (b) Willes, J., in delivering his judgment in the above case, distinguishes between a rate made (hiring the voter's occupation, and a rate made prior thereto. Payment by the voter of the former was a condition precedent to his being placed on the register, and he was not allowed to excuse himself on the ground of any laches in the overseers ; for after a rate had been duly published, it immediately became payable (in so far as the franchise was concerned) from the persons named in it, except from voters paying scot and lot, who did not forfeit their right to be registered as voters through non-payment of poor rate, unless such rate had been demanded from them. See Elliott on Qualifications and Registration, 197. It may be doubted whether, inasmuch as section 16 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41 (substituted for section 12 of 17 Geo. II. c. 38), requires the overseer to enter in the rate book the name of the incoming tenant, with the date of the commencement of his occupation, such insertion might not be held to dispense with the necessity of notifying to him (in so far as his right to the franchise is concerned) that his proportion of the rate is in arrear. If so, the decision in Flatcher v. Boodle will be inapplicable to any future case. 392 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. A poor rate for the respondent's parish purported by its heading to have been made by the overseers on 18th July, 1867, and on each page of it there were the words " rate made on the 18th day of July, 1867." The rate was allowed (a) by the justices on 4th September following. The respondent was not rated to this rate. Held, that the rate in question was not a rate " made " within the meaning of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3, sub-s. 3, during the qualifying period (b), and, therefore, not one to which the respondent was required to be rated (<••) for the purpose of the fran- chise : Jones v. Bubb, L. 11. 4 C. P. 468 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 57 ; 1 H. & C. 128 ; 17 W. 11. 205 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 483. Occupiers of small ckvelling-houses in boroughs which had adopted the Small Tenements Act were entitled to be placed on the parliamentary register in 1868, although the// had not been rated to, or paid, poor rates made between 15th Augad and 29th S) But see now section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, and note (a), post, 399. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 399 apply (a), and, consequently, that the appellant was not entitled to the franchise : Cross v. Alsop, L. R. 6 C. P. 315 ; 1 H. & C. 444; 40 L. J. C. P. 53 ; 19 W. R. 131 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 589. Non-payment of a poor-rate made before, but excused {under 54 Geo. III. c. 170, s. 11) after com- mencement of qualifying year, held to disqualify for borough franchise. Borough of New Sarum. A. claimed to be inserted in the list of voters as an inhabitant occupier. In June next previous to the commencement of the qualifying year a poor rate was made, to which he was duly rated in respect of the premises occupied by him. The next poor rate was made in the following October, to which the landlord was rated, and with regard to which, and the rates subsequent thereto, no question was raised. After the October rate had become payable, A. was duly excused by the justices under 54 Greo. III. c. 170, s. 11, from payment of the June rate, and he had never paid it. Held, that the June rate, although made before the qualifying year, was a rate " that had become payable " by A. " up to 5th January " of such year, within section 3, sub-section 4, of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and, consequently, that the non-payment thereof by him was, notwithstanding his excusal, a disqualification for his acquirement of the franchise : Abel v. Lee, L. R. 6 C. P. 365 ; 1 H. & C. 515 ; 40 L. J. 0. P. 154 ; 19 W. R. 625 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 844. (a) This section (the construction of which was not necessary to the decision of the case) has now been declared by section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to be of general application. See also Smith v. SeghhU, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, and Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393, ywst, p. 406. 400 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Inhabitant occupier of houses in succession, within ■section 26 of Representation of People Act, 1867, may acquire the franchise without having been rated [a) in respect of the second house. City of Bath. M. claimed to be inserted in the list of voters, and described his qualification as " houses in succession, 7, Taylor's court, from 13, Paradise street, Lyncombe and Widdicombe." He had for a long time previously to, and up to, February, 1871 (the year of the revision), occupied a house in Paradise street, at an annual rent of £6, and had been rated to, and had paid, all poor rates made in respect thereof during such occupation. In February, 1871, he removed direct into and occupied a house in Taylor's court, for which he agreed to pay a rent of £8 a year, his landlord agreeing, at the same time, to pay the rates. In the following April, a rate was made for the relief of the poor of the parish in which Taylor's court was situate. M. was not, nor did he claim to be, rated to this rate, nor were any circumstances shown, which would have had the effect of bringing him within the benefit of section 19 of the Poor Rate Assess- ment and Collection Act, 1869 ; but all rates pay- able in respect of the last-mentioned premises occupied by him were, previously to. 20th July, 1871, paid by his landlord. Held, that the proviso of section 28 of the Reform Act, 1832, as interpreted by Rogers v. Lewis, 7 0. B., N. S. 29, must, by virtue of sections 56 and 59 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, be read into section 26 of that Act ; that it was sufficient, therefore, for M. to have paid the rates for the second house, without having been rated in respect thereof : that the payment by the landlord was, (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 401 under the circumstances, a payment by M. ; and that, consequently, M. was entitled to a vote : Moger v. JEscott, L. B. 7 C. P. 158; 1 H. & C. 645; 41 L. J. C. P. 86 ; 20 W. P. 368 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 99. The rates which if is necessary that inhabitant occupier should have paid under section 3, sub-section 4, of 30 fy 31 Vict. c. Iu2, are only those made and alhiced after 5th January of year preceding quali- fying //ear, and payable up to 5th January of qualifying //ear. Borough ok Cheltenham. B. and C. were objected to on the list of house occupiers, at the revision of 1871. B. had duly paid all the poor-rates which had become payable by him during the qualifying year in respect of the qualifying premises, but had not paid a rate of Februaiy, 1867, to which he was duly rated, and which had become payable by him in respect of such premises. C. had duly paid all the poor-rates which had become payable by him during the qualifying year in respect of the qualifying premises, but had not paid two rates, one of April, 1869, and the other of October, 1869, to each of which he was duly rated, and each of which had become payable by him in respect of such premises. Held, that the rates which it is necessary that a proposed voter should have paid before 20th July of the qualifying year are only those which have been made and allowed after 5th of January of the year preceding the qualifying year, and payable up to 5th January of the qualifying year {a), and conse- («) It was also held that no excusal of such rates, •whether made before or after the commencement of the qualifying year, can be pleaded in bar of a disqualification arising from their not having in fact been paid or tendered before 20th July of the qualifying year. . S. D D 402 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. quently, that the non-payment by B. of the February rate of 1867, and the non-payment by C. of the April and October rates of 1869, did not operate as a dis- qualification for the franchise : Cull v. Austin, Austin v. Cull, L. B. 7 0. P. 227, 229 ; 1 H. & C. 741, 744 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 153, 154 ; 20 W. P. 863, 864 ; 26 L. T., N. S. 767, 769. Description in rate-book of members of a firm by the name of the firm, without giving the names of the members, held a sufficient rating of the members, the facts of the case leading to the inference that they were the persons intended to be rated. Such description {if inaccurate) cured by section 75 of 6 Vict. c. 18. East Cumberland. Gr. A. appeared on the list of voters for the parish of Penrith, as "joint occupier of house and shop of the rateable value of £80 and upwards." He was objected to as not having been duly rated. The rate-book contained the following description in relation to him : — Name of occupier. Name of owner. N. Ariiison and Sons. Nathan Arnison. " N. Arnison " meant Nathan Arnison, who some years before the revision was rated as the sole occu- pier of the premises, which he then used for carrying on his business (that of a linen draper) by himself. He subsequently took two of his sons, Gr. A., and T. B. A., into partnership, and got the overseers to alter the rating from "N. Arnison" to "N. Arnison and Sons," such being the style of the new firm. Nathan Arnison had retired from the business some years, and Gr. A., and T. B. A., had become RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 403 the sole occupiers of the premises, whereon they con- tinued to carry on the concern under the name of " N. Arnison and Sons." For the last few years preceding the revision, the rates, when called for, had been paid by either Gr. A. or T. B. A., and a receipt given for them as received from " N. Arnison and Sons." Held, that G-. A. was rated within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 6, sub-s. 3, the inaccuracy of the de- scription (if any) being cured by 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 75, and 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 30, and he was therefore entitled to be registered : Little v. Penrith, L. P. 8 C. P. 259 ; 2 H. & C. 26 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 28 ; 21 W. P. 122 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 552. An occupier, ichose landlord had paid for him, under an illegal composition, a smaller sum for poor rate than that paid by ordinary occupiers, held not en- titled to be registered, although landlord had after- wards, in September of qualifying year [the illegality of the composition having been discovered) , paid the additional sum requisite to make up the full amount of rate. Borough of New Windsor. The respondent occupied as tenant a house in the borough. Before the qualifying year he had agreed with his landlord (the owner of the house) that the rates should be paid by the latter, and included in the rent. The owner had, previously to the qualifying year, agreed with the overseers to pay a composition on the rates. The rateable value of the house was £10. A poor rate, in which the names of both owner and respondent appeared, was made in the May previous to the qualifying year. This rate was at Sd. in the pound, and the sum of 4s. 8d. was inserted in the rate book as the amount of the composition payable by the owner, in respect of the house occupied by the respondent. d d2 404 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The owner paid the composition in due time. It having been discovered subsequently to such payment that the composition was illegal by reason of 59 Greo. III. c. 12, s. 23, the owner, of his own accord, in September in the qualifying year, paid the overseers an additional sum of 2-s'. to make up the difference between the amount of the composition and the full amount of the rate. Held, that the respondent had not paid an equal amount in the pound to that payable by other ordinary occupiers, within spction 3, sub-sect. 4, of the Representation of the People Act, 1867 (a) : Burant v. Withers, L. E. 9 C. P. 257 ; 2 H. & C. 202; 43 L. J. C. P. 113; 22 W. R. 156. The court were equally divided as to whether occupier of rooms in a dwelling -house {assuming them to be sufficient to qualify) wast, in order to acquire the borough franchise under Representation of People Act, 1867, sections 3 and bl, hare been separate}!/ rated (b) for such rooms to all rates in existence during qualifying //car, or only to those made during such period. The court in re also divided as to whether part of a house, not structurally or practically separate from the rest, could constitute a dwelling-house within the above sections (c). The exception in section 7 of same statute, does not apply to parliamentary borough in which, at the time of the passing of the Act, there was no statute in force by which owner could be rated instead of occupier. Held, by Keating and Denman, JJ., that the rooms occupied by the respondent constituted a (a) Burant v. Fletcher (a subsequent ense), 43 L. J. C. P. 114, note, was, without argument, decided in accordance with the judgment in Burant v. Withers, the facts of the two cases being admitted to be undistinguishable. (u) See note (a), ante, on p. 376. (c) See section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registra- tion Act, 1878. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 405 dwelling-house, within sections 3 and 61 (a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, although they were not structurally separated from the rest of the house of which they formed part, and although they had not been rated separately therefrom to all the rates in existence during the qualifying year; that the words of sections 3 and 61 (a) were satisfied, if the part of the house in respect of which the franchise is claimed has, during the whole of the qualifying twelve mouths, been occupied as a separate dwelling, and has been during that period separately rated, i. e., named in the rate as the subject-matter in respect of which its occupier has been separately rated, to all rates made during the qualifying year ; and that, these conditions having been complied with in the present case, the respondent was entitled to be registered. Held, by Brett and Honeyman, JJ., that, as section 3, sub-sect. 2, requires that a dwelling-house should be occupied for the whole of the qualifying twelve months, and section 61 (a) defines a dwelling- house (when not an entire house) to be a part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling, and separately rated to the relief of the poor, it follows that such part of a house must be separately rated during the whole of the twelve months of occupation, and that, consequently, the respondent, not having been rated in respect of the premises occupied by him till November, 1872, was not entitled to be registered. Held by Bkett, J., that the rooms were not occupied as a separate dwelling within section 61. The opinion was also expressed by some members of the court, and apparently concurred in by all, that, as at the time of the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, there was no statute in [a] The inter pretation contained in section 5 of the Parliamen- tary a» d Municipal Registration Act, 1878, of "dwelling-house" is substituted for that contained in section 61 of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1SG7. 406 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. force in the respondent's parish, under which the owner of houses could be rated, the exception in section 7 did not apply : Boon v. Howard, L. R. 9 0. P. 277 ; 2 H. & C. 208 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 115 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 382 ; 22 W. R. 535. Section 19 of 32 Sf 33 Vict. c. 41, applies not only to cases where owner is liable by agreement with the overseers under section 3, or by order of vestry under section 4, but also to cases where he is liable by agreement with the occupier, to pay the rates. Held, that although the overseers had omitted H. from the rate book, and he had not claimed to be rated, his franchise was preserved by section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41 ; for the operation of that section (a) was not restricted to cases where there had been an agreement in writing between the overseers and the owner to receive the rates from him under section 3, or an order of vestry for rating the owner instead of the occupier under section 4 : Smith v. Seghill, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, followed ; Cross v. Alsop, L. R. 6 0. P. 315, ante, p. 399, distinguished: Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 87 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 352. The agreement in writing required by section 3 of Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the notice in writing required by section 4, sub- section 2, held to be condition precedent to legality of allowances made under those clauses. Overseers held to have no power to waive performance of either of the conditions. Held, that the allowance in excess of 15 per cent. was not one which the overseers were empowered to make, and, consequently, that the enactment in (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 399. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 407 section 7, that payment by the owner is to be deemed " payment of the full rate by the occupier," " notwithstanding any allowance or deduction which the overseers are empowered to make from the rate," did not preserve the occupier's franchise (a) : Bennett v. Atkins, 2H.&C. 430 ; L. E. 4 C. P. D. 80 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 95 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 66. (a) It is now, however, enacted by section 2 of the Assessed Rates Act, 1879 (passed in consequence of this decision : see Davies on Registration, p. 356), that "where by way of commis- sion or abatement or deduction under the principal Act (The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869), or purporting or as- sumed to be under the principal Act, an allowance or deduction has, before the passing of this Act, been or shall hereafter be actually made, the same shall, for the purpose of every qualifica- tion or franchise depending upon rating or upon payment of rates, be deemed to have been duly made in pursuance of every or any agreement, order, notice, or proceeding necessary for the validity thereof under the principal Act, and to have been and to be an allowance or deduction which the overseers were and are em- powered to make from the rate under the principal Act ; and no qualification or franchise depending upon rating or upon payment of rates shall be defeated by reason of such allowance or deduction not having been made in pursuance of an agreement in writing, order in writing, or notice in writing, or by reason of the want or insufficiency of any agreement, order, notice, or proceeding neces- sary for the validity thereof under the principal Act, or by reason of any informality or defect in the making thereof " 408 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. ASSESSED TAXES. A quarter's house tax which, by virtue of 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, was payable on 20fh December, 1851, teas held to "have become payable" previously to the succeeding 5th January, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (a), and 11 # 12 Viet. c. 90, although not demanded until after last-mentioned date. City of Westminster. The appellant claimed a borough vote, his claim being free from objection, except that he was a defaulter in payment of assessed taxes. Under the Reform Act, 1832, section 27 (a), no per- son could be registered as a borough voter unless he had paid, on or before 20th July in the qualifying year, all assessed taxes which had become payable from him in respect of the qualifying premises previously to nth April then next preceding. By 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90, the 5th January was substituted for the 6th April. By 43 Greo. III. c. 161, s. 23, assessed taxes were payable quarter?//, viz., on 20th June, 20th September, 20th December,' and 20th March. The collectors were, by 48 Geo. III. c. 141, s. 1, directed to collect the assessed taxes half-yearly, within 21 days after 10th October and 5th April, but that Act provided, that nothing contained therein should be construed to alter the times when the duties weie payable under previous Acts. The appellant was returned as a defaulter under section 12 of 6 Vict. c. 18, for not having paid on or before 20th July, 18 <2, the quarterly house tax of (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. ASSESSED TAXES. 409 20th December, 1851. This tax was not demanded of him until 10th April. He paid it on 30th July. Held, that the taxes which, by 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, were payable on 20th December, 1851, were taxes, which, by 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90, had become payable before the succeeding 5th January, although no demand for payment had been previously made, and therefore the appellant was not entitled to be registered : Ford v. Smedley, 12 C. B. 622 ; 2 Lutw. 203 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 35 ; lb Jur. 1159; 20 L. T. 96 ; 1 W. E. 67. Occupier of a " house " within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832, who would under that section be disquali- fied by non-payment of inhabited house duty, is not the less disqualified because he occupies the ground floor as a " shop" and his qualification is so described in the list. Borough of Bradford. The respondent was objected to on the ground that he had not paid inhabited house duty. The nature of his qualification was described in the list as a " shop." He was a member of a firm of linen drapers, who occupied, as owners, business premises in Bradford. These premises consisted of a building, the ground floor of which was jointly occupied by the respondent and his partners as a shop ; the upper stories were occupied as a dwelling-house by their servants, who resided there for the purpose of protecting the premises and attending to the business of the firm. The shop was not structurally severed from the rest of the building. The respondent and his partners had duly paid all the poor rates in respect of the premises, hut had not paid the inhabited house duty, to which the premises were assessed. («) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. 410 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The instructions issued by the commissioners of assessed taxes for the district were substantially as follows : " For every inhabited dwelling-house which, with the household and other offices, &c, therewith occu- pied and charged, is or shall be worth the rent of £20 or upwards by the year. " Where any such dwelling-house shall be occupied by any person in trade, who shall expose to sale and sell any goods, &c, in any shop, being part of the same dwelling-house, and in the front and on the ground or basement story thereof, there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such annual value of any such dwelling-house the sum of sixpence. " And where any such dwelling-house shall not be occupied and used for any such purpose, and in manner aforesaid, there shall be charged for every twenty shillings of such annual value thereof the sum of ninepence." The revising barrister was of opinion that the building in question having been assessed on its full annual value to inhabited house duty, at the reduced rate of 6d. in the <£, in accordance with the foregoing instructions, the shop was not, in fact, so assessed at all, and, consequently, that no assessed taxes had become payable by the respondent in respect of the shop, within the meaning of 2 Will. IV. c.45, s. 27 (a), and he accordingly decided against the objection, and retained the respondent's name on the list. The court reversed the decision : Lee v. Bradford, 1 H. & C. 733. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b), ante, on p. 114. ( 411 ) CHEATING VOTES. Conveyance not void under Splitting Act (7 8f 8 Will. III. c. 25) unless vendor be a party to the object intended by the conveyance. City of Lichfield. By 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 6, conveyances in order to multiply voices, or split and divide the interest in any houses or lands among several persons, to enable them to vote at the election of members to serve in parliament, are declared void. At the time of the passing of the Reform Act, 1832, freeholders in the city of Lichfield (a county of itself) had the right of voting in the election of members for that city. Gr. having contracted in his own name with the proprietors of a house for the purchase of it at £292 5s., bond fide sold it to B. and five others in equal shares, and caused a conveyance of it to be made from the original owners to them. The purchase-money was paid to the vendors by the hands of Gr., but it was the proper money of the sub-vendees. Gr.'s object in proposing the purchase to the sub- vendees was to increase the number of voters for the city of Lichfield, but the object of the sub- vendees was a bond fide investment of their money, though they expected that the possession of the property would give them each a vote. Held, that as it did not appear that the parties conveying were privy to the object (a) intended by the conveyance, the conveyance was not void under (a) The court refrained from expressing any opinion as to the illegality of such object in the absence of fraud or collusion. See Alexander v. Norman, 2 C. B. 122, post, p. 414. 412 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the statute, and the sub-vendees were entitled to be registered: Marshall v. Bourn, 7 M. & Gr. 188 ; 8 Scott, N. R. 889 ; 1 Lutw. 278 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 129 ; 9 Jur. 164 ; B. & Arn. 445. Conveyance not void under Splitting Act (7 8f 8 Will. III. c. 25) unless vendor be a parti/ to the object of the purchase. Knowledge of, and acquiescence in, such object on, the part of vendor's solicitor, im- material. South Lancashire. Several persons (members of a political association) employed I). to procure for them qualifications to vote for South Lancashire. D. accordingly purchased for them through the solicitor of W. some freehold property which W. had on sale. The property was conveyed to the vendees (in fee) in different portions under nine separate deeds, duly executed before 31st January, 1845 (the year of the revision). The purchase-money for each portion was handed over to W.'s solicitor, at the time of the execution of the several conveyances, by D., who had previously received it from the vendees. The prices given were fair, and the purchasers had each received the rents of their respective portions. It did not appear that the vendor knew of the vendee's object in making their respective purchases, though his solicitor knew it, and acquiesced therein. Held, in accordance with Marshall v. Sown, supra, that the vendor not being privy to the object (a) of the purchase, the conveyances were not void uuder 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 6, and that the vendees were eutitled to be registered : Houland v. Bremner, 2 C. B. 84; 1 Lutw. 381 ; 15 L. J. 0. P. 133 ; 10 Jur. 36; B. & Arn. 611. («) The question of the illegality of such object, iu the absence of fraud or collusion, was not before the court. See Alexander v. Newman, 2 C. B. 122 (the next case). CREATING VOTES. 413 A bona fide conveyance for valuable consideration to several person* is rat id, although the object of vendor' be to give, and that of vendees to acquire, the right of voting. West Riding of Yorkshire. Thirty-five persons being desirous of having votes for the West Riding of Yorkshire, requested R., the agent of a political association, to obtain qualifications for them re- spectively. He accordingly, in January, 1845 (the year of the revision), purchased for them from Messrs. C, who were wealthy manufacturers in the neighbour- hood of Huddersfield, some freehold land and cottages at a fair price, and the property was duly conveyed to the thirty-five purchasers as tenants in common. Messrs. C.'s only object in selling this property was to increase the number of voters in the West Riding of Yorkshire. R. was not the ordinary solicitor either of Messrs. C. or of any of the thirty-five persons for whom he made the above purchase ; but as agent of the association he had, by advertisements, wherein he re- ferred to himself as such agent, invited parties to sell and purchase small freeholds for the purpose of qualifying for votes for the said Riding. On the day on which the conveyance was executed (22nd January, 1845), the thirty-five purchasers leased the land and cottages in question to Messrs. 0. for fifteen years at a rent of £70, which had since been duly paid. The property was near Messrs. C.'s mill, and before and at the time of the purchase was, and had been ever since, occupied by persons employed in the mill. The thirty-five purchasers had never seen the property. The conveyance was complete and bond fide, and the purchase-money was really paid by the several purchasers. There was no secret trust in favour of the sellers, 414 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. or stipulation as to how the purchasers, or any of them, should vote, nor had any of them any com- munication with Messrs. C. except through R., their common solicitor. Messrs. C. and the purchasers held the same political opinions, and, though there was no concert between them, the avowed and only object of the transaction on both sides was " to multiply voices." Held, that the conveyance, being bond fide for a valuable consideration, was not void under 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 6, although the object of the parties thereto was "to multiply voices;" and that only such conveyances were void under the statute as were fraudulent, and not intended to convey any real interest in the land (a) : Alexander v. Neicman, 2 0. B. 122; 1 Lutw. 404; 15 L. J. C. P. 134; B. & Arn. 657 ; 10 Jur. 313. A bona fide conveyance by a father to his sons m con,' sideration of natural lore and affection is valid, although grantor's principal object be to entitle his sons to be registered. North Cheshire. R. H. and S. H. claimed to vote in respect of freehold land. H. (the father of the claimants) being seised in fee of land in North Cheshire, proposed to the claimants in December, 1844, to execute a deed of gift in their favour of so much of the property as would entitle them to be registered. (a) The following cases were held to be within the principle laid down in Alexander v. Newman, and were decided accordingly : — Riley v. Crossley, 2 C. B. 146 ; 1 Lutw. 420, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 144 ; B. & Arn. 682 ; 10 Jur. 316. Beswick v. Ashu-orth, 2 C. B. 152 ; 1 Lutw. 422, note ; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 686. Beswick v. Aked, 2 C. B. 156 ; 1 Lutw. 422, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 687. Thorniley v. Aspland, 2 C. B. 160 ; 1 Lutw. 423, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 688. Rawlins v. Bremner, 2 C. B. 166; 1 Lutw. 425, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 692. CREATING VOTES. 415 A deed was accordingly executed on 30th January, 1845 (the year of the revision), by which the said H., in consideration of natural love and affection, con- veyed to the claimants and their assigns, for the life of the grantor, a portion of the land in question, of the yearly value of £36. Before the execution of the conveyance, the claimants had, by permission of the grantor, de- pastured their horses on the land so conveyed, and had continued to do so subsequently to the date of the deed ; and the grantor had also continued to depasture his cattle thereon since the date of the conveyance without paying, or having agreed to pay, his sons any rent. The conveyance was made by the grantor prin- cipally for the purpose of entitling the claimants to be registered, but with a view also of making a provision for them. Held, that the consideration of natural love and affection being equivalent to a pecuniary considera- tion, and there being no fraud in fact found by the revising barrister, the case was governed by Alexander v. Newman, 2 C. B. 122, supra, and the claimants were, consequently, entitled to be registered : Newton v. Eargreaves, 2 C. B. 163; 1 Lutw. 424, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 154; 10 Jur. 317; B. & Arn. 690. A bona fide grant by father to son in consideration of natural love and affection is valid, although grantor's object be to entitle son to be registered. Wliether or not there be fraud in making the grant, is a question of fact for revising barrister, whose finding is conclusive thereon. North Cheshire. J. W. claimed to vote in respect of a freehold rentcharge (a). W. (the claimant's father) being seised in. fee of a certain messuage in North Cheshire, granted thereout (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 14. 416 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. by deed of 30th January, 1845 (the year of the revision), to the claimant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration of natural love and affection, a yearly rentcharge (a), payable half-yearly. The grantor was tenant of a farm belonging to the father of one of the members for North Cheshire, and a few days before the date of the deed the grantor was at the house of his landlord, with the land- steward of the latter, when instructions were given by the grantor to his landlord's attorney to prepare the deed. The attorney delivered the deed, when prepared, to the land-steward, who got it exe- cuted by the parties thereto, and attested it. The first half-year's rent had been duly paid to the claimant. The grantor's object in creating the rentcharge (a) was, as stated by him when giving instructions for the deed, to entitle the claimant to be placed on the register. It did not appear that the claimant had engaged himself to vote in any particular way. The revising barrister having decided that the transaction was not void on the ground of fraud, and that the deed was not void under 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 6, The court held (1) that the finding of the revising barrister on the qunstion of fraud was conclusive, and could not be reviewed ; and (2) in accordance with Alexander v. Newman, 2 C. B. 122, ante, p. 414, that the deed was not void under the statute : Newton v. Mobberley (b), 2 C. B. 203; 1 Lutw. 427; 10 Jur. 318; B. & Am. 695. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 14. \b) The facts of Newton v. Crowley (2 C. B. 207; 1 Lutw. 427; B. & Arn. 697) were substantially the same as those in Newton v. Mobberley, and the court gave judgment in accordance with their decision therein. ( 417 ) PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. Letter-carrier, irlio resigned his appointment within twelve month* of the 31st ot July next preceding the revision, was held, under 22 Geo. III. c. 41 {repealed), not entitled to be registered. Borough of Cambridge. By 22 Geo. III. c. 41, s. 1 (repealed), persons employed in the collection of the post-office revenue, or any part thereof, were, both during the continuance of their employment in that capacity, and for twelve months after the deter- mination thereof, disqualified from voting. A., whose nnrne appeared on the list of voters, was, in November, 1$43, appointed by the post- master-general to carry letters, and to receive the postage due thereon. He resigned his office in March, 1844 (the year of the revision). The revising barrister, on objection, retained A.'s name on the list. Held, that his name should have been expunged: Cooper v. Harris (Austin's case), 8 Scott, N. E. 921; 7 M. & G. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 207 ;' B. & Arm 357 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 72. Collector of window duties appointed by commissioners of assessed taxes, who were also land tax commis- sioners, held to be within the exception created by section 2 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41 (repealed), and, therefore, entitled to vote. Borough of Westbury. The appellant was ob- jected to at the revision of 1844 as being disqualified under section 1 of the now repealed statute 22 Geo. III. c. 41. He was a person employed in collecting the duties on windows, and was appointed such collector s. E E 418 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. by a warrant and appointment, under the hands and seals of two of the commissioners for executing the several acts of parliament relating to the duties of assessed taxes. It was admitted that the two com- missioners making the said appointment were also commissioners of the land tax. Among the persons enumerated in section 1 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41, as incapable of voting, are " any surveyor, collector, comptroller, inspector, officer, or other person employed in collecting, managing, or receiving the duties on windows or houses." Sec- tion 2 provides, " that nothing in this Act contained shall extend, or be construed to extend, to any com- missioner of the land tax, or any person acting under the appointment of such commissioners of the land tax, for the purpose of assessing, levying, collecting, receiving, or managing the land tax, or any other rates or duties already granted or imposed, or which shall hereafter be granted or imposed, by authority of parliament." Held, that the appellant was within the exception created by section 2, and was, therefore, not dis- qualified by section 1 : Dyer v. Gouqh, 7 M. & Gr. 109 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 934; 1 Lutw. 220; 14 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 9 Jur. 308 ; B. & Arm 368. Assessors, as well as collectors, of assessed taxes, appointed by commissioners of assessed taxes who were also land tax commissioners, held entitled to vote. "Wkst Riding of Yorks. Four persons were objected to at the revision of 1844 as being disquali- fied under section 1 of the now repealed statute, 22 Greo. III. c. 41. Two of them were collectors, and the other two assessors, of the assessed taxes. The respective appointments of the four persons objected to were made by the local commissioners of assessed taxes, the names of two persons in every township being annually returned to the said com- PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 419 missioners, who compelled the party so returned to take the office upon them. The local commissioners of assessed taxes were selected from the body of the land tax commissioners, and upon their appointment to act as assessed tax commissioners, they took an oath of office as assessed tax commissioners, and whilst acting as commissioners of assessed taxes they still retained their character of commissioners of the land tax. Held, in accordance with Dyer v. Gough, supra, that the four persons objected to were within the exception created by section 2 of the statute, and were, therefore, not disqualified by section 1 : Baxter v. Doncaster, 7 M. & G. 120, note ; 8 Scott, N. E. 945 ; 1 Lutw. 227, note; B. & Arn. 379, note. A clerk to a receiving inspector of taxes appointed under 1 8f 2 Will IV. c 18, s. 2 {repealed), held not disqualified by section 1 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41 {repealed) . Borough of Cambridge. 0. was objected to on the ground that he was a " person employed in collecting or receiving the duties on windows or houses," and, therefore, disqualified under the now repealed statute, 22 Greo. III. c. 41, s. 1. By section 2 of 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 18, it was enacted, that in lieu of the receivers-general to be discontinued under that Act, it should be lawful for the commissioners of His Majesty's treasury to appoint from time to time inspectors of taxes to be officers or persons for the receipt of the land tax, and of moneys payable for the sale and redemption thereof, and the respective rates and duties of assessed taxes under the management of the com- missioners of taxes, within such counties, districts, and circuits of receipt, as the said commissioners of the treasury should authorize or direct ; and that it should be lawful for the last-named commissioners e e 2 420 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. to grant annual allowances to sucli receiving inspec- tors as a remuneration for executing the additional duties imposed on them by that Act, and for the expense of a clerk, not exceeding on an average £100 for such remuneration, and a like average sum for such clerk. C. was clerk to a receiving inspector of taxes appointed under the above enactment. He was in the habit of assisting the receiving inspector in the receipt of the window duties and other taxes from the collectors. Before 5 & 6 Vict. c. 35 (Income Tax Act), he had taken no oath of office ; but after the passing of that Act, he took the oath for collectors and officers for receipt given in Schedule F. annexed to that Act. He had in no other way been recog- nized as a public officer ; his salary was fixed and paid, and he was appointed, and was liable to be discharged by the receiving inspector. Sometimes the receiving inspector received the allowance for a clerk without employing anyone at all in that capacity. Held, that C. was not disqualified by section 1 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41 : Cooper v. Harris (Clenishaw's case), 7 M. & G. 120, note; 8 Scott, N. E. 947; 1 Lutw. 228, note. Essmsal by just fees under section 11 of 54 Geo. III. c. 170, from paying poor rate, not' a "receipt of parochial relief or other alms" within section 36 of 2 Will IV. c. 45. Borough of Lancaster. B., on the list of free- men, was objected to under the following circum- stances : — He was the occupier of a house within the borough, and was duly rated in respect thereof to a rate made in September, 1847. B. never paid this rate ; and on 21st March, 1848 (the year of the revision), he was duly excused, under 54 Geo. III. c. 170, s. 11, from the payment thereof, on account of his poverty. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 421 It was argued before the revising barrister that, under the circumstances, B. was not entitled to be registered, because he had, within twelve months next previous to 31st July (a), 1848, received " parochial relief or other alms," within section 36 of 2 Will. IV. c 45. The revising barrister having decided in favour of the vote, The court affirmed the decision : Mashifer v. Dunn, 6 C. B. 30; 2 Lutw. 112; 18 L. J. 0. P. 13; 13 Jur. 194 ; 12 L. T. 197. Serjeants-at-mace {part of whose duty it teas to act as constables,) appointed by the corporation of a borough, subsequently to 5 Sf 6 Will. IV. c. 76, by virtue of a charter existing prior to that Act, held not dis- qualified by 19 $■ 20 Vict. c. 69, s. 9. City and Borough of Hereford. It is enacted by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 69, s. 9, that " No head or other constable already appointed or hereafter to be ap- pointed for any borough under the said Act " (the Municipal Corporation Act), " except special con- stables, shall, during the time he continues to be such constable, or within six calendar months after he has ceased to be such constable, be capable of giving his vote for the election of a member to serve in parliament for such borough." The corporation of Hereford had, previously to the Municipal Corporation Act (o & 6 Will. IV. c. 76), annually appointed in pursuance of their charter, four serjeants-at-mace, who, in addition to other duties, had to serve summonses, execute warrants, apprehend persons, and assist in keeping the peace. After the passing of the last-named Act, the new corporation appointed the serjeants-at-mace (reduced from four to three) in the same manner as before, but on a different day from that named in the charter. (a) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 422 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The serjeants-at-mace took the same oath as that taken by their predecessors in office before the Municipal Corporation Act, and performed the same duties as they did. There was a police-force for the city and borough, appointed by the watch committee under section 76 of that Act. Held, that, even if the serjeants-at-mace were constables at all, they were not constables within the meaning of 19 & 20 Yict. c. 69, s. 9, inasmuch as they were appointed by the corporation under the charter, and not under the Municipal Corporation Act, and, consequently, were not disqualified for the franchise (a) : De Boinville v. Arnold, 1 C. B., N. S. 3; K & G-. 72 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 642 ; 5 W. R. 21 ; 28 L. T. 102. Pa > 'och la I Relief. Borough of Maluon. A loan of money, for medical attendance, granted by the parish (under 4 & 5 "Will. IV. c. 76, s. 58), within the qualifying year (but repaid within that period) was held by the revising barrister to constitute a receipt, by the grantee, of " parochial or other alms," so as to dis- qualify him under section 36 of the Reform Act, 1832. [No one being instructed to support this appeal, it was struck out] : Derenish v. Pigbij, 13 C. B., N. S. 28. Parochial relief to father, not relief to son, so as to disqualify the latter for the borough franchise; at lead in the absence of justice's order of main- tenance. Borough of Northallerton. S. was objected to on the ground that he had been in receipt of parochial relief within the qualifying year. (a) See now the Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1887. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 423 In November, of the qualifying year, S.'s father, being destitute, and unable to work, became an inmate of the district workhouse for six months. Whilst he was there, S. being threatened with a summons to go before the justices in petty sessions to show cause why he should not be ordered to maintain his father, offered to contribute Is. 6d. a-week towards the maintenance of his father whilst he continued in the workhouse, and the guardians accepted the offer. S. accordingly paid the sum of Is. 6d. for several weeks, whilst his father was in the workhouse ; but this sum was insufficient to defray the entire cost of his father's support, and the residue of the expense was paid out of the common fund of the Northallerton union. No order was made by the justices requiring S. to contribute to the maintenance of his father. Held, affirming the decision of the revising barrister, that S. was not disqualified by section 36 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, as having received - parochial relief (a) : Trotter v. Trevor, 13 C. B., N. S. 48 ; K. & G. 531 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 59 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 678 ; 11 W. R. 92 : 9 Jur., N. S. 443. Freemen of borough of Sandwich, who were also brethren of the hospitals of St. Bartholomew and St. John in that borough, not disqualified under section 36 of Reform Act, 1832, the benefits belonging to them as such brethren not being "alms" within that section. Borough of Sandwich. Twelve persons were objected to on the list of freemen on the ground of their being disqualified by receipt of " alms " within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 36. (a) The following statutes were cited in the argument: — 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 7 ; 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 26, and 4 & '5 Will. IV. c. 76, s. 56 : see 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 36 ; also per Cockbtjen, C. J., and Blackbuen, J., in Reg. v. Ireland, L. E,. 3 Q. B. 132, 133. 424 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. These persons were brethren either of the hospital of St. Bartholomew or of that of St. John, and had been recipients of the gratuities and other benefits by law belonging to such brethren for more than twelve calendar months next previous to 31st July (a), 1863 (the year of the revision). The two hospitals in question (identical in their constitution and management) were under the government of trustees, in whom was vested the right of appointing the brethren. Each hospital was, by repute, a corporation by prescription, and the property of the same consisted in lands and houses ; the income arising from the former being divisible annually among the brethren in equal shares, and a house being assigned to each brother to live in. Each brother was bound to keep in repair the house assigned to him. There was no instance known of a brother once appointed having been turned out of either hospital. With regard to the qualifications for admission as a brother, an old regulation was in force, in accord- ance with which " the brethren ought to be above the age of fifty years, except lame, blind, or impotent persons, and unfit for husbandry, and should be in- habitants of the said town, or a child of some then or late inhabitant, having no competent means to live." The case found that the brethren had always voted at the borough parliamentary elections without objection (b). Upon the above facts the barrister decided, that the freemen objected to were not disqualified by the receipt of " alms " within section 36 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. (a) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. (b) The accuracy of this finding- may be doubted, as the persons objected to as "almsmen'' in 1690 (the Sandwich case, 10 Journ. 457 ; Heywood on County Elections, 2nd ed. 2 5), were probably members of these very foundations ; indeed it was assumed in the above case that they were. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 425 The court affirmed the decision, on the ground that, having a permanent right to the benefits they received as brethren, the voters were not placed thereby in a dependent or subservient condition r Smith V. Hall, H. & P. 1 1 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 59; 9 Jur., N. S. 1340 ; 12 W. P. 172 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 413 ; 15 C. B., N. S. 485. Not necessary that voter should have heat of full age during the whole of the qualifying period. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent claimed a vote as occupier, under section 27 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. He attained the age of twenty-one in March, 1864 (the year of the revision). It was objected, that he was not entitled to be registered, as he was not of full age during the whole of the qualifying year. The barrister overruled the objection, and The court held that he was right (a) : Powell v. Bradley, 18 C. B., N. S. 65 ; H. & P. 159 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 67 ; 13 W. E. 272 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 1241 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 602. Women not entitled to borough franchise. Borough of Manchester. A woman claimed a vote in respect of a house. She was of full age, had occupied a dwelling-house for the twelve months next preceding 31st July (b), 18b8 (the year of the revision), and had otherwise (a) It is sufficient if a voter has attained his majority by 31st of July next preceding the revision. See Karqreavea v. Hopper, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 19.5, po*t, p. 429. The law has not it seems, been altered in this respect by the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878, for the provisions of section 7 of that statute have reference only to the period of occupation, §e r , necessary for qualification, and not to the elate by which a man must be qualified in respe' t of status. (1/) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. 426 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. complied with the statutory requirements for the franchise as an inhabitant occupier. The Representation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Viet. c. 102), enacts (section 3), that " every man shall in and after the year 1868, be entitled to be registered as a voter, and, when registered, to vote for a member or members to serve in parliament for a borough, who is qualified as follows : (that is to say) 1st, is of full age, and not subject to any legal incapacity, &c." By Lord Brougham's Act (13 & 14 Vict. c. 21), it is enacted (section 4), that "in all Acts words import- ing the masculine gender shall be deemed and taken to include females, unless the contrary be expressly provided." The Eeform Act of 1832 (2 Will. IV. c. 45), gives (section 27 («)) the occupation franchise in boroughs to " male persons " qualified as therein mentioned. By the 56th section of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, it is provided that, " subject to the provisions of this Act, all laws, customs, and enact- ments now in force conferring any right to vote, or otherwise relating to the representation of the people in England and Wales, and the registration of persons entitled to vote, shall remain in full force, and shall apply, as nearly as circumstances admit, to any person hereby authorized to vote .... and to the franchises hereby conferred, and to the registers of voters hereby required to be formed." By the 59th section of the same Act it is enacted, that " this Act, so far as is consistent with the tenor thereof, shall be construed as one with the enactments now in force relating to the representation of the people, and with the registration Acts." Held, that women are subject "toa legal incapacity" to vote at parliamentary elections. Held, further, that the interpretation of Lord Brougham's Act in regard to sex does not apply to (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 114. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 427 the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and that the word " man " in the latter is to be understood in the same sense as the words " male person " in the Reform Act, 1832 : Chorlton v. Lings, L. R. 4 0. P. 374 ; 1 H. & C. 1 ; 38 L. J. 0. P. 25 ; 17 W. R. 284; 19 L. T.,N. S. 534. Women not entitled to county franchise. South-East Lancashire. The respondent claimed a vote as a 406'. freeholder. The respondent was a woman. Held, that the case was concluded by Chorlton v. Lings, supra, the decision in which case covered the whole question of the capacity of women to vote at parliamentary elections, whether for borough or county : Chorlton v. Kessler, L. R. 4 0. P. 397 ; 1 H. & 0. 42. Peers of parliament not entitled to be on the list of freehold voters. West Worcestershire, Middlesex, Hertford- shire, and South Essex. The appellants claimed votes as freeholders. It was proved that they were peers of parliament, and had taken their seats in the House of Lords. The revising barrister for the several districts in which the votes were claimed decided that the claim- ants, being peers of parliament, were not entitled to be registered, and accordingly (in the first and second cases without objection) (a) expunged their names, and The court affirmed the decisions : Earl Beaucham/p v. Madresfield, Marquis of Salisbury v. South Minis, (a) The question whether the names could be lawfully struck out without objection was not reserved, but, on the point being sub- mitted to the court, Brett, J., observed, that "the revising barrister has to take notice of personal disabilities: " L. R. 8 C. P. 250. See sect. 28 (sub-s. 7) of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, applied to counties by sect. 1 of 48 Vict. c. 15. 428 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the same v. Bontems, the same v. Bulwer, L. R. 8 C. P. 245 ; 2 H. & C. 41 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 32 ; 21 W. R. 124; 27 L. T., N. S. 606. Irish peers, who are not members of the House of Commons, not entitled to be registered. East Suffolk. The appellant was an Irish peer. He was not, nor ever had been, a representative pe^r, or a member of parliament. The sole objection to him was, that he was an Irish peer. Held, that the appellant, not having reduced his status of a peer to that of a commoner by becoming the representative of a constituency in Great Britain prior to 31st July next preceding the revision, was not entitlnd to be rngist^red : Lord Rendlesham v. Howard, L. P. 9 C. P. 252; 2 H. & C. 175 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 22 W. P 157 ; S. C, nom. Lord Rendlesham v. Tabor, 29 L. T., N. S. 679. To entitle any one to heregistered as a £12 occupier {a), lie must have been of full aye on 31*/ July next. preceding the revision. North- East Lancashire. H. had occupied as tenant premises (rateable value, £12) during the whole of the qualifying year ending 3 1st July (A), 1*75 ; but he was not on that day of full age, which, however, he attained before the revision. Held, on the joint construction of section 6 (c) of (a) See note («), ante, on p. 105. (b) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878 ; see also note (a) to Powell v. Bradley, ante, on p. 425. (c) Renealed by section 12 of 48 Vict. c. 3, and Second Schedule thereto, Part II., except as to rights of persons on the register at the date of the passing of that Act (6th December, 1884), in re- spect of the then existing £12 (rateable) occupation franchise, and except as to conditions made applicable by the said Act to any franchise enacted thereby. , PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 429 the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and section 40 (a) of the Registration Act, 1843, that H. was not entitled to be registered : Hargreaves v. Hopper, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 195 ; 2 H. & C. «04 ; 45 L. J. C. P. D. 105 ; 24 W. E. 186; 33 L. T., N. S. 530. Acceptance of voluntary donation from trustees of a private charity, wider circumstances showing poverty and a state of dependence in recipient, held to be a receipt of " alms" which disentitled him to be regis- tered. Borough of Petrrsfield. C. was objected to at the revision of 1876, on the ground that he had, within the qualifying year, received " alms," which by the law of parliament disqualified him from voting. In 1^64, lands were devised to trustees and their heirs, upon trust, to distribute a portion of the yearly rents and profits thereof" unto the poorest inhabitants" of the tything of W. as the trustees should think fit. The portion so distributable generally amounted to £40 a year, and that sum was distributed annually by the trustees amongst about eighty of the labour- ing population of the tything, in sums varying from 2.s. 6c/. to 12s. 6d., according to the necessities of the recipient. There was no personal application to the trustees, who decided for themselves who were fitting persons to receive a grant from the charity, and of what amount the grant should be. Of the money distributed in 1876, C. received 12s. 6c/. from the trustees. He was an agricultural labourer, married, and with five children ; and he had from time to time applied for and received parochial relief, though not within the qualifying year. He was found by the revising barrister to be a proper recipient of the charity. Held, that the money received by C. under the (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. 430 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. trust was " alms " within section 36 of 2 Will. IV. e. 45, and therefore that he was not entitled to he registered : Harrison v. Carter (Cook's case) (a), L. E. 2 C. P. D. 26 ; 2 H. & C. 324 ; 46 L. J. C. P. D. 57 ; 25 W. E. 182 ; 35 L. T., N. S. 511. In order to duqualify under section 43 (repealed) of the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, it teas neces- sary that the judge's report should find conclusively that bribery teas committed by or with the know- ledge and consent of candidate. West Sussex. The appellant, on the list of claimants in respect of freehold property, was objected to as being disqualified by virtue of 31 & 32 Vict, c. 125, s. 43 (J). That section enacts that, " where it is found, by the report of the judge upon an election petition under the Act, that bribery has been committed by or with the knowledge and consent of any candidate at an election, such candidate shall be deemed to have been personally guilty of bribery at such election, and his election, if he has been elected, shall be void, and he shall be incapable of being elected to and of sitting in the House of Commons during the seven years next after the date of his being found guilty ; and he shall further be incapable during the said period of seven years — (1) Of being registered as a voter and voting at any election in the United Kinydom, fyc." The appellant, having been returned as duly (a) Another appeal (Port's case) was argued with the above, the only difference between the two cases consisting in the fact, that in Port's case the voter objected to, who was also an agricultural labourer, and a married man, having four children, had not actually received parochial relief ; but on one occasion — viz., in 1873 — he had applied for it, but it was refused by the board of guardians, who were of opinion that he did not need it. (b) This section was repealed by the Corrupt and Illegal Prac- tices Prevention Act, 1883. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 431 elected on 31st of January, 1874, to serve in parlia- ment for the borough of Kidderminster, a petition was presented against such election and return ; and at the trial of the petition before Mellok, J. (the election judge), such election and return were determined to be null and void. The learned judge's certificate and report were dated 17th of July, 1874, and the material parts thereof, so far as the appellant's vote was concerned, were stated in the case, as follows : " Now I, Sir John Mellor, Knight, one of the judges on the rota for the trial of election petitions in England, having, according to the Parliamentary Elections Act, 1868, tried the matters alleged in the said petition and determined the same, do hereby certify and report that at the trial of the matters alleged in the said petition, I determined that the said Albert Grant was not duly elected and returned at the said election, and that his election and return were and are wholly null and void. And in compli- ance with the directions of the Parliamentary Elec- tions Act, 1868, I further certify and report that it was proved before me that the said Albert Grant was guilty of a corrupt practice at the said election within the true intent and meaning of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854. " And I further report that the nature of such corrupt practice was the promising before and at the time of the said election to certain voters for the said borough of Kidderminster and other inhabitants thereof that the said Albert Grant would (a), in the event of his being returned at the said election, and after such return, give to such voters and other voters and inhabitants of Kidderminster an enter- tainment consisting, among other things, of meat and drink, with the view and intent to induce such voters to vote for him the said Albert Grant at such election." («) See 2 H. & C. 368, note. 432 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that it was not " found by the report," either expressly or by necessary implication, " that bribery had been committed by or with the knowledge and consent " of the appellant ; that the appellant could not, therefore, " be deemed to have been personally guilty of bribery," and, consequently, he was not disqualified by section 43 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, for being registered as a voter : Grant v. Pagham, L. E. 3 C. P. D. 80 ; 2 H. & C. 358 ; 47 L. J. 0. P. D. 59 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 404. Neither receipt of parochial relief or insufficient occu- pation constitutes the electoral incapacity referred to in section 28 (.sub-section 7) of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. City and Borough of Bath. Section 28 (sub- section 7) of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enacts that the revising barrister " shall expunge the name of every person, whether objected to or not, where it is proved that such person was, on the last day of July then next preceding, incapacitated by any laic or statute from voting at an election for the parliamentary borough, or an election for the municipal borough, as the case may be, to which the list relates." Application was made to expunge the names of B. and others from the list of voters (list 1, division 1), on the ground that they had received parochial relief during the qualifying period (a). Application was also made to expunge the names of C. and others from the list of voters (list 1, division 1), on the ground that they had not occupied the qualifying premises as owners or tenants during the qualifying year (a). (a) The qualifying period in relation to the non-receipt of parochial relief, and sufficiency of occupation is, by section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to be computed by reference to \5th July, but the persons whom the revising barrister is recjuired by section 28 (sub-section 7), to ex- PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 433 In no case had any notice of objection been served on the parties whose votes were impugned. The facts of receipt of parochiel relief and non- occupation were admitted. The revising barrister being of opinion that section 28 (sub-section 7) did not apply to either of the cases, retained the names on the list of voters. The court held, affirming the decision, that the sort of incapacity indicated by the section in question was a general (inherent) incapacity to vote at all, and not a mere casual incapacity arising from the receipt of parochial relief, or insufficiency of occu- pation : Stow v. Jollife{a), L. R. 9 C. P. 734, followed ; Eayward v.' Scott, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 231 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 76; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 167; 41 L. T., N. S. 476. Where money was paid by poor late guardians out of the parish funds to poor men for work they were , employed by such guardians to do, the amount paid being measured not by the value of the work done, but by the needs of the persons employed, the re- ceipt by such persons of the money so paid was held to be a receipt by them of parochial relief disquali- fying then/ for the franchise. Borough of Whitehaven. James Magarrill, a married man, with three children, applied to the re- punge from the list are those who are incapacitated on the last day of July. This distinction in point of date (to which, in the absence of argument for the respondent, the attention of the court was not directed) is suggestive of another reason for upholding the barris- ter's ruling (in favour of the votes), in addition to that which formed the basis of the court's decision. (a) In Stowe v. Jolliffe, the court held that the persons referred to in the proviso of section 7 of the Ballot Act, 1872, as being " prohibited from voting by any statute or by the common law of parliament," were "persons who from some inherent or for the time irremovable quality in themselves have not, either by pro- hibition of statute or at common law, the status of parliamentary electors, such as peers, women, persons holding certain offices or employments the subjects of statutory prohibitions, persons con' victed of crimes which disqualify, or the like." S. F F 434 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Kevin g officer for Whitehaven for work. The re- lieving officer gave him, and directed him to take to the task-master of the Whitehaven Union, a ticket, which was in the following form : — " Whitehaven Union. Number on relief list, 19, page on application book, 159. Eighth week of quarter ending Midsummer, 1885. " To Mr. Robert Wilson, task- master to the White- haven Guardians. " Please allow James Magarrill, aged 32, of 83, Newtown, to break four bushels of stones per day." The task-master accordingly set Magarrill to stone breaking. Magarrill, in the course of his employ- ment, brought back the ticket at the end of each day, and received from the relieving officer Is. 3d., that sum being paid to Magarrill out of the funds forming part of the parochial funds for the relief of the poor. This employment continued for six weeks, during which time there was great distress in the district. The stones to be broken were collected by Magarrill, and others in the same position as himself, under the supervision of the task-master, and brought to a yard in Whitehaven hired by the guardians, and there broken. The guardians asked 5s. per ton for these broken stones, that sum not being more than enough to recoup them for money spent by them in connection with the breaking. The guardians were bound by a poor law order, which prohibits the allowance of relief to an able-bodied male pauper out of the workhouse, unless he be set to work and kept to work by the guardians as long as he should con- tinue to receive relief. The board of guardians acted upon the principle that every payment made by them to paupers assumes the form of relief, not of wages, and consequently must be measured by the wants of the applicant, and not by the quantity of work done. In conformity with this principle, the able-bodied pauper who had more than two children received 3d. a day more than others for each child PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 435 above that number. The revising barrister, on ob- jection, expunged the name of James Magarrill, and the names of fifty-three other persons (scheduled), from the list of voters on the ground of their having received parochial relief, and the court affirmed the decision : Magarrill v. Whitehaven, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 242 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 448 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 38 ; 34 W. E. 275 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 667. Police constables appointed under 10 Geo. IV. e. 44, being rendered by that statute incapable of giving their rotes at any 'parliamentary election for a borough within the metropolitan police district, are persons who, in respect of any such borough, are " incapacitated by .... statute from voting at an election " within section 28 (sub-s. 7) of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878; and if they be proved to the revising barrister to have been so incapacitated on the last day of July next preceding the revision, he must expunge their names, whether objected to or not. Boa Ion v. Halse, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. 421 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. D. 41 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 1 ; 56 L. T., N. S. 340 (a). The words " medical or surgical assistance " in sections 2 and 4 of the Medical Relief Disqualification Pe- n/oval Act, 1885, include all parochial assistance, medical or surgical in its nature, although not rendered by a medical man. Therefore, the assistance of an uncertificated midwife supplied to the /rife of a claimant at the expense of the parish was held, undo- the circumstances of the case, not to disqualify the claimant for the franchise. Oxfordshire (Banbury Division). The appel- lant claimed as an inhabitant householder; His (a) The disability of members of the police force to vote at par- liamentary elections is now removed by 50 & 51 Vict. c. 9. Their disability to vote as burgesses is still in force. ff2 436 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. claim was opposed on the ground of his having during the qualifying year received parochial relief. In November, 1885, the appellant's wife applied to the relieving officer for the union, in which the appellant's parish was situate, that she might be attended during her then approaching confinement by a medical man. The application having been laid before the guardians, they passed a resolution permitting the relieving officer to give the woman an order for the medical man to attend her during her confinement. At her confinement, which took place in January, 1886, she was attended, not by a medical man, but by an uncertificated midwife, who attended her at the instance of the relieving officer, and not at the request, or apparently with the knowledge, of the medical officer. On or about the 15th of January, 1886, the relieving officer, on the application of the said midwife, paid her the sum of 4.s\ in respect of such attendance. Neither the appellant nor his wife asked the relieving officer to pay the said midwife the sum of 4s., or any other sum. The usual prac- tice in the relieving officer's district was for the guardians to pay the sum of 10s. 6d. to the medical man for attendance at a confinement under an order, and if a midwife attended in place of a medical man the relieving officer was authorized by the guardians to pay her the sum of 4s. for her attendance. The revising barrister being of opinion that the attend- ance of the midwife was not " medical or surgical assistance " within the Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act, 1885, disallowed the claim. The court held, reversing the decision, that the assistance rendered by the midwife to the wife of the appellant being such as is ordinarily rendered by a physician or surgeon was, under the circumstances of the case, " medical or surgical assistance " within the meaning of the Medical Relief Disqualification Re- moval Act, 1885, and did not therefore disqualify the appellant for the franchise : Honeybone v. Ham- PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 437 bridge, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 418 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. D. 46 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 26 ; 35 W. R. 520. The occupiers of almshouses in Christ's Hospital, Ruthin, being persons who, under the scheme of the charity, are, from age, ill-health, accident, or infirmity, unable to maintain themselves by their own exertions, held to be disqualified for registration as parliamentary and municipal voters, notwith- standing that some of them were earning on an average from three shillings to nine shillings a week in (addition to what they received from the charity : Harrison v. Carter (L. R. 2 C. P. D. 26), ante, p. 430, and Baker v. Town Clerk of Monmouth (53 L. T., N. S. 668), followed. Borough of Ruthin. The names of John Evans and of four other persons (whose cases were consoli- dated herewith) appeared in Division 1 of the List of Yoters. These persons were duly objected to by the appellant upon the ground that they had been, during the qualifying year, in receipt of alms, which, by the law of parliament, disqualified them for registration as parliamentary and municipal voters. Each of them, under the benefit of a charitable endowment known as the Hospital of Christ, inhabited an alms- house belonging to the said hospital and received an allowance of six shillings a week out of the funds thereof. The almshouses and charitable endowment in question were, managed, and all arrangements connected with them were carried out, under a scheme of the Charity Commissioners, confirmed by 26 & 27 Vict. c. 59, a copy of which Act was annexed to the special case. Under this scheme the establishment of the hos- pital consisted of a warden and twelve almspeople, of whom ten were poor men, called brethren, and two, poor women, called sisters. The almspeople respec- tively were poor persons, not less than fifty years of 438 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. age, who had resided within the borough of Rrithin, without receiving parish relief, for not less than three years next preceding the time of their appointment, and who from aye, ill-health, accident, or infirmity, were unable to maintain themselves by their own exertions, with a preference for those persons who, being other- wise qualified, had become reduced by misfortune from better circumstances. If any person should be guilty of insobriety, in- subordination, breach of rules, or immoral or unbe- coming conduct, the governors might remove such almsperson and appoint another almsperson to fill his or her place. No almsperson could let the room or rooms allotted to him or her, or suffer any stranger to occupy the same or any part thereof. The governors might from time to time prescribe such reasonable regulations as they might consider expedient for the government of the almshouses and the inmates thereof, provided that no such regulation was at variance or inconsistent with any of the provisions of the scheme. Four of the persons objected to were earning money (in addition to what they received from the charity) varying in amount from an average of three shillings a week to an average of nine shillings a week. Assuming the non-existence of the charity, the persons objected to would not have been obliged to rely upon the poor law for the means of subsistence. The revising barrister, being of opinion that the house-room and allowance received by the persons objected to under the scheme of the charity did not amount to the receipt by them of parochial relief or other alms within section 36 of the Eeform Act, 1832, retained their names on the list of voters. The court reversed the decision in accordance with the principles laid down in Harrison v. Carter (L. E. 2 C. P. D. 26), ante, p. 430, and Baker v. Town Clerk of Monmouth (53 L. T., N. S. 668) : Echcards v. Lloi/d, L. E. 20 Q. B. D. 302 ; Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 54 ; 57 L. J. Q. B. D. 121 ; 58 L. T., N. S 409. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 439 The inmates of the Licensed Victuallers' Asylum, Cam- berwell, are not, by reason of their position in thai institution and their pecuniary allowance from the funds thereof, necessarily in receipt of alms which disqualify for the franchise under section 6 of the Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Camberwell (Peckham Division). The respondent was an inmate of the Licensed Vic- tuallers' Asylum, Camberwell (an institution incor- porated hy Roj^al Charter in 1842), and claimed to have his name inserted in the list of occupiers. His claim was opposed, as were also the claims of fifty- two other persons (likewise inmates of the said asylum), each of whom made a similar claim. The claimants were, or had been, either subscribers or donors to the funds of the institution. Upon vacan- cies occuring in the asylum, applicants were elected by the members and subscribers under regulations made by the chairman and board of management. The conditions of eligibility for admission included the following : — (1) The necessity of the applicant having held a victualler's licence for a period of seven years ; and (2) of his having paid an annual subscrip- tion of at least one guinea for seven years, or (3) of his having given a donation of five guineas or upwards. Such donation constituted the donor a life member of the institution. Only decayed licensed victuallers, being donors or subscribers, were eligible for admis- sion, and upon admission the person so admitted was entitled to a house free of rent, and to a weekly allow- ance. The inmates were subject to regulations for the good government of the institution, one of such regulations being that the outer gates had to be closed at 10 p.m., and re- opened at 7 a.m. The income of the institution was derived from the subscriptions and donations of the members themselves, and was also largely augmented by the benevolence of persons not themselves licensed victuallers. 440 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The revising barrister having allowed the claims, the court affirmed the decision on the ground that there was nothing in the position of the inmates of the institution necessarily showing that they were in receipt of alms such as to disqualify them for the franchise under section 36 of the Reform Act, 1832 : Daniels v. Allard, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 70. Almspersons of St. Bartholomew 1 s Hospital, in the city of Gloucester, are disqualified for the franchise by reason of their position under the hospital regu- lations, which make their participation in the benefits of the charity dependent upon the will of the trustees. City of Gloucester. The appellant was on the list of freemen, and his place of abode was stated to be " St. Bartholomew's Hospital." His name was objected to on the ground that he had received disqualifying alms during the twelve months ending the loth of July in the year of registration. The appellant had been for thirteen years an almsperson of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, in the city of Glou- cester, and had during the whole of that time occupied gratuitously, and resided in, a room in the hospital as- signed to him by the trustees, and had received from them a weekly allowance of 10s., and half a ton of coals every Christmas. He had also occupied a separate plot of garden ground behind the hospital assigned to him by the trustees. He had no means of subsistence other than the allowance from the hospital. Under the scheme (approved by the Charity Com- missioners) for the management and regulation of the hospital, its clear yearly income, after the pay- ment of all necessary outgoings and expenses of management, were to be expended and applied by the trustees in the maintenance and support of the almshouses and the payment of the respective allow- PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 441 ances and stipends of the almspeople and other persons. The almshouse or hospital buildings belonging to the charity were to he appropriated and used for the occupation of almspeople, to be appointed from time to time by the trustees, subject to such reasonable regulations as the trustees might from time to time prescribe consistently with the provisions of the scheme. The almspeople were to be selected from poor deserving men or women (as the case might be) of good character, either widowers or widows, or un- married, of not less than sixty years of age at the time of appointment, and who had not, during the period of three years next preceding their appoint- ment, been in receipt of parochial relief. A pre- ference was to be given to candidates having the necessary qualifications who should have become reduced by accident or misfortune from better circumstances, or who should have become incapaci- tated by illness or otherwise from maintaining them- selves by their own exertions, and in any special cases of the latter class the trustees were to be at liberty to elect a candidate exceptionally under the age of sixty years. The trustees were to pay out of the annual income of the charity an allowance at the rate of not less than 7s., or more than 10s., per week to each almsperson. The trustees were to be at liberty to provide each almsperson, in addition to his or her pecuniary allowance, with a reasonable amount of washing, and also with a gift of coals or other necessaries annually, to the value of not more than 20.s., and also to allow to each almsperson the use and occupation of a separate plot of garden ground behind the hospital, so long as it should be properly cultivated and kept in neat order at his or her own expense. No almsperson was to be allowed to be absent from the almshouse for more than twenty-four hours without the consent in writing of the trustees, which might, however, for any sufficient 442 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. reason, be given retrospectively after the absence had occurred. The almspersons were to be removable by the trustees for insobriety, immorality, breach of rules or other misconduct. Payment of the stipend to the almspersons might be suspended by the trustees if they should think fit. No almsperson was to be permitted to let the room or rooms allotted to him or her, or to suffer any stranger, other than the wife of a married almsman, to occupy the same or any part thereof. The trustees were to be at liberty to appoint from time to time a master and matron, who were to reside in the hospital, and not to absent themselves except with the permission of the trustees. Subject to the authority of the trustees, the master was to have the immediate superintendence and control of the alms- men, and the matron of the almswomen, aud they were to report to the trustees any case of misconduct or breach of rule on the part of any almsperson. The revising barrister held that under the above circumstances the objection to the appellant's vote, and to the votes of three other persons (whose cases were consolidated herewith), was sustained, and he accordingly expunged their names from the list. The court affirmed the decision on the ground that under the regulations of the hospital scheme the position of the almspersons was one of dependence on the goodwill of the trustees : Dix v. Kent, Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 186 ; 63 L. T., N. S. 641 ; 55 J. P. 213. A married awn/an, owner in Iter own right of hind in a parish, but not an occupier within or within three miles of it, is not entitled to he placed on the parochial electors li-\f. North Dorsetshire. Mrs. D., who claimed to be placed on the parochial electors list, owned in her own right a freehold farm in the parish of Milborne PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 443 St. Andrews, but resided more than three miles away with her husband, who was not interested in the farm nor on any register in respect thereof. The revising barrister rejected her claim. It was contended both before him and in the Divisional Court and in the Court of Appeal, that, as owner, she would, until the Local Government Act of 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), have been entitled to vote for guardians or local boards of health, and, these bodies having been now merged in the new councils, it could not have been the intention or the effect of the Act to disfranchise her ; that the County Electors Act, 1888, sections 2 and 4, and the Municipal Cor- poration Act, 1882, section 63, enabled women to be placed on local government registers, and by sections 3 (2) and 43 of the Local Grovernnient Act, 1894, all disqualification of sex or marriage for being on the local government register had been removed. The Court of Appeal, upholding the decision both of the revising barrister and of the Divisional Court, held, that section 43 merely removed disqualification of marriage where a woman was otherwise qualified, but did not give qualification where there was none before. Section 2, sub-section 1, of the Act of 1894, provided that the following persons " and no others " should be parochial electors, namely, the "persons registered in such portion either of the local govern- ment register .... or of the parliamentary register .... as related to the parish." Mrs. D. was dis- qualified by sex from being on the latter ; and, by reason of not being an occupier within or within three miles of the parish, from being on the former ; not because of either sex or marriage ; and (read- ing together sections 2 and 44, which define the parochial electors' register) being not entitled to be on either of those two registers, she was not entitled to be on the parochial list: Drax v. Ffooks, L. R. [1896] 1 U. B. 238; 65 L. J.E.U.B.D. 314; 1 Smith's Eeg. Cas. 59. 444 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. LISTS OF VOTERS. Signature of overseers not essential to validity of lists of voters. Borough of Cardigan. An objection was taken before the revising barrister to the list of voters for the town and liberty of Abeiystwith that it was not signed by a majority of the overseers. The town and liberty of A. was a chapelry within the parish of Llanbodarn-fawr, and formed a district of the borough of Abeiystwith (one of the contributory boroughs of the borough of Cardigan), maintaining its own poor, and having two overseers, two church- wardens, and an assistant overseer. The list in question was signed by the two overseers only. Held, reversing the revising barrister's decision, that that part of section 13 of 6 Vict. c. 18, which relates to the signing of lists by the overseers, was merely directory, and, consequently, that the list in question was valid : Morgan v. Parry, 17 C. B. 334 ; K. & Gh 53 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 141 ; 26 L. T. 292 ; 2 Jut., N. S. 285. The court has no power to order corrections in register, except under sal ion 67 of 6 Vict. c. 18 ; and that section only applies when there is an appeal from revising barrister. A., whose name appeared upon the list of voters for the county of Bedford, and also upon the list for the borough, was objected to before the revising barrister in respect of his county qualification only. The objection having been sustained, the barrister, LISTS OF VOTERS. 445 intending to expunge the name from the county list, by mistake struck it off from that of the borough. Counsel moved, on an affidavit of the above facts, for a rule, directing the returning officer of the borough of Bedford to restore A.'s name to the borough list, under 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 67. The court held that, there being no appeal from the revising barrister, section 67 did not apply, and that they had no jurisdiction, independently of that section, to order the lists to be altered. They accordingly refused the rule (a) : Re Alien, 6 C. B., N. S. 334; K & G. 258; 28 L. J. C. P. 256; 33 L. T. 122 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 1011 ; 7W.E. 397. Register not complete until lists /tare been signed by clerk of the peace, and delivered by him to sheriff. Strict compliance by clerk of the peace icith directions in section 47 of 6 Viet. c. 18, as to signing and delivering lists on or before 30th November, not a condition precedent to validity of register. South Lancashire. A notice of objection having been produced before the revising barrister, it was contended that the person by whom it was signed (the appellant) was not on the register of voters, and, consequently, not entitled to object. On referring to the bound copy of the then current register (produced from the custody of the sheriff), it appeared that the sheet numbered 313 had been pasted in the book after it had been bound, and that upon this sheet the appellant's name was inserted thus : — 5638 A. Brumfitt, William. 21, Devon- shire place, Ever ton. Freehold houses. Peers court, Circus street. Mr. Roberts and others, tenants. (a) The vote of one whose name had been, as in the above case, expunged by mistake, was tendered, and held by Blackbttkn, J., to be a good vote : Oldham, 1 O'M. & H. 156. However, the date of that case was prior to the Ballot Act, 1872, which (section 7) makes the register conclusive, except in cases of legal incapacity. 446 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The number prefixed to the preceding name was 5638, and to the succeding one 5639. With reference to the insertion of the appellant's name as above, the following facts appeared : Being applied to in December, 1859 (the year pre- ceding that of the revision) for copies of the new register, the deputy clerks of the peace, on or about the 29th of that month, sold them to the persons applying. These copies had the names of the deputy clerks of the peace printed on the last sheets thereof respectively. None of the copies had the name of the appellant on the 313th sheet. At the time these copies were sold the deputy clerks of the peace had not signed and delivered the register to the sheriff, having been unavoidably prevented from doing so before 30th of November, the time fixed by statute. Having had their attention called to the omission of the appellant's name, the deputy clerks of the peace referred to the revise of the register of 1859, and found that the appellant's name was not initialed as intended to be expunged, but that the barrister having evidently run his pen through the name by mistake, had, by attempting to obliterate the mark, caused the appearance of an ex- punction, which had misled them. The deputy clerks of the peace thereupon interlined the appel- lant's name in print on the 313th sheet, as above described, and forwarded copies of that sheet so corrected to the persons to whom they had sold the incorrect copies ; and they substituted the sheet with such interlineation for the original sheet in the whole of the register, and in the bound copy of the register, which was by them signed and delivered to the under- sheriff after such substitution. Held, that the sale in December of the copies of the register from which the appellant's name had been omitted was not to be taken as the publication of the register ; that the register became complete only when signed and delivered by the dejDuty clerks LISTS OF VOTERS. 447 of the peace to the under-sheriff, and that the appel- lant's name being contained therein at that time he was entitled to object. Held, also, that section 47 of 6 Yict. c. 18, does not make the signing and delivery of the register to the sheriff on or before 30th November a condition precedent to its validity : Brumfitt v. Bremner, K. & G. 352 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 7 Jur., N. S. 371 ; 3 L. T., N. S. 375 ; 9 C. B., N. S. 1. W7ieh two revising barristers are appointed for same district^ one of them has no power, at lead in the absence of objeetor, to restore name, which at a previous court has been duly expunged by his colleague. South Lancashire. Two revising barristers had been appointed to revise the lists of the same division. The name of a voter had been expunged by one of the revisors in consequence of its having been duly objected to, and of the absence of the voter, or any one on his behalf, when the name was called. The court at which this took place was adjourned, and the adjourned court was held by the other revis- ing barrister. The voter whose name had been expunged on the previous occasion appeared at the adjourned court, and claimed to have his name restored. The second revising barrister, being satisfied that the voter's absence from the court held by his col- league was excusable, entertained the application (although it was objected that he had no power to do so), and having, upon investigation, satisfied him- self that the voter was entitled to be on the register, re-inserted his name. Held, that as it did not appear that the objector was present, and ready to be heard, on the second occasion, the barrister was not justified in restoring 448 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. his name (a) : Blain v. Pilkington, 18 C. B., N. S. 6 ; H. & P. 92 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 55 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 452 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 1237 ; 13 W. R. 269. If name of £12 occupier (b) has been placed by mistake on wrong list, but with correct description of qualifica- tion in third column, revising barrister has power to amend, by transferring name to list of £12 occupiers. County of Southampton. The appellant's name appeared on the register of voters headed " Yoters in respect of property, including occupiers at a rent of £50 and upwards." He was objected to in the third column, wherein the nature of his qualification was described thus, " occupier of house and land rated at £12 and upwards" (b). It was admitted that the appellant was not quali- fied to be on this list, but he had the qualification set out in the third column. There was a £12 occupiers' list, but it did not contain the name of the appellant, nor had he made a claim to be placed upon it. It was contended at the revision court that, the appellant possessing a qualification which would entitle him to vote, it was a " mistake " his name appearing in the first-mentioned list, . instead of in the list of £12 occupiers, and that the revising barrister was empowered by section 40 (c) of 6 Yict. c. 18, to correct such mistake by transferring the name from the list wherein it appeared to the £12 occupiers' list. (a) Eele, C. J., in delivering' his judgment, expressed grave doubts whether a revising barrister can, under any circumstances, lawfully re-open a matter which has been finally determined by his colleague. (b) See note (a), ante, on p. 105. (c) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. LISTS OF VOTERS. 449 The revising barrister was of opinion that he had no power to do this, and accordingly expunged the name, and refused to insert it in the £12 occupiers' list. The court held, reversing the decision, that the description of the appellant's qualification being correct, and, consequently, not calculated to mislead, the insertion of his name in the wrong place was a "mistake," within section 40 (a) of G Vict. c. 18, and one, therefore, which the revising barrister had power to amend, and ought to have amended, by trans- ferring the name to the list of £12 occupiers: Ballard v. Robins, 2 II. & C. 384 ; L. E. 3 0. P. D. 92 ; 47 L. J. C. P. I). 50 ; 26 W. R. 80 ; 37 L. T., K S. 436. Lists of county claimant* in respect of occupation, and lists of new lodger claimants, not invalidated by reason of absence of overseer's signature, or by late publication. Middlesex (Hornsey Division). The overseers of the parish of Hornsey duly received in 1885 certain lists of claims by occupiers and new lodgers, but they did not sign or publish any of them until two or three days alter the 25th of August. It was contended at the revision court that the revising barrister had no power to accept, revise, or allow, the said lists or any of them, on the ground that they had not been signed or published by the overseers in accordance with paragraphs 43 and 45 of the precept in Schedule II., Part II., of the Registration Act, 1885. The revising barrister overruled the objection, and revised and allowed the said lists. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 244. G G 450 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, that the lists were not invalidated by the neglect of the overseers to sign them in due time ; and that, regard being had to section 38 of the Registration Act, 1843, and section 18 of the Regis- tration Act, 1885, the revising barrister acted rightly in revising and allowing the said lists ; his decision was accordingly affirmed : Wells v. Stanforth, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 244 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 451 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 12 ; 54 L. T., N. S. 183. ( 451 ) BOUNDARIES. Orders of Local Government Board under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, held not to hare the effect of altering boundaries of boroughs in their relation to the parliamentary franchise. Borough of Horsham. The appellants were objected to as not being entitled to have their names retained in the list of occupiers, on the ground that their qualifying properties were not situate within the parliamentary borough of Horsham. By the joint operation of the Reform Act, 1832, and the Boundary Act, 1832, the pnrliamentary borough of Horsham consists of the parish of Horsham. The premises, in respect of the occupation of which the appellants claimed to have their names retained, were situated in what was, prior to and until the making of the order of the Local Government Board hereinafter mentioned, an isolated and detached part of the parish of Sullington, known as " Broadbridge Heath." At the date of such order of the Local Govern- ment Board, Broadbridge Heath was within the parliamentary borough of New Shoreham, and not within the parliamentary borough of Horsham. By section 1 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Yict. c. 61), the Local Government Board was empowered in cases where a parish is divided so as to have any of its parts isolated in some other parish or parishes, or otherwise detached, to make an order (after local inquiry and notice to clerks of the peace) either for constituting separate parishes out of the . divided parish, or for amalgamating some of the parts gg2 452 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. thereof with the parish or parishes in which the same may be locally included, or to which they may be annexed. By section 3 the several parts of a parish to which the order applied were, from and after 25th March next ensuing- the date of its taking effect, to be constituted as directed therein, and the officers of the several parishes affected thereby were required to act as if such parishes had been so constituted prior to the issue of the order. Section 4 enacts that "for the purposes of the election of members of Parliament and of burgesses in municipal boroughs, of the jury lists, of the action of the justices, and of the police and constables, the parishes shall continue to be deemed unaltered until netv lists arc made and new constables are appointed.'''' . By an order of the Local Government Board (being- the order hereinbefore referred to) made pursuant to the provisions of the above statute, it was ordered : — "1. All those two isolated and detached parts of the said parish of Sullington, known as ' Broadbridge Heath ' and ' Broadbridge,' which are locally included within or an- nexed to the said parish of Horsham, shall cease to be parts of the said parish of Sul- lington, and shall be amalgamated with the said parish of Horsham. " 2. This order shall take effect on the first day of November, 1878." New lists of voters had been duly made, and new constables duly appointed for the parish of Horsham subsequently to 25th March, 1879. The revising barrister decided that the properties, in respect of which the appellants claimed to have their names retained on the list, were situate within the parlia- mentary borough of New Shoreham, and not within the parliamentary borough of Horsham, and that the appellants were not entitled to have their names retained on the Horsham list. BOUNDARIES. 453 The court held, affirming the decision, that section 4 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amend- ment Act, 1876 (whatever might be the precise meaning of that portion of the section which refers to election purposes) (a), did not affect the parlia- mentary franchise ; that the boundary of the borough of Horsham was, for the purpose of electing members of Parliament, unaltered by the order of the Local Government Board, and, consequently, that the premises occupied by the appellants, being respec- tively situate beyond such boundary, did not entitle them to be registered as voters for the borough : Foster and others v. Medwin, L. E. 5 C. P. D. 87 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 118.; 49 L. J. 0. P. D. 297; 42 L. T., N. S. 254. (a) Lord Colbkidgk, C. J., in delivering his judgment, said: " It seems to me that what was suggested in argument is at any rate a solution of it " (section 4 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876), "viz., that in this case the portion of the parish of Sullingtou will be, for certain purposes, attached to the parish of Horsham ; but that as there is no indication that this is to affect the parliamentary borough or the election of members of Parliament, except as to the preparation of lists, all that will follow will be this, that the names of voters, in respect of the parts of the old parish of Sullington which remain in the parliamentary borough of Shoreham, will have to be put into a list stuck upon churches in the parish of Horsham, and the voters will have to vote, as they have heretofore voted," for New Shoreham. The churchwardens and overseers of Horsham "will have to put upon the doors of the churches in Horsham lists of the persons who vote in that part of the new parish of Horsham which is comprised in the old borough of New Shoreham. That seems to me to give an adequate, or, at all events, one adequate interpretation to this section: " L. E,. 5 C. P. D. 93, 94. Grimwood, Frederick. 28, Dillwyn I Dwelling-houses road, Lower in succession. Sydenham. 454 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Wliere a voter had occupied a dwelling-house at Becken- hani in the count// of Kent from before the 15th of July, 1884, to May, 1885, and then moved direct to, and occupied for the remainder of the qualifying year, a dwelling-house at Lower Syden- ham, situate in the .same county, but which had by the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, become included in tin" Parliamentary Borough of Lewis- ham, it wax held that he was entitled to he registered as a voter fir the borough of Lewisham in 1885 by virtue of section 17 of the Redistribution of Seats- Act of that year. Borough of Lewisham. The claim of one Frederick Grimwood to be inserted in the list of voters was as follows : — 29, Yewtree road, Beckenham, and 28, Dillwyn road, Lower Sydenham. The claim was opposed in the revising barrister's court by the respondent, when the following facts were established : — The claimant had in fact occupied in immediate succession the two dwelling-houses mentioned in the fourth column as tenant thereof during the whole of the qualifying year. He had occupied 29, Yewtree road, Beckenham, from a period auterior to the 15th of July, 1884, down to the month of May, 1885, and he had occupied 28, Dillwyn road, Lower Sydenham, from the last-mentioned date down to the revision of 1885. Before the coming into operation of the Redistri- bution of Seats Act, 1885, each of the two dwelling- houses was situate in the then west division of the county of Kent, and each gave its inhabitant occupier a vote for the county. Upon the coming into operation of the Redistribu- tion of Seats Act, 1885, 29, Yewtree road, Beckenham, became included in the new western or Sevenoaks BOUNDARIES. 455 division of the county of Kent, bat did not become included in the area of any borough. Upon the coming into operation of the said Act, 28, Dillwyn road, Lower Sydenham, became included in the area of the then newly created parliamentary borough of Lewisham. It was contended in support of the claim, that a person had a right to a vote for the borough of Lewisham, in respect of immediate succession from a dwelling-house which was formerly in the west divi- sion of the county of Kent (but is now, by virtue of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, included in the Sevenoaks or west division of the said county) to a dwelling-house which was formerly in the said west division, and had, by virtue of the above-mentioned Act, become included in the borough of Lewisham. The revising barrister decided against the said con- tention, and rejected the claim of the said Frederick Grrimwood, and the claims of other persons similarly situated, whose appeals were consolidated herewith. The court, reversing the decision, held, that the meaning of section 17 of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, was that the law applicable to successive occupation which requires the subjects of occupation to be situated in the same area, should, for the purposes of the registration in 1885, be suspended in those cases where, but for the alteration of area, the circumstances were such that the vote would have been obtained : Down v. Steele, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 458. Orders of Local Government Board under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, and the Poor Law Aet, 1879, held not to hare the effect of altering boundaries of counties in their relation to the parliamentary franchise (a). North Leicestershire. C.'s name was objected to in the list of voters for the parish or township of (a) See now sect. 18 of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885. 456 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Seals, on the ground that his qualification was not situate within the said parish or township. The entry was as follows : — Cave, Sir Mylles Cave I Stretton-en-le- I Freehold I Donisthorpe. Browne, Bart. field. land. On and up to 24th March, 1884, the property, in respect of which the voter claimed to be entitled to vote, was situate within an isolated or detached part of the parishes of Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe, and was for parliamentary purposes included in the register of voters for the said parish or township of Seals, but, on that date, by virtue of an order of the Local Grovernment Board, pursuant to the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, and the Poor Law Act, 1879, this portion of the said parishes of Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe was detached from the said parish or township of Seals, and amalgamated with the parishes of Oakthorpe and Donisthorpe, which are situate within the limits of the southern division of the county of Derby. The revising barrister considered that the case fell within the principle of the decision of the court in Foster and others v. Medwin {ante, on p. 458), and he therefore refused to exjjunge the name of the voter from the register of voters for the said parish or township of Seals. The court affirmed the decision. Jones v. Reeve. (Not reported.) ( 457 ) PRACTICE. Due transmission of .statement and notice to the masters, a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. An appellant had neglected to transmit to the masters within the first four clays of Michaelmas Term (a) , the statement and notice, pursuant to 6 Vict. c. 18, ss. 62, 64. On motion (unopposed) that the master be directed to receive the statement and notice, and enter the appeal, Held, that the condition in section 64 of 6 Yict. c. 18, not having been complied with, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, or allow it to be entered : Ante// v. Topham, 5 M. & Gr. 1 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 402 ; 1 Lutw. 1 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 39 ; 7 Jur. 995 ; B. & Arn. 1. Due transmission of notice to the masters, a condition precedent to the court" s jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. An appellant had duly transmitted the statement of the case to the masters, but had neither sent therewith, or within the first four days of Michaelmas Term, the notice required by 6 Yict. c. 18, ss. 62, 64. The court (in accordance with Auteij v. Topham, supra) refused to allow the appeal to be entered, on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to hear it: Simpson v. Wilkinson, 5 M. & Gr. 3, note; 7 Scott, N. R. 406 ; 1 Lutw. 5 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 39 ; 7 Jur. 995 ; B. & Arn. 3, note. (a) Although the Michaelmas Sittings (commencing on the 24th of October) have been substituted for the old Michaelmas Term (commencing on the 2nd of November), yet, for the purposes of Registration Appeals, the old Michaelmas Term remains in force. 458 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. No formal order of the court required for correction of register under section 67 of 6 Vict. c. 18. The court having reversed the decision of a revising barrister, it became necessary to correct the register by inserting the appellant's name therein under b' Vict. c. 18, s. 67. On an application being made for an order for that purpose, Held, that no formal order was required : Whitmore v. Bedford, 5 M. & G. 9, 13, 14 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 494, 495 ; 8. C, norm Peele v. Ilinton, B. & Am. 14. In a registration appeal the appellant begins. On the hearing of an appeal from the decision of a revising barrister the appellant begins, because such appeal is not like a case from the sessions, but more in the nature of an appeal to the Privy Council, where the appellant always begins : Webb v. Aston, near Birmingham, 5 M. & Gr. 14; 1 Lutw. 6; 7 Scott, N. R. 435 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 57. Material omission in statement of case cannot be waived by consent. Where, in the statement of a case facts were omitted, which, in the opinion of the court, were material for the purpose of enabling it to give judg- ment, it would not allow such facts to be supplied by consent, but remitted the case to the revising barrister under section 65 of 6 Vict. c. 18 (a) : Webb v. Aston, near Birmingham, 5 M. & Gk 14; 7 Scott, N. R. 435; 13 L. J. 0. P. 57. (a) In Whithorn v. Thomas, 7 M. & Gr. 3, 4. the court, adhering to the course adopted in the above case, refused to allow alterations to be made by consent, but directed that the original case should be handed to the revising barrister, who was in court, that he might at ouce make the proposed alterations. This was accordingly done. PRACTICE. 459 Where, on a ease being called on, it appeared that respondent had deli rend paper boohs {a) to the two junior puisne judges, but that none had been delivered to the Lord Chief Justice and senior puisne judge, the court ordered that the case should stand over. By 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 60, it is enacted that all appeals from revising barristers shall be " prosecuted accord- ing to the ordinary rules and practice of the court with respect to special cases (b) , so far as the same may be applicable, &c." On a case being called on for argument, it appeared that the respondent had delivered paper books (a) to the two junior puisne judges, but that none had been delivered to the Lord Chief Justice and the senior puisne judge. The court said that the appellant ought to have delivered paper books (a) to the Lord Chief Justice and the senior puisne judge according to the rules of the court with respect to special cases, and that, if the respondent had supplied them, he might have taken advantage of the appellant's default, and prayed judgment (c) of the court, but that, under the cir- (a) This term is now obsolete : see next note. (b) The practice in relation to the special case in a registration appeal is now governed by the Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Order XXXIV. (c) Notwithstanding the intimation of the court (as reported in Lutwyche) that the respondent, if he had supplied the paper books, would have been entitled to judgment, it may be doubted whether, if he had actually supplied them, and the attention of the court had been directed to section 66 of 6 Vict. c. 18, they would have considered the rule as to praying judgment applicable to the case, for by the above-named section it is provided, that every judgment of the court " shall be binding upon every committee of the House of Commons appointed for the trial of any petition complaining of an undue election or return of any member or members to serve in parliament." 460 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. cumstances, the case must stand over (a) : Allan v. TTaterhouse, 7 Scott, N. E. 485 ; 1 Lutw. 93, note; S. C, nom. Cooper v. Coates, 5 M. & GK 98. Wo power to remit case for insertion therein of a fact deemed material by the parties, but which was omitted by revising barrister, as immaterial. A rule was moved for on the part of the appellant, calling on the respondent to show cause why the statement of facts should not be remitted to the revising barrister by whom it was prepared, in order that a certain fact might be inserted therein. The affidavit in support of the application stated that the fact in question had been proved before the revising barrister, and that the appellant believed it to be material ; but that the revising barrister had refused to insert it on the ground that it was, in his judgment, immaterial. It was submitted that under section 65 of 6 Vict. e. 18, the court had power to remit the statement of facts in order that the case might be more fully stated. Held, that the case, as it stood, being sufficient to enable the court to give judgment in law, and the revising barrister being required by the statute to state those facts only which are in 'his judgment material, the court had no power to remit the state- ment of facts. (b) The rule was, therefore, refused : II in ton v. Wenlock, 7 M. & Gk 166, note ; 1 Lutw. 123 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 37 ; 8 Jur. 988 ; B. & Arn. 257 ; 2 D. & L. 598. (a) In the subsequent case of Sheddon v. Butt, 11 C. B. 27. pat, p. 480, the appeal was, under similar circumstances, ordered to be struck out. (b) Per Mattle, J. — "Possibly the revising barrister might be liable to a mandamus : " 14 L. J. C. P. 37. PRACTICE. 461 Decisions of House of Commons, how far authorities. Decisions of House of Commons Committees may be used in argument for the reasoning which they contain, but they are not received by the court as binding authorities : per Tindal, C. J., in Whithorn v. Thomas, 1 Lutw. 127, and per Keating, J., in Ford v. Harington, 1 H. & C. 336. Brett, J., observed in the last-mentioned case : — "Unless they" (the decisions in question) " are clearly wrong, I apprehend we should not overrule them." Only one counsel can be heard on each side. Tindal, C. J.—" By the 60th section of 6 Vict. c. 18, these appeals are to be heard and determined according to the ordinary practice of the court with respect to special cases (a). We can, therefore, hear one counsel only on each side " : Gadsby v. Warburton, 1 Lutw. 136 ;7M.& Ct. 11, 13, note ; B. & Arn. 272, 274, note. If the statement of case be unsigned, and the court be not -satisfied that revising barrister has finally approved of it, no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. A motion was made for leave to enter an appeal on an affidavit which disclosed the following facts : — The revising barrister, whose decision was appealed from, having consented to grant a case, desired the parties to prepare a statement of facts for him to examine and settle. They accordingly the same day drew up a statement of facts, which they signed and handed to the revising barrister, who expressed his approval of the facts stated, and the points of law raised ; but he returned the statement to the parties, with a recommendation to draw it up according to a (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 459. 462 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. form which he lent them for that purpose. The parties accordingly re-modelled the case in the form suggested, and sent it back to the revising barrister, with the declaration, required by the statute, duly subscribed by the appellant. Shortly afterwards the revising barrister died, and the case was found, after his death, among his papers, imsigned by him. The court held, that in the absence of proof that the barrister finally approved of the statement, they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The motion to enter was, therefore, refused : Net- tleton v. Burrell, 7 M. & Gk 35 ; 8 Scott, N. P. 738 ; 1 Lutw. 157 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 37 ; 2 D. & L. 598 ; 8 Jur. 1033 ; B. & Arn. 297. The court can deal with those questions onfa/, which have been raised before the revising barrister. The court refused to hear an argument in support of an objection to the sufficiency of the second column, on the ground that such objection had not been raised before the revising barrister : Nunn v. Denton, 7 M. & Gk 66 ; 1 Lutw. 178 ; 8 Scott, N. P. 794; 14 L. J. C. P. 43 (a). Appellant not entitled to judgment without argument, by reason of respondent failing to appear. Where the appellant appeared, and the respondent, who, it was proved, had received due notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal, did not, the court refused to give judgment for the appellant, without an argument on his behalf (b) : (a) See as to points raised at the revision, but not expressly reserved, Ashmore v. Zees, 2 C. B. 31, 39, 40, and West v. Robson. 3 C. B., N. S. 422, 431, 434, post, p. 481; see also Gregory v. Turner. 1 H. & C. 43, post, p. 486. (b) The rule above laid down was followed in Colville v. Rochester, 1 Lutw. 380, note, and Fox v. Shaston St. Peter, Shaftes- PRACTICE. 463 Cooper v. Harris (Austin's case), 8 Scott, N. E. 921 ; 7 M. & 0. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 207 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 72 ; B. & Am. 357. But see Powell v. Caswell, and note, post, p. 477 ; and Pownall v. Hood, post, p. 479, which reverses this case. Case remitted on the ground that, instead of facts, it set forth the evidence given to prove them. A case which found that the claimant " stated " certain matters was remitted, under 6 Vict. c. 18, 8. 65, on the ground that it set forth evidence (a) and not facts : Pitts v. Smedley, 7 M. & Gr. 85, note ; 8 Scott, N. E. 907 ; B. & Arn. 344, note, Case struck out in default of appearance of either party not allowed to be restored on application [un- opposed) of appellant. Upon a case being called on, no one appeared on either side. The court ordered it to be struck out. Counsel for the appellant applied to have the case restored. No one appeared for the respondents. No sufficient reason being given for the non- appearance of the parties when the case was called on, bury, 2 Lutw. 97. It was apparently departed from in Potvellv. Caswell, 8 C. B. 14, post, p. 477; but that case was probably- deemed too clear for argument : see the facts (not reported) ante, p. 305, and per Mauxe, J., 8 C. B. 15, post, note (a) on p. 477. The rule was again followed in Pownall v. Hood, 11 C B. 1, post, p. 479, and may be considered as generally governing the practice of the court. (a) Subsequent cases, apparently open to the same objection as the above, have been allowed to be argued without being remitted: see Burton v. Gcry, 5 C. B. 7 ; Burton v. Brooks, 11 C.B. 41, and Bennett v. Atkins, 2 H. & C. 430. It would seem that if the case is so stated as to enable the court to collect the facts, and to give judgment thereon, they will deem the statement sufficient, although wanting in absolute precision. 464 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court refused to grant the application : Wansey v. The Overseers of St. Peter-le-Poor, 7 M. & G. 162 ; B. & Arn. 420. Affirming barrister's decision without argument. Two cases were called on, in neither of which did the appellant appear. They involved the same point as Wansey v. Perkins (Hill's case), 8 Scott, N. E. 978, ante, p. 118. The court, without argument, affirmed (a) the decisions with costs : Bai/e v. Perkins ; Crocker v. Lambeth, 8 Scott, N. R. 983, 985 ; 7 M. & G. 156 ; 1 Lutw. 255 ; B. & Arn. 414. Paper books (b) not tendered four clear days before day appointed for argument, in accordance with practice in special cases were permitted, under circumstances of excuse, to be delivered nunc pro tunc. Paper books (b) in an appeal (entered in time) were tendered to the judges' clerks on Monday, 10th November, but the clerks refused to receive them, as the first day appointed for hearing the appeals was Thursday, 13th November. No notice had been given of the days on which the court would hear registration appeals until late in the afternoon of Friday, 7th November. The counsel for the appellant applied to the court, on an affidavit stating the above facts, to allow the paper books (b) to be delivered nunc pro tunc, there not having been, as was submitted, sufficient time to prepare them for due delivery. The court granted the application (c) : Croucher v. Browne, 1 Lutw. 303 ; 9 Jur. 976. («) See White v. T>'i»g, and note (b) to that case, post, p. 47S. \b) This terai is now obsolete : see note (a), ante, on p. 459. (c) The court also granted on the same day a similar application, made on behalf of the respondent in Ashmore v. Lees, for leave to PRACTICE. 465 No power to remit a consolidated appeal, if, although the qualification* of each voter be not stated, enough be stated to enable the court to give judgment. The barrister decided, that the description of a voter's qualification was insufficient for identification, but finally amended it, and set out the original as well as the amended description, adding that the cases of ten other voters depended on the same point of law, and that they ought to be consolidated. A rule was moved for to show cause why the consoli- dated appeal should not be remitted under section 65 of 6 Vict. c. 18, on the ground that the revising barrister had neglected to state the qualifications of the ten other voters whose cases were consolidated with the principal case. Held, that the barrister having found that the con- solidated appeals depended on the same point of law as that raised in the principal case, and there being enough stated to enable the court to give judgment in law, they could not interfere, and they, therefore, refused the rule : Ilitchins v. Brown, 1 Lutw. 328 ; B. & Arn. 547. If respondent appears, he cannot object to form of notice of appeal, or to sufficiency of service thereof In this (a consolidated appeal) it was submitted by •counsel on behalf of the respondents, that the notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal was informal, and the service of such notice insuffi- cient, and, consequently, that there was no proof that deliver his paper books to the two junior puisne judges of the court. The respondent's counsel relied upon the same circum- stances as those above stated in the principal case: 1 Lutw. 304, note. Instances of a similar indulgence will be found in Allan v. Waterhouse, ante, p. 460 ; Elliott v. St. Atari/' s Within, post, p. 468 ; Bring v. Estcourt, post, p. 467 ; Nicks v. Field, post, p. 471 ; Palmer v. Allen, post, p. 474, and Benesh v. Booth, post, p. 482. But see Sheddon v. Butt, post, p. 480. S. H H 466 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. " due notice " had been given, as required by 6 Yict. c. 18. Held, that the respondents had waived any infor- mality in the notice, and any insufficiency in the service thereof by appearance ; for the respondents having appeared, there was no necessity for proving the service of the notice under section 64 of the statute : Rawlins v. West Derby, 2 C. B. 72, 73 ; 1 Lutw. 373, 374; 15 L. J. C. P. 70; B. & Am. 599. Where respondent did not appear, the court {ha/ring heard appellant) suspended judgment, for produc- tion of affidavit of service on respondent of notice required by the statute. After hearing counsel for the appellant, the court declined to pronounce any judgment, as there was no affidavit of service on the respondent (who did not appear) of the notice required by 6 Vict. c. 18, ss. 62, 64. On a subsequent day, the requisite affidavit being produced, the court reversed the revising barrister's decision : CohiU v. Lewis, 2 C. B. 60 ; 1 Lutw. 380, note ; B. & Am. 608. A waiver by respondent of the notice to him, required by sections 62 and 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18, does not give the court jurisdiction to hear appeal in his absence. Such waiver, a ground for postponement under proviso to section 64. Upon a case being called on, the respondent did not appear. There being no affidavit of the service of the notice upon him required by sections 62 and 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18, the court declined to hear the argument, but allowed the appeal to stand over for the production of the necessary affidavit. On a subsequent day, the appellant's counsel pro- duced an affidavit stating that the notice had been waived by agreement of the parties. PRACTICE. 467 The court intimated, that they had no power to dispense with the notice ; hut, as the appellant had been "lulled into security" by the supposed waiver, they postponed the appeal under the proviso to section 64 of the statute : Newton v. Moberley, 2 C. B. 203 ; 1 Lutw. 335 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 154 ; 9 Jur. 995. Consolidated appeal tendered in proper time, bat rejected by master for want of barristers signature to indorsement, allowed to he entered de bene esse on 5th day of term (a), on proof of diligence to obtain signature within first four days of term. The master having refused to enter a consolidated appeal (tendered within the first four days of Michaelmas Term (a)) on the ground that the indorse- ment had not been signed by the revising barrister, an application was made on behalf of the appellant on the fifth day of term (a) for leave to enter ; the affidavit on which the application was made, showed that the appellant's agent had used every exertion to remedy the defect when discovered, but without success, the barrister being absent from town. It was, moreover, submitted in support of the application, 1. That section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18, was directory only as to the signature of the indorsement (b), and 2. That the regulations as to indorsements enacted in that section did not apply to consolidated ap- peals (/>). The court being satisfied that due diligence had been used to obtain the barrister's signature to the indorsement, and such signature having been now obtained, allowed the appeal to be entered, subject to any objection the respondent might urge, on argu- ment, against the entry : Pring v. JEstconrt, 4 C. B. 71; 1 Lutw. 505 ; 16 L. J. C.'P. 10; 10 Jur. 928. (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 4o7. \b) But see Wanklyn v. Woolktt, 4 C. B. 86, post, p. 473. hh2 468 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Paper books (a) not tendered four clear days before day appointed for argument, in accordance with practice- in special cases, were permitted to he delivered nunc pro tunc, there being circumstances excusing the delay, and also time for the perusal of the books before case would come on in its turn to be argued. An application was made on behalf of the appellant for leave to deliver the requisite paper books (a). Thursday, 12th November, was the first day ap- pointed for hearing the appeals, but no notice thereof appeared until Saturday, 7th November. The ap- pellant's attorney was, consequently, unable to deliver the paper books (a) before Monday, 9th November, when the judges' clerks refused to receive them, as there were not then four clear days before the day appointed for argument. The appeal stood 20th on the list. The court granted the application (b) : Elliott v. St. Mary Within, 1 Lutw. 508 ; 8 L. T. 120. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. (b) The court on the same day granted a similar application in Busker v. Thompson, 1 Lutw. 509, note. There the appellant's attorney had been under the impression that the paper books would be in time, if tendered four clear days before the actual day for hearing the argument, which was not likely to be Thursday the 12th, as the appeal stood niuth on the list. Ignorance of the practice of the court, although a ground for indulgence for a short time after the passing of the Registration Act, 1843, as shown by the above case, and by Colvill v. Lewis, 2 C. B. 61, would not now, it seems, be held to excuse non-delivery in due time of the special case : see per Wilde, C. J., in Palmer v. Allen, 5 C B. 3. It should be mentioned, however, that in a subsequent case (Benesh v. Booth, 18 C. B., N. S. Ill, note, post, p. 482), the court, in the exercise of their discretion, directed that the appeal should stand in the paper for hearing, although the respondent had not, when the case was called on, delivered his paper books. No reason was in that case assigned for the delay. PRACTICE. 469 Notice to master of appellant's intention to prosecute appeal, signed by appellant, must be tendered within the time prescribed by section 02 of 6 Vict. c. 18 ; otherwise the court cannot entertain the appeal. The notice to the master (delivered within the first four days of term (a)) of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal not having been signed by the appellant, as required by section 62 of 6 Vict, c. 18, the officer declined to receive it. It was thereupon sent back ; and the appellant's signature thereto having been procured, it was again tendered to the officer on the fifth clay of term, but rejected as being too late. Under these circumstances, an application was made for leave to enter the appeal nunc pro tunc. But the court refused to grant it (b) ; Tindal, C. J., observing, " The only power we have to extend the time is, under section 64, and that applies to the notice to the respondent, and not to a case like this:" Petherbridge v. Ash, 4 C. B. 74 ; 1 Lutw. 507 ; 10 Jui'. 950. Respondent's paper lion];* (e) allowed to be supplied by appellant, although not tendered by him before day preceding first day appointed for hearing appeals. The respondent in an appeal (allowed by the court to be entered de bene esse on the fifth day of term, as stated ante, p. 467), having neglected to deliver paper books (c) to the two junior puisne judges, pursuant to the practice laid down in Allan v. Waterhouse, 7 Scott, N. R. 485, ante, p. 460, the appellant, who had delivered his own, prepared and tendered other two copies on 11th November, which was the day before the first day appointed for (a) See note («), ante, on p. 459. (b) See Antey v. Topham, 5 M. & G. 1, ante, p. 457. (c) See note (J), ante, on p. 457. 470 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. hearing, but the judges' clerks refused to receive such copies without the direction of the court. The appellant's counsel on the 12th applied for, and obtained, permission for the appellant to deliver the additional paper books (a) : Pring v. Estcourt, 4 C. B. 73. Ten clear days' notice to respondent under section 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18, a conditio// precedent to the court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal. The respondent in this case not appearing, counsel for the appellant prayed that the revising barrister's decision might be reversed, upon an affidavit of service on 2nd November, upon the respondent of the notice required hj section 62 of 6 Vict. c. 18. The date of the revising barrister's decision was 16th October, and the day appointed for the hearing of the registration appeals was 12th November. The master directed the attention of the court to section 64 of the statute, which enacts that " no appeal shall be heard where the respondent shall not appear, unless the appellant shall prove that due notice of his intention to prosecute the appeal was given to the respondent ten days at least before the day appointed for the hearing." The court held, that, as the notice had not been given ten days at least before the day appointed for hearing the appeal, i. e. ten days exclusive of the day of service and the day appointed for hearing (b), and as there was no proof of want of " reasonable time," within the proviso to the last-mentioned section, they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal (c) : Norton v. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 164. \b) See Reg. v. The Justices of Salop, 3 3ST. & P. 286. (c) The decisions in the two following cases are to the same effect : Aden v. Hill, 4 C. B. 38 ; 1 Lutw. 542, note; 10 Jur. 971 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 63 ; and Clarke v. Beaton, 5 C. B. 76. In the last- mentioned case it was contended that, ten clear days having elapsed between the service and the day on which the case was PRACTICE. 471 Salisbury, 4 C. B. 32 ; 1 Lutw. 538 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 10 Jur. 970. Wliere respondent hud not delivered paper books (a) in due time, the court allowed him to deliver them nunc pro tunc. The first day appointed for hearing the appeals ■was Thursday, 12th November. The respondent not having delivered his paper books (a), application was made on his behalf on Monday, 16th November, for leave to deliver them nunc pro tune. The appellant had consented in writing to the above application. On its being submitted to the court that the only result of their refusing to allow the respondent to deliver paper books (a), would be that the appellant would be at liberty to deliver them for him, The court granted the application : Nicks v. Field, 1 Lutw. 509, note. There must be a reasonable promptitude in giving notice to respondent under -section 64 o/'6 Viet. c. 18. Upon a case being called on, it appeared that no notice had been served on the respondent, pursuant to section 62 of 6 Yict. c. 18. Counsel for the appellant moved, that the hearing might be postponed, under the proviso in section 64 of the statute. The decision of the revising barrister took place on 16th October. The appellant's attorney became ill in the last week of that month, and died on 7th November. The court held that there had been sufficient time for giving the notice, and therefore refused to post- pone the hearing. called on (the third day of hearing- the appeals) , the statute had been complied with ; but it was held that the time must be com- puted by reference to the first day appointed for hearing. (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. 472 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The appeal was, consequently, struck out : Prihg v. Estcourt, 4 C. B. 73 ; 1 Lutw. 543 ; 10 Jur. 971 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 63, 64. Respondent's application for leare to deliver paper books (a), and the fact of his having instructed counsel, do not dispense with the necessity of appel- lant proving service on respondent of notice required by section 62 of Q Vict. c. 18. In this case the notice required by section 62 of 6 Yict. c. 18, had not been given. The respondent declined to appear. He had on a former day applied for, and obtained, leave to deliver his paper books (a) after the proper time. It was submitted for the appellant, that this, and the fact of the respondent having instructed counsel, constituted such an appearance as to dispense with the notice. The court held, that the application for leave to deliver the paper books (a) was not such an appear- ance as to dispense with the performance by the appellant of one of the conditions entitling him to be heard, and that they could not admit of constructive appearance : Grover v. Bontems, 4 C. B. 70 ; 1 Lutw. 544, note; 16 L. J. C. P. 63, 64; 10 Jur. 971. In the absence of revising barrister's signature to in- dorsement on tend,"r of appeal for entry, master has no authority to enter the appeal, whether single or consolidated, nor the court jurisdiction to hear it. The master having refused to enter a consolidated appeal (tendered within the first four days of Michaelmas Term (b)), on the ground that the indorse- ment had not been signed by the revising barrister, the appellant's counsel on the sixth day of term (b) (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 46-1. (b) See note (a), ante, on p. 457. PRACTICE. 473 (the defect having been supplied on the previous day) , obtained leave to enter, subject as in Pring v. JEstcourt, ante, pp. 467, 472. The court subsequently held, after argument, that, the indorsement not having been signed before tender of the appeal for entry, the master had no authority to receive, nor the court jurisdiction to hear, the appeal. Held also, that the regulations as to indorsements enacted in section 42 of 6 Yict. c. 18, are made applicable by section 4o to consolidated appeals : Wanklyn v. Woollett {a), 4 0. B. 86 ; 1 Lutw. 597 ; 16 L. J. 0. P. 144. Court refused to permit paper book* (&) to he delivered after proper time, /riff/out aa affidavit assigning sufficient excuse for delay. No paper books (£>) having been delivered four days before the day appointed for the hearing, in accordance with the practice of the court in special cases (r), the counsel for the appellant on the first (a) Wanklyn and Woollett signed the declarations respectively simply as age ids, neither of them appearing by any statement in the case, or schedule thereto, to be a person "interested" in the appeals, or any of them. The court doubted whether the Act had been complied with, but gave no opinion, merely adverting to the matter by way of caution: see Jones v. Marshall, 1 H. iV" C. 738, post, p. 488. Wanklyn v. Woollett has been cited as an authority for the pro- position, that the signed indorsement of the barrister In open court is a condition precedent to the court's jurisdiction to hear an appeal : see Davis on Registration and Elections (1S69), 106. The decision, however, does not appear to go that length, although the court adverted to the obvious intention of the legislature, that the signature of the indorsement should precede the delivery of the statement of the case to the parties. The Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland refused (on objection by the respondent's counsel) to hear an appeal, where the indorsement (directed by section 58 of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69) purported to have been signed a day later than the time limited for holding the registry : Agnew v. Campbell, 4 Ir. Jur., O. S. 120. (b) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. (c) 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 60, Reg. Gen. Hil. Term, 4 Will. IV. s. 7: see now Rales of the Supreme Court, 1883, Order XXXIV. 474 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. day appointed for hearing the appeals applied for leave to deliver the books, nunc pro tunc, but admitted he had no satisfactory reason to assign for the delay. The court refused the application. On a subsequent day (the appeal not having been reached) the application was renewed, and an affi- davit produced, which stated that there had been a change in the appellant's agents about the time the paper books should have been delivered, and that some confusion had resulted therefrom. The court held that a sufficient excuse had been shown, and allowed the paper books (a) to be delivered: Palmer v. Allen, 5 C. B. 1, 3 ; 2 Lutw. 1, 3 ; 17 L. J. 0. P. 6d, 66 ; 11 Jur. 977, and note. Where case was signed on 30th October, and the first day for hearing appeal* was Wth November, service on respondent of notice required by section 62 of 6 Vict. c. 18, on 2nd November was held to fall within proviso of section 64. Upon a case being called on, the counsel for the respondent objected, tbat the appellant was not entitled to be heard, inasmuch as no due notice had been served on the respondent, pursuant to sections 62 and 64 of 6 Viet. c. 18. He produced an affidavit, which stated that the case was settled and signed by the barrister, and the notice of appeal at the foot thereof signed by the appellant, before 2 p.m. on 30th October; and that the respondent resided at Bewdley (the place where the revision court was held), and was present when the case was settled and signed ; and that no notice was served upon him until 2nd November (b). (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. (J) The first day appointed for hearing the appeals was 11th November. PRACTICE. 475 A counter affidavit was produced, stating that the appellant's attorney, immediately on leaving the court on 30th October, prepared the notice, and sent his clerk to get it signed ; hut that, the appellant having left Bewdley, the clerk was unable to see him until 7 a.m. on 2nd November ; and that the notice was served on the respondent by 8 a.m. on the last- mentioned day. The court held that the case was within the proviso to section 64 of G Yict. c. 18, and they postponed the hearing : Palmer v. Alien, 5 C. B. 5. The court has no jurisdiction to hear consolidated appeal, if the cases included therein do not depend upon same state of facts, and same decision in point of law ; nor can such an appeal be remitted, under section 65 of 6 Viet. c. 18. This case was a consolidated appeal. The facts of the several cases included in it were different, so that the decision on one would not govern the rest. Held, that the appeal was improperly consolidated, and that the court had no jurisdiction to hear it ; also that the case could not be remitted under section 65 of 6 Vict. c. 18, as the defect was not one which could be remedied by a fuller statement of facts : Prior v. Waring, 5 C. B. 56 ; 2 Lutw. 45 ; 10 L. T. 165 ; 11 Jur. 1086. Jf respondent does not appear, there must he an affidavit, cither of service of the notice upon him required by sections 62 and 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18, or of circum- stances of excuse icitlti n proviso to section 64. In the absence of such affidavit the court will dismiss appeal. Upon a case being called on, the respondent did not appear. There was no affidavit of service of the notice upon him required by sections 62 and 64 of 6 Yict. c. 18. 476 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The appellant's counsel having stated that the appellant had been misled into the belief that the respondent would appear, the court allowed the case to stand over (without prejudice to the respondent's rights), for the production of an affidavit to show there had not been time to give the proper notice, and thus to bring the case within the proviso in section 64 of the statute. On the next day for hearing the appeals, the counsel for the appellant produced an affidavit, which alleged that, when before the revising bar- rister the parties had agreed that they should be respectively appellant and respondent, and that all requests and notices necessary to be given should be considered as actually then given, and the case as actually then drawn and settled by the revising barrister in court, and that the revising barrister should draw up the case at his leisure, all formalities incidental thereto being considered as having been duly observed. The affidavit further stated, that the statement of the case Avas not received by the appellant's solicitor until 30th October, and that a notice of the appel- lant's intention to prosecute the appeal was served on the respondent on 5th November (a). Held, that in the absence of an affidavit either of due notice or of circumstances excusing the want of it (the arrangement set forth in the -affidavit pro- duced relating exclusively to the waiver (b) of for- malities at the revision), the court had no alternative but to dismiss the appeal : Aldworth v. Dore, 5 C. B. 87 ; 2 Lutw. 67 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 142. (a) The first day appointed for hearing the appeals was 11th November. (b) Matjle, J., doubted (5 C. B. 90) -whether, if the respondent had agreed to waive the notice required by section 62 to be served upon him, such waiver would have availed the appellant : see Newton v. Jlfobberlet/, 2 C. B. 203, ante, p. 467 ; also Guise v. Dilke, post, p. 494. PRACTICE. 477 Reversing barrister's decision without argument. Where the appellant appeared and the respondent did not, the court, upon an affidavit that due notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal had been served on the respondent, reversed the revising barrister's decision without argument. The counsel for the respondent applied on a later day that the case might be restored to the list on the grounds : 1. That no notice of the entry of the appeal had been given to the respondent ; 2. That the appeal ought to have been argued, in accordance with the ruling of the court in Cooper v. Hams (Austin's case), 7 M. & G. 97 {ante, p. 463). The court refused the application (a) : Powell v. Caswell, 8 C. B. 14 ; 2 Lutw. 141. Affirming barrister's decision without argument. Upon a case being called on, the appellant did not appear. Counsel for the respondent thereupon prayed judgment, with costs, citing Bags v. Perl-ins, 1 Lutw. 255 ; 7 M. & G. 156 ; 8 Scott, N. 11. 983 ; and Crocker v. Lambeth, 1 Lutw. 255, note; 7M.& G. 156, note ; 8 Scott, N. K. 985. The court affirmed the decision with costs (b) : (a) "It must be assumed," observed Matjle, J., in the above case, "that the court read the case, and thought it clear that the decision of the revising barrister was wrong : " 8 C. B. 15. (b) From the above case and the cases cited therein has been deduced the proposition that, where the appellant does not appear, and the respondent does, the court will affirm the revising barrister's decision with costs, without argument. This proposition will be found stated in 8 C. B. 13 {marginal note), and 2 Lutw. 141 [marginal note). But the accuracy of the inference thus drawn from the conduct of the court in disposing of the above cases may well be doubted. The facts of White v. Priug, which are given ante, on p. 128, disclose, it is submitted, a case so free from doubt that the court may be reasonably presumed to have affirmed the decision with costs on that ground alone, independently of the fact that the appellant did not appear. As 478 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. White v. Pring, 2 Lutw. 141 ; 8 0. B. 13 ; 14 L. T. 156. Reversing barrister's decision without argument. Where both parties appeared, but the respondent's counsel admitted that he could not support the decision of the revising barrister, The court reversed the decision without argu- ment (a) : Jarvis v. Peek, 11 C. B. 15 ; S. C, nom. Jam's v. The Town Clerk of Shrewsbury, 2 Lutw. 182. Appellant not entitled to judgment without argument by reason of respondent failing to appear. Upon a case being called on, the respondent, who was proved to have received due notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal, did not appear. The court at first doubted the necessity of the appellant's case being argued, in default of the respondent's appearance ; but ultimately, on Cooper to Bage v. Perkins (ante, p. 464) and Crocker v. Lambeth (ibid.), the facts of which will be found in 8 Scott, N. R. 983, 985, the point involved in those cases had been previously discussed (on the same day) in Wansey v. Perkins (Hill's case), 8 Scott, N. R. 978 (ante, p. 118), the decision in which case, both parties appearing-, was affirmed with costs. There is no adequate authority for the proposition above stated, and it seems more reasonable to conclude that the court, -which must be assumed to read each case coming before it (see note (a) on the preceding page) will deal with the facts according to the law applicable thereto. This view derives additional force from the fact that the decisions of the court were, by virtue of section 66 of 6 Vict. c. 18, made binding on election committees, and also from the probability that they would now be held, under the last- mentioned section and section 26 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 125, to bind courts for the trial of election petitions. (a) The learned reporter in 2 Lutwyche's Registration Cases (pp. 182, 183), comments on the reversal, without argument, of the barrister's decision ; but the relevancy of such comment seems questionable : see note (o) on the preceding page. PRACTICE. 479 v. Harris (Austin's case), 7 M. & Gr. 97 (ante, p. 463), and other authorities, being cited, and the language of 6 Vict. c. 18, sections 64 and 66, referred to, it was ruled that the appellant must be heard ; see note to Cooper v. Harris (Austin's case) (ante, p. 463) : Pou-nall v. Hood, 11 C. B. 1 ; 2 Lutw. 170; 21 L. J. C. P. 12 ; 16 Jur. 618. An unsigned statement of case permitted, with respon- dent's consent, to be signed nunc pro tunc. The written statement of a case was indorsed with the revising barrister's signature, but not otherwise signed by him, as required by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 42. The counsel for the respondent consented that it should be signed nunc pro turn-. The court thereupon allowed the appeal to be argued : Burton v. Brooks, 2 Lutw. 197 ; 11 C. B. 41 ; 21 L. J. (J. P. 7 : 16 Jur. 569. If statement of case be unsigned, the court has no Juris- diction to hear the appeal. The written statement of a case was indorsed with the revising barrister's signature, but not otherwise signed by him, as required by 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 42. No one appearing on behalf of the respondent to consent to its being signed nunc pro tunc, as was done in Burton v. Brooks, supra, The court ordered the case to be struck out, on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to hear it (a) : Burton v. Blake, 11 C. B. 47 ; 2 Lutw. 197 ; S. C, nom. Burton v. Cove, 21 L. J. C. P. 7 ; 16 Jur. 569. (a) The Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland dealt in a similar way 'with an appeal, where the statement, although signed by the barrister, was not signed by him until after the statutory time for holding the registry sessions had elapsed : Ac/new v. Fowler, 1 It.. C. L. R. 462. 480 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where on a case being called on, it appeared that although appellant had delivered paper books (a) to the Lord Chief Justice and senior puisne judge, none had been delivered to the two junior puisne judges, the court ordered the case to be struck out. Upon a case being called on, it appeared that the respondent had not delivered his paper books (a) to the two junior puisne judges. Counsel for the appellant, who had duly delivered paper books (a) to the Lord Chief Justice and the senior puisne judge, prayed that the case might stand over, to give him time to supply the respondent's omission ; but The court ordered the appeal to be struck out : Sheddon v. Buff, 11 C. B. 27; 2 Lutw. 188. The court has no jurisdiction to hear consolidated appeal, if the cases included therein do not depend upon same state of facts, and same decision in point of hoc ; nor can such an appeal be remitted, under section 65 of 6 Vict. c. 18. This was a consolidated appeal ; but on its being found that the rights of the voters depended on totally separate and distinct states of facts, The court held, in accordance with Prior v. Waring, 5 C. B. 56 {ante, p. 475), that they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal : Robson v. Broirn, 1 C. B., N. S. 34; K. & Gk 67; 26 L. J. C. P. 81; 28 L. T. 103 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 674. Queere, whether respondent {objector) mag rely on objections which were overruled, but against the decision on which there is no appeal. Before the revising barrister, five objections were taken to a party's right to vote : three of them he {a) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. PRACTICE. 481 overruled ; but the others lie held to be valid, and rejected the vote. The voter appealed against this decision. The respondent sought to rely not only on the objections, the decision upon which had been appealed against, but also on those which had been overruled. Williams and Willes, JJ., inclined to think that the whole case was open to the court ; and Cock burn, C.J., said (3 C. B., N. S. 434), that the point raised was of sufficient importance to require consideration : however, it did not become necessary to determine it, as the judgment of the court was in favour of the respondent in respect of the objections which the revising barrister had held to be valid : West v. Robson, 3 0. B., N. S. 422, 431 ; K & Gk 141, 153. Where ease was signed on 11th October, and first day for hearing appeals was 11th JYorember, service on respondent of notice required by section 62 of 6 Viet. e. 18, on Hth November (the day on which case was (duly) lodged with the master), held not to fall within proviso to section 64. Three cases were dated and signed by the revising barrister on 11th October. They were lodged with the masters within the first four days of Michaelmas Term, pursuant to section 62 of 6 Vict. c. 18, together with the notice to them of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeals. On the same clay (6th November) the appellant gave a similar notice to each of the respondents ; but the court having appointed 11th November as the first day for hearing registration appeals, the last-mentioned notice was not in compliance with section 64 of the statute, which requires a ten days' notice. The court held, that they had no power to post- pone the hearing under the proviso to section 64, as there had been ample time between the date of the s. II 482 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. revising barrister's decision and the day appointed for hearing the appeals, for service of the notice on the respondents : Luckett v. Gilder, Luckett v. Voller, Luckett v. Gollop, K. & GK 371 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 8 Jut., N. S. 676 ; 11 0. B., N. S. 1 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 312 : 10 W. R 105. Where no paper books (a) had been delivered by either party, and appellant did not appear, the court, refusing to give judgment for respondent, ordered appeal to be struck out. In this case, the appellant not appearing, counsel for the respondent prayed the judgment of the court with costs, citing Bage v. Perkins, 1 Lutw. 255 (b). No paper books had been delivered by either party. The court ordered the case to be struck out : Jessop v. Ipswich, H. & P. 23. Where, on a case being called on, respondent had not delivered his paper books (a), but was then prepared with his copies, the court directed the case to stand in the paper for hearing on following day. Upon a case being called on, it appeared that the appellant had delivered his paper books (a), but the respondent had delivered none. The respondent was, however, then prepared with his copies. The court directed that the case should stand in the paper for the next day, being desirous not to prejudice a voter's right by striking out the appeal : Benesh v. Booth, 18 C. B., N. S. Ill, note, (c) (a) See note (b), ante, on p. 464. ib) But see note (b) to White v. Pring, ante, p. 478. (c) The learned reporter intimates that the appellant, if he had duly supplied the respondent's omission, would have heen entitled to ask for judgment ; but see note (c) to Allan v. Waterhouse, ante, p. 460. PRACTICE. 483 The court, without deciding whether strict compliance with sections 42, 43, and 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18, may be waived, declined, in the absence of clear proof of such waiver (a), to entertain a consolidated appeal, which teas not signed by respondent, and which revising barrister had not signed until after 31s£ October (b). A rule had been obtained calling on the appellant to show cause why this appeal should not be struck out on the grounds — That there was no notice in writing given by the appellant to the revising barrister in court ; that the revising barrister did not state the case or his deci- sion, or read the statement, or indorse or sign it in open court, as required by section 42 of 6 Yict. c. 18; that the requirements of section 44 were not com- plied with; and that no declarations were signed, and no respondent or appellant was appointed, as required by the last-mentioned section ; and that the respondent had been improperly entered as such. The affidavits on which the motion for the rule was granted showed : — D. (the respondent) duly objected to the names of S. (the appellant) and six others being retained on the list of voters for the borough of New Windsor. (a) It is remarkable that the case, as reported in the Law Journal, Jurist, Weekly Reporter, and Law Times, contains a statement to the effect that there was an understanding between the parties that objections in point of form should be waived. As to the existence of such an understanding, it will be observed that the affidavits on either side are conflicting. (b) The question whether the statement of facts and the appeal may be lawfully signed by the barrister after the statutory period of revision has elapsed, came before the Court of Exchequer Chamber in Ireland in 1851, when the court held, on the con- struction of 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, that they had no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal : Agnew v. Fowler, 1 Ir. C. L. R. 462. In that case there was no question as to consent. See also as to the barrister's signature to the indorsement, Agnew v. Campbell, 4 Ir. Jur. O. S. 120, referred to in the note to Wanklyn v. Woollett, ante, p. 473. n2 484 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. At an adjourned court held 28th October, 1864, the barrister decided against some of the objections, but held one to be fatal, and accordingly expunged the names of the persons objected to. On a case being verbally applied for on behalf of the voters whose names were so struck out, the barrister said he would grant one if a question of law could be raised, and said that if a case was taken it must be submitted to one R. (a solicitor of Read- ing, who had appeared for the respondent) for revi- sion, and that he should have an opportunity of raising the points that had been decided against him. Nothing more was done during the sitting of the court, or at the rising thereof, beyond a further verbal statement made on behalf of the persons so struck out, that they intended to take a case and prosecute the appeal. On 4th November, L. (the agent of the persons so intending to appeal) brought the respondent a case which he said had been prepared and perused, but not finally settled, by the revising barrister, and re- quested the respondent to see R. at Reading, and obtain his approval thereof, saying that he must have it back in the evening of that day, by post time if possible. The respondent at once proceeded to Reading, but found that R. would not be at home until the follow- ing day ; and on his return to Windsor the respon- dent communicated to L. the result of his journey, and told him he could neither approve nor disapprove of the case, and that, as it was distinctly understood that R. was to have the case submitted to him for his approval on his (respondent's) behalf before it was signed by the revising barrister, he (respondent) could not take upon himself the responsibility of assenting to the case as drawn up, and declined to sign it. On 5th November (the last day for lodging appeals), L. called on the respondent, and said he had got the revising barrister to sign the case, and PRACTICE. 485 he handed to the respondent a document purporting to be a copy of the case as altered, settled and signed by the revising barrister, and which L. said he had lodged. No notice in writing of the desire of the persons struck out to appeal was given by themselves or on their behalf to the revising barrister in court on the day on which the decision was pronounced. The revising barrister did not state in writing the facts and his decision, and did not read the statement in open court, and did not then and there sign the same. The appellant did not at the same time make a decla- ration in writing to the effect mentioned in section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18 ; and the revising barrister did not then indorse any statement as required by the last- mentioned section, and did not then and there sign and date any such indorsement, and did not then and there deliver any such statement, with any such indorsement to the appellant, as directed by the statute; nor did he direct the cases of the other parties to be consolidated with this appeal. There was no understanding between the parties whose names were struck out, or their agents, and the respondent, or his agent, that any of the formali- ties required by the statute should be dispensed with. The affidavits in opposition to the rule stated in substance — Both the respondent and R. stated in open court that they would waive all objections in point of form, and would appear to answer the appeal, and they did not insist on a strict compliance with the direc- tions of the statute ; and the respondent stated in open court that he would consent to appear as respon- dent to defend the appeals upon the case to be granted, and that the several appeals might be consolidated. Both the respondent and E>. stated in open court that they would agree to any case which could be drawn up, so as to have the case fairly argued ; and the case having been afterwards signed 486 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. by the barrister, and sent to the respondent, the latter declined to sign it. In other respects the statements in the affidavits filed on behalf of the respondent were not contro- verted. It was contended for the respondent that sections 42, 43, and 44 of 6 Yict. c. 18 were imperative, and their provisions such as could not be dispensed with, even by consent. The court gave judgment in favour of making the rule absolute for striking out the appeal, on the ground that there had been " no completed appeal ": Scott v. Burant, 18 C. B., N. S. 205 ; H. & P. 269 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 115 ; 13 W. R. 316; 11 L. T., N. S. 676. On a registration appeal the court gives judgment only upon points reserved. A woman claimed to be inserted in the list of parliamentary voters. The revising barrister ex- punged her name, although no objection had been made. On appeal it was contended that he had no power to do so (a). The point did not appear in the statement of the case. The court held, that their jurisdiction was confined to the points reserved, and accordingly dismissed the appeal : Gregory v. Turner, 1 H. & 0. 43. Women, being legally incapacitated from voting, cannot appeal. M. W. (a woman) was on the list of voters for the borough of Salford. (a) Whatever doubt there may have been as to the revising barrister's power to expunge (without objection) a person's name, on the ground of legal incapacity to vote, he now clearly has such power by virtue of section 28 (sub-s. 7) of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, and section 1 of 48 Vict. c. 15. PRACTICE. 487 The revising barrister expunged her name, although it was not objected to. Held, that whether the revising barrister had or had not jurisdiction (a) to act as he did, M. W. had no locus standi as an appellant from his decision, because she was not a " person " within the meaning of 6 Vict. c. 18 : Wilson v. Salford, L. E. 4 0. P. 398; 1H.&0.44; 38 L. J. C. P. 35 ; 17 W. E. 161; S. C, nom. Moore v. The Town Clerk of Salford, 19 L. T., N. S. 483. Appeals cannot be consolidated unless the parties respon- dent thereto have the same personal rights. The revising barrister had held certain notices of objection to £12 occupiers bad, for not stating any ground of objection, and he had accordingly retained the names of the persons objected to, some of whom were men and the rest women, on the list. His decision being appealed from, he consolidated the appeals. The court held that the appeal had been improperly consolidated, and, consequently, they had no jurisdic- tion to hear it (b) : Bennett v. Brumfitt (Ashcroft's case), L. E. 4 0. P. 399 ; 1 H. & C. 48 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 72; 17 W. E. 142; 19 L. T., N. S. 452. Service on respondent of notice of intention to prosecute appeal, under sections 62 and 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18. A claimant, in favour of whose claim the revising barrister had decided, having declined to support the decision on appeal, the revising barrister named as respondents four persons who were represented to him as being the overseers of the parish, and whom (a) See note (a) on preceding page. (b) On reference to the schedule annexed to the case it appears that, as a result of the decision, forty women, parties respondent to the consolidated appeal, were registered as voters in 1868. 488 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. lie accordingly so described in the heading, and upon the indorsement, of the special case. On 3rd November these four persons were served with notice of the intention to prosecute the appeal. On 5th November it was ascertained that only one of them was in reality an overseer, the others having been previous overseers. The revising barrister declining to amend the case, the real overseers were on 6th November (ten clear days before the day appointed for hearing the appeal) also served with notice. No respondent appearing, The court held that the appellant had done all that was necessary to entitle him to be heard : Brumfitt v. Roberts, 1H.&C. 387 ; L. R. 5 C. P. 224 ; 39* L. J. C. P. 95 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 301. Objector without a grievance cannot appeal. The revising barrister having decided that a notice of objection was bad, allowed the objector to appeal. Proceeding, however, with the revision as if the notice were good, he struck off the name objected to, directing that it was to be restored if the court should hold that the notice was bad. The objector having appealed, the court refused to hear the appeal on the ground that, the vote having been struck off, the objector was an appellant without a grievance, and therefore could not appeal: Jones v. Marshall, 1 H. & C. 738. The court cannot consider any circumstances to excuse tlic not giving the ten days' notice to respondent, required by section 04 of 6 Vict. c. 18, except absence of reasonable time. A revising barrister signed a consolidated appeal, and named the returning officer respondent therein on 31st October. The first day appointed for hearing registration appeals was 13th November, when the appeal in question was called on in its turn. PRACTICE. 489 The appellant did riot give notice to the respondent of his intention to prosecute the appeal until 4th November. The respondent did not appear. On the appellant urging matters in excuse of the delay, Held, that the court could not, under the proviso to section 64 of the Registration Act, 1843, take into consideration any circumstances to excuse the not giving of the ten days' notice required by that section, except the absence of reasonable time for giving such notice ; and that there was reasonable time for giving it in the present case, and, consequently, that the appeal could not proceed : Brown v. Tamplin, L. R. 8 0. P. 241 ; 2 H. & C. 17 ; 42 L. J. 0. P. 37 ; 21 W. R. 125; 27 L. T., N. S. 610. Indorsement of ease in consolidated appeal need not contain the names of all the appellant parties thereto. The names of fifteen appellants appeared (one in the statement of the case, and the rest in the annexed schedule), in a consolidated appeal, but the appellant named by the revising barrister, in pursuance of 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 44, to prosecute the appeal on behalf of himself and the other fourteen, was the only appellant whose name appeared in the indorsement of the case. Held, a sufficient compliance with the requirements of 6 Vict. c. 18, in relation to consolidated appeals : 8herwin v. Whyman, L. R. 9 C. P. 243 ; 2 H. & 0. 185 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 36 ; 22 W. R. 127. Affidavits by revising barrister in opposition to rule granted under section 37 of 41 6^42 Vict. c. 26. Notice in writing of ' " desire to appeal" (6 Vict. c. 18, s. 42), condition precedent to ease being stated. A rule having been granted under section 37 of 41 & 4.2 Vict. c. 26, calling upon a revising barrister 490 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and certain voters to show cause why an appeal should not be entertained and a case stated, the affidavits produced in opposition to the rule included affidavits made by the revising barrister himself. The court (Grove and Lopes, JJ.), in discharging the rule (which they did on the ground that it was not applied for in time), drew attention to the diffi- culties and inconvenience which might result from revising barristers making affidavits in the case of similar rules. The court also expressed a strong extra-judicial opinion that the notice in writing of " desire to appeal," mentioned in section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18, was a condition precedent to a case being stated by a revising barrister ; and they added that it was im- portant that this should be understood for future guidance, and with a view to diminish the number of cases (which they intimated might otherwise be numerous) coming before the court for decision, under section 37 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, upon con- flicting evidence : In re Bane and others, L. R. W. N. (1879), 200; 14 L. J. Notes of Cases, 165; The Times, Dec. 10th, 1879. Written statement of revising barrister, in lieu of affi- davit, in showing cause against a rule obtained undo- section 37 0/41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26. Observations of the court in In re Bane and others qualified and explained. A rule having been obtained upon affidavit under section 37 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, calling upon a revising barrister to show cause why he should not state a case for appeal from his decision, the revising barrister made a statement in writing, in which he set forth certain conclusions of fact and law embodied in his decision, and explained the reasons of his refusal to state a case for appeal. In showing cause against the rule, counsel for the revising barrister, proposing to read such state- PRACTICE. 491 ment (a), informed the court that the revising barrister had drawn it up in deference to the obser- vations (b) of the court in In re Bane and others {ante, p. 490), respecting affidavits by revising bar- risters ; Grove, J., thereupon intimated that the observations of the court in that case were not to be understood as applying to all cases which might arise under section 37 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, but as having reference to the circumstances of the case then before the court : In re Sale [not reported as to this point of practice]. Where a case purporting by its indorsement to be a con- solidated appeal was defective by reason of there being no statement that any person "interested" had consented to answer the appeal on behalf of him- self and the persons named in the schedule : held, that such defect was fatal to the case as a consoli- dated appeal under section 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18, but did not affect its validity as a single appeal under section 42. A case stated for appeal purported by the indorse- ment thereon to be a consolidated appeal. Annexed to the case was a schedule containing the names of two persons whose right to the franchise depended on the same state of facts, and points of law, as those which were stated in the special case. There was no statement that any person " inte- rested " had consented to appear and answer the appeal on behalf of himself and the persons named in the schedule. (a) Counsel for the applicant objected in the first instance to the reading of the revising barrister's statement, but subsequently withdrew his objection. The statement, however (not being in conflict with the affidavit upon which the rule had been obtained) , was not actually read in court, or further alluded to. (b) These observations are reported at length in " The Times" Dec. 10th, 1879. 492 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court held that, in the absence of any such statement, the appeal could not be entertained as a consolidated appeal under section 44 of 6 Yict. c. 18, but must be dealt with as a single appeal only under section 42 : Druitt v. Lane, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 307. It is not necessary that a person, appearing at the revision court on behalf of a voter, should have been personally instructed by the voter for idiom lie appears. City of Exeter. A friend of the respondent, who appeared for him at the revision court and proved the facts relating to the respondent's case, refused to state, in answer to a question from the appellant, whether or not he had been requested by the respon- dent to appear on his behalf. The revising barrister declined to order him to answer such question, con- sidering that as he had stated that he appeared on behalf of the respondent it was sufficient. The court affirmed the decision : Ford v. Sniedon, 2 Times Law Reports, 13. Refusal of revising barrister to " star " (a) the dupli- cate entry of a county elector is not a matter of appeal within section 42 of Q Vict. c. 18. County of Lincoln — Kesteven (Local Govern- ment) Division. The name of a county elector had been entered in two electoral divisions, viz., Quarrington and Heckington. There was no objec- tion to him, and he was duly qualified to vote in respect of each qualification. The revising barrister was asked by the appellant to " star" (a) one of the said entries in the same way as is done in boroughs under («) I.e., to place against such entry a note to the effect that the person was not entitled to vote in respect of the qualification therein contained, he being on the list for voting in respect of another qualification. PRACTICE. 493 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-s. 14. This the barrister refused to do, and granted a case for appeal. A preliminary objection was taken to the court (Queen's Bench Division) entertaining the appeal, and it was urged that the power of appeal is con- ferred by section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18, and that that section is limited to the matters therein mentioned, which do not include the present case. The court held that the objection was good, and dismissed the appeal : Arnold v. Sharpe, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 252 ; 65 L. T., N. S. 618. Refusal of revising barrister to hear a person appearing before him on behalf of a political association is not a matter of appeal within section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18. A barrister who appears at a revision court on behalf of '" a party or other person" though with- out fee, is within section 41 of 6 Vict. c. 18. An association is a "party" within that section. B. C, a barrister, attended a revision court and claimed to appear (as in fact he had appeared in two preceding years) in support of all claims put forward or made in the interests of the local Liberal Associa- tion. The revising barrister was of opinion that he was precluded from hearing B. C. by virtue of the provision in section 41 of the above Act. B. C. con- tended that, inasmuch as he appeared for an associa- tion, he did not appear for any " party or other person," and, therefore, was not affected by that section. The revising barrister decided against him. B. C. further contended that, as he appeared without fee or payment of any kind from the said association, he was not " counsel " within the said section. The revising barrister decided this point also against him, but stated a case. The court, affirming the decision, held that the association was certainly a " party," that B. 0. was " counsel " acting for a " party," and that the case 494 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. should not have been stated, as no " point of law " was involved " material to the result of any case," within section 42 of the Act : 0' Connor v. Nicholson, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 250. Notice of appeal, not given in writing before the rising of the court to the revising barrister, in accordance with section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18, but on a subsequent clay, even although the latter had excused the infor- mality, held no valid notice. Appeal not heard. County of G-loucester (Dean Division). Gr., whose notices of objections to various persons had been held bad by the revising barrister, asked the latter orally for a case, but did not, before the rising of the court, give the latter written notice of appeal. This was done (the revising barrister, so far as he had any such power, acquiescing) on a subsequent day. On the case being called on, a preliminary objec- tion was taken that Gr. could not be heard, no valid notice of appeal, i. e., in writing before the rising of the court, having been given to the revising barrister, in accordance with section 42 of 6 Vict. c. 18. The court declined to hear the appeal. The terms of section 42 were not directory, but positive, and were a statutory regulation, with the provisions of which neither the revising barrister nor the court could dispense. There could be no acquiescence in a breach of such provisions : Guise v. Dilke, Fox & Smith's Eeg. Cas. 283. Wliere, in cases of duplicate entries of names, due notice has been given by a voter of his selection of the entry to be retained for voting, under section 28, sub- section 14, of the Registration Act, 1878, no appeal lies from the detenu /'nation of the revising barrister as to the validity of the notice. Borough of Liverpool. C.'s name was entered more than once as a parliamentary elector on the PRACTICE. 495 parliamentary lists of the borough, viz., both for the Kirkdale division in respect of his place of abode, and for the Abercroniby division in respect of his place of business. The notice, instead of following the terms of Form P. prescribed by the Registration Act, 1878, and the Registration Order, 1889 (1), was in the following terms : "I, do hereby select the following, vk., for parliamentary voting, Abercromby Division, No. 7, Polling District No. 29, No. on list, 1724. Charles Chad wick, 38, Walton Road, Polling District, No. 3, No. on list, 1906." The lists for each of the nine divisions were divided into lists of occupiers, lodgers and freemen. The notice was objected to by a party agent as not in com- pliance with Form P. The revising barrister, having overruled the objection, and declined to state a case, and a rule calling on him to show cause having been argued, The court, affirming the decision, held that no such right of appeal existed, as applicant was not a person who, within the 42nd section of the Regis- tration Act, 1843, had either made a claim or objec- tion, in accordance with the provisions as to notice, &c, of section 17 ; section 5 of the Registration Act, 1885, had no application to this case, in which no right of appeal was given by the Registration Act, 1878, sub-section 14 of section 28. The matter was one solely for the revising barrister's decision without any appeal : Reg. v. Revising Barrister of Liverpool, [1895] L. R. 1 Q. B. 155 ; 64 L. J. Q. B. 131 ; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 375 ; 71 L. T. 636 ; 43 W. R. 220. 496 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The revising barrister had issued notices that claims and objections would be taken and disposed of at certain fixed sittings, and had disposed of them accordingly. Being satisfied by information from the party representatives and others present that there were no persons present to make further claims and objections, he declared the lists closed, excepting some cases specially adjourned. The next day, while reading out the names of persons affected by the revision, the claimants applied to be heard in support of their claims. He declined to hear them, on the ground that he had publicly announced that the lists were closed, and refused to state a case. Held, that he teas right. City of Leeds. In accordance with his customary practice to prevent confusion, the revising barrister had, in his notices of courts for 1895, given notice that the East Division lists would be taken at evening sittings on September 16 and 17 until completed, and that claims and objections made by those who were not then present, or had not otherwise established them, would be struck out. On the 18th, while reading out in court the results of the revision thus completed on the 17th, two claimants applied to be heard, and the revising barrister refused to hear them as aforesaid. On argument of a rule to show cause why they should not be heard, and for a mandamus to hear and deter- mine their claims, The court held, affirming the decision, that the revising barrister was right ; he had the power to manage the business of his own court, and had arranged it for the public convenience. Having had full notice, and not appearing at the appointed time, until the lists had been declared closed, the appli- cants were not entitled to be heard then when the revising barrister was merely sitting for the clerical work of formally declaring the results of the revision. The rule was refused on both points : Reg. v. Soden, Times Law Reports, 26, March, 1896 ; and the decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal. ( 497 ) COSTS OF APPEAL. It is enacted by section 70 of 6 Yict. c. 18 " that it shall be lawful for the said court " (the Court of Appeal in Registration Cases) " to make such order respecting the payment of the costs of any appeal, or of any part of such costs, as to the said court shall seem meet : Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for the said court in any case to make any order for costs against or in favour of any respon- dent or person named as respondent as aforesaid, unless he shall appear before the said court in support of the decision of the revising barrister in question." The thirty-eighth section of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enacts as follows : — " The costs of an appellant against a decision of a revising barrister may, if the appeal is successful, be ordered by the court hearing the appeal to be paid by the clerk of the peace or town clerk named as respondent in the said appeal, whether he shall or shall not appear before the said court in support of the decision. " For enabling an appellant to obtain such an order he may at or before the time of making his declaration of appeal under section 42 of the Parlia- mentary Registration Act, 1843, require the revising barrister to name the clerk of the peace for the county or the town clerk for the parliamentary borough or municipal borough, as the case may be, to which the appeal relates to be respondent in the appeal. " The revising barrister if so required shall, and S. K K 498 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. in any case may, name such clerk of the peace or town clerk, as the case may be, to be respondent in an appeal, either alone or in addition to any other person referred to in section 43 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843. " The expenses properly incurred by a clerk of the peace or town clerk as respondent, including any costs which he may be ordered to pay to the appel- lant in any such appeal, shall be allowed to him as part of the expenses incurred by him in respect of the revision of the list to which the appeal relates. The term ' expenses ' in this section shall include all matters mentioned in section 31 of the Representa- tion of the People Act, 1867. " The costs of an appeal against a decision of a revising barrister shall be in the discretion of the court hearing the appeal, subject, except as aforesaid, to the proviso contained in section 70 of the Parlia- mentary Registration Act, 1843." The following cases may be consulted with refer- ence to the practice of the court in relation to the allowance of costs : — Webb v. Aston, 5 M. & GK 14, 32. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Simpson v. Wilkinson, 7 M. & Gr. 50, 65. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Allen v. Home (a), 7 M. & GK 157, 162. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Bage v. Perkins (b), 8 Scott, N. R. 983, 984. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Daniel v. Camplin, 8 Scott, N. R. 999, 1013. De- cision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Wood v. Willesclen, 1 Lutw. 314, 323. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. (a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. (b) In this case the appellant did not appear, and the respon- dent's counsel was not called upon. COSTS OF APPEAL. 499 Walker v. Payne (a), 1 Lutw. 324, 327. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Croucher v. Browne (a), 2 C. B. 97, 111. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Bishop v. Smedley (a), 2 C. B. 90, 96. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Gale v. Chubb (a), 4 C. B. 41. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Birch v. Edwards, 5 C. B. 45, 51. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson v. Cotton (a), 5 C. B. 51, 55. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Onions v. Bowdler, 5 C. B. 65, 75. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson v. Pitt, 5 0. B. 77, 87. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18, 29. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs. Mashiter v. Dunn, 6 C. B. 30, 37. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Beamish v. Stoke, 11 C. B. 29, 40. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Ford v. Smedley, 12 C. B. 622, 630. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Hamilton v. Bass, 12 C. B. 631, 638. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Collins v. Thomas (a), 12 C. B. 639, 641. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Lambert v. St. Thomas, Neic Sarum (b), 2 Lutw. 222. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Beesou v. Burton, 12 C. B. 647, 660. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Moorhouse v. Gilbertson (a), 14 C. B. 70, 76. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. (a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. (b) In this case the respondent did not appear. kk2 500 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Passing/mm v. Titty {a), 17 C. B. 299, 314, 315. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Be Boinville v. Arnold, 1 C. B., N. S. 3, 22. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Clarke v. Bury St. Edmunds, 1 C. B., N. S. 23, 33. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs. Eannaford v. WHteway (a), 1 C. B., N. S. 53, 62. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Sherlock v. Steward, 7 C. B., N. S. 21, 28. Deci- sion (against the vote) affirmed, without costs (the case being a reasonably fit one for argu- ment). Collier v. King, 11 C. B., N. S. 14, 478. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs (the case being a reasonably fit one for argument). Pourltv. Bradley, 18 C. B., N. S. 65, 71. Deci- sion (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Tepper v. Nicholls, 18 0. B., N. S. 121, 141. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without cost^. matcher v. Boodle, 18 C. B., N. S. 152, 168. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with- out costs. Ford v. Boon (a), L. E. 7 0. P. 150, 158. Deci- sion (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Piekard v. Baylis, L. E. 5 C. P. D. 235. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs (b). (a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. {b) Per Lord Coleridge, C. J., "As counsel for the respondent has been instructed at the request of the court, we do not consider it a case in which the appellant should pay costs." COSTS OF APPEAL. 501 It was the rule that when the revising barrister's decision was reversed, no costs were given : Burton v. Aston, 2 Lutw. 143, 158. Lee v. Hutchinson, 2 Lutw. 159, 169. Barclay v. Parrott, 1 C. B., N. S. 49, 52. Smith v. Huggett, K. & G. 434, 437. Heelis v. Blain, 18 C. B., N. S. 90, 110. But the Legislature may have intended to modify the above-mentioned rule by the enactment of sect. 38 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, quoted ante, on p. 497. In an appeal from a revising barrister, the point which was raised by the case depended on a question of fact which the barrister did not decide. The court refused to decide the question, and remitted the case, to be re-stated. The appellant then abandoned the appeal. The court held that the respondent was not entitled to costs : Lawe v. Maillard, L. P. 4 0. P. 547. Where the respondent to an appeal intends to take a preliminary objection he should give notice to the appellant of his intention to do so. If no such notice is given, and the objection prevails, the appeal will be dismissed without costs : In re Speight, Ex parte Brooks, L. P. 13 Q. B. D. 42. INDEX. Abode, objector's place of, must be sufficiently stated in notice of objection without reference to register, 264; objector's actual place of, must be stated in notice of objection, 270, 278, 291 ; voter's place of, must be stated in notice of objection as it is stated in list of voters tvhen transmitted by clerk of the peace, 283 ; sufficiency of description of objector's place of, in notice of objection, 301 ; voter's place of, need not appear on the face of notice of objection, 309; sufficiency of description of objector's place of, a question of fact for barrister, 320; objector's place of, when, if omitted from notice of objec- tion, may be supplied by revising barrister, 332 ; wholly untrue statement of voter's place of, amendable, 353. Actual Possession, of rent-charge, for six months necessary to satisfy section 26 of Keforrn Act, 1832... SO. Address of Landlord omitted from new lodger claim, revising barrister has a discretion as to inserting, 259. Affidavits. See Revising Barrister. After Grass (rights of). See Chipping Sodbury. Agent, declarations in a consolidated appeal signed by, 157, 158, notes, 259, note, 328, note, 347, note. Allowance or Deduction from poor rate, 407. Alms, what not a receipt of, 424 ; what a receipt of, 430, 438, 440, 442. Almsmen. See Hospital. Amendment. See Abode, Claim, Description, Declaration, Dwelling-house, List, New Lodger, Objection, Occupation, Qualification, Revising Barrister. No power to alter in third column freehold to leasehold, 366 ; nor, without declaration under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, 504 INDEX. Amendment — continued. s. 24, to strike out words from third and fourth columns, so as to alter qualification to " dwelling-house " not in succession, 252 ; by adding division in list to which objection refers, permissible, 341 ; also by adding " suc- cessive "in third column where successive occupations stated in fourth, 368 ; also by correcting place of abode where bond fide mistake, 369 ; also by adding name of parliamentary borough omitted by mistake in old lodger's claim, and examining claim, though not objected to, 370 ; power to amend lodger claims, 192 ; of mistakes in lodger's declaration, permissible, 196; of notice not covering real objection, not permissible, 336; not to alter "freehold" into "leasehold," 366; nor "house in suc- cession" into "dwelling-house," 252; but "succession" may be added in third column, two houses being stated in fourth, 368 ; of description of qualification in fourth, column by striking out surplusage, 73 ; by substitution of right number of house for wrong one, when permis- sible, 363. Annuity charged on lands in different occupations, appor- tionment of, 49 ; derived from land, but not charged thereon, insufficient to qualify, 52. Appeal. See Practice. Declarations in a consolidated, signed by agent, see Agent; notice in writing of "desire to appeal" (semble) a condition precedent to a case being stated, 490, 494 ; imperfectly consolidated, may be sufficient as a single appeal, 492 ; refusal of revising barrister to hear counsel no ground of appeal, 494 ; nor his refusal to star voter's name, 493 ; no appeal from his decision as to sufficiency of notice of selection under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28... 495. Apportionment. See Bent-charge. Of interest on mortgage upon several freeholds, 23 ; of rents and profits issuing out of land in more counties than one, 30 ; of annuity charged on land in different occupations, 49. Articled Clerk. See Exeter, Residence {break of). Assessed Taxes, 409. Assignee has no vote in respect of equitable life interest in a term, 96. Assistant Overseer, 304, 325, 388. INDEX. 505 Bankruptcy not of itself an interruption of occupation as tenant, where trustee does not interfere, and landlord treats tenant as such, 235. Barracks. See Officers, Soldiers. Barrister. See Revising Barrister. Beadsmen of Daventry, appointment as, not a "promotion to an office," 29. Benefice, emoluments annexed to freehold, when do not qualify for vote, 54 ; when divisible so as to give vote for county and borough, 64. BOROUGH, qualification for, not rendered available for county vote by the fact of revising barrister having dealt with it under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-sect. 14... 79. Borough of Stafford, allottee of corporation land of, under bye-law of 1836, has no freehold interest therein, 64. Bottesford Hospital, inmates of, have no freehold interest in the hospital lands, 46. Boundaries, 456. Boundary Acts, 127, 128, note (b) on p. 127, and note (a) on pp. 127, 179, 396. Break OF Besidence. See Residence, Cambridge University, Oxford University. Bribery, held not to disqualify for the franchise, unless found conclusively by judge's report to have been com- mitted by or with knowledge and consent of candidate, 432. Building, cowhouse, when a, within section 27 of Beform Act, 1832... Ill ; distinct portion of cotton factory, when a, within section 27 of Beform Act, 1832. ..113; coach- house and stable, when a, within section 27 of Beform Act, 1832... 126 ; continuous buildings may constitute a, within section 27 of Beform Act, 1832, though without internal communication, or continuity of roof, 129 ; vote conferred by granary forming upper floor of, 159. Building and Land, need not be contiguous, in order to qualify under section 27 of Reform Act, 1832... 130; when sufficient to qualify under section 27 of Beform Act, 1S32...125, 141, 143, 147. Building Society, payments to, 17, 22, 38, 61. 506 INDEX. Burgage Tenure, vote conferred by, 16. Burleigh Hospital, beadsmen of, have a freehold interest in their rooms, 10, 43. Cambridge University, members of, beld (before Eegistra- tion Act, 1885) not entitled to vote for the borough in respect of their college rooms, 186 ; held, on the con- struction of section 15 of that Act, not entitled to vote for borough in respect of their college rooms, by reason of break of residence, 224. Canons' Eesidence, ownership vote, see Corporation ; gives no occupation vote, 55. Cestui que Trust, bare equitable right of, to possession of land, insufficient to qualify, 26 ; when may have a free- hold interest in rent-charge notwithstanding absolute power of sale in trustee, 69. Cestui que Use, of rent-charge, when in actual possession thereof, 44, 68 ; of chattel rent-charge, not entitled to vote in respect thereof, 100. Cestuis que Trustent in receipt of rents and profits of land, devised on trust for sale for their benefit, have no free- hold interest therein, if they are precluded from electing to keep the land unsold, 74. Chambers in the Temple, exclusive occupation of a room in a set of, 147, and notes ; occupier, as tenant, of a set of, not disqualified by sub-letting some of the rooms therein, 150. Chandos Clause, repealed, save in respect of rights exist- ing on 6th December, 1884... 102, note {a); qualification under, was not acquired by joining different rents pay- able to different landlords to make up £50 rental, 102 ; nor by joining rents of joint and single tenancies, 104 ; what was sufficient description of qualification under, 356, 357, 358, 375. Change of Qualification, in counties, required new claim, 102. Charity, military knights of "Windsor mere objects of, and not entitled to vote, 132; objects of, not necessarily in- capacitated for voting, 148. Chipping Sodbury, holder of an "acre" in, according to custom, entitled to vote, notwithstanding rights of after- grass and pasture granted to others, 53. INDEX. 507 Claim, declaration annexed to new as well as old lodger's notice of, is prima facis evidence of qualification, 190 ; notice of, when not invalidated by defective address, 245 ; insufficiency or absence of notice of, in what cases cured by publication, 246, and note («), 246 ; what are " mistakes " in a, within section 28 (sub-section 2) of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 259 ; to be rated, 379 and note (a), 376 and note (a), 398 and note (b) ; may be signed by authorized clerk of person authorized by claimant to sign, 241. See Amendment, Revising Barrister. Clergymen. See Benefice, Perpetual Curate. Collector of Poor Rate discharging the duties of over- seer, 325. COLLEGE. See Cambridge University, Oxford University. Fellows of, entitled as such under a will to payment from realty profits, do not acquire an " estate by devise," 30. College Fellowship, appointment to, not "promotion to an office," 30. Committee of Lunatic's Estate, occupation by, 104. Condition Precedent. See Appeal, Notice in Writing, Writing. Coningsby. See Lord Coningsby's Hospital. Consolidated Appeal. See Appeal. Control of landlord over entire house prevents inmates of rooms therein from being inhabitant occupiers, as tenants, 164, and note (a) on p. 160. Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881, held not to apply to a conveyance by wife to husband of her sepa- rate real estate, 81, last paragraph of note («). Corporation Aggregate, members of, not entitled to county votes in respect of real property owned by, 33 ; members of, not entitled to borough votes in respect of rooms occupied by them as members of the corporation, 131 ; cathedral canons not entitled to ownership vote in respect of share in corporate revenues from land, 55. Corrections in Eegister, 445. See Amendment, Sufficiency of Description, Claim. Costs of Appeal, 497 — 500. 508 INDEX. Cotton Factory, distinct portions of, when each a " build- ing" within section 27 of Keforra Act, 1832... 113. Counsel, revising barrister entitled to refuse to hear, and no ground of appeal, 49-4. Counting-House, tenant's interest in, not limited by land- lord's clerk residing in house of which counting-house formed part, 124 ; a building without severance from rest of house of which it formed part, 153. Cowhouse, when a " building" within section 27 of Beforcn Act, 1832. ..111. Creating Votes. See Splitting Ad. Cubicle, Police, not a dwelling-house, 231, 234. Curate. See Perpetual Curate. Customary Freehold, vote conferred by, 16. Customary Tenure, vote conferred by, 94. Date of notices of objection, 285, 299. Daventry, appointment as beadsman of, not a " promotion to an office," 29. Declaration, annexed to lodger claim, is prima facie evidence of qualification in the case of new lodger as well as old, 190 ; under section 24 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, must be sent to town clerk in due time, otherwise revising barrister has no power to act upon it, 348 ; under sec- tion 24 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, essential for amendment, in list, of description of nature of qualification, 372. Declaration under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 24, evidence is admissible to contradict, 344. Declarations in a consolidated appeal signed by agent, 157, 158, notes, 259, note (b), 328, note (a), 347, note(&). Deduction or Allowance from poor rate, 407, and note (a) on 407. Deed by which wife's separate real estate is expressed to be conveyed by her to her husband, effect of, in equity, 81, note (a). Description, of qualification in fourth column, may be amended by striking out surplusage, 73 ; of occupier's qualification (in a borough) as "house," sufficient, INDEX. 5G9 Description — contin ued. although there be a list of freeholders as well as a list of occupiers, 257 ; of freehold premises situate in a " street, lane, or other like place," what sufficient. 350 ; of nature of occupier's qualifying property sufficient, without stating the extent of his interest, 352 ; of rent- charge, what sufficient, 363 ; of qualification as " house '* may be altered to "dwelling-house" under section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 365. Devise, of land on trust for sale. See Cestuis que Trustent, College. Disabilities Removal Acts. See Statutes. Disqualification by parochial relief or insufficient occupa- tion, not an incapacity within section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 423. Dissenting Minister, whether holds appointment for life, a question of fact for revising barrister on the evidence, 35 ; whether or not bolds appointment for life, principle for determining, 34, note (a). Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, orders of Local Government Board made under. See Boundaries, Franchise. Duplicate Notice, production of stamped, a sufficient sub- stitute for proof of service, 242, 263, 269 ; production of stamped, duly signed by objector, sufficient evidence of original having been also signed by him, 279 ; may be produced by objector himself, although notice was j)osted by his clerk, 291 ; not the less a duplicate because it has the word " copy " at the head of it, 316. Dwelling-house. See Severance, House. Building calculated for, though not used as such, a "house" within section 27 of Reform Act, 1832. ..117; an inhabitant occupier of a, within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, is necessarily rateable as an occupier under 43 Eliz. c. 2... 162 — 164; description of qualification as, may not, without a declaration, be altered to dwelling-houses in succession, 374 ; amended description of qualification as, in substitution for "tene- ment and garden," 374, 375 ; policeman's cubicle not a dwelling-house within 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 5... 231, 234. Earl Leicester's Hospital, brethren of, not entitled to- borough votes in respect of their dwellings, 131. 510 INDEX. Equity, cases in, relating to wife's jus disponendi over her separate real estate, 81 note (a). Estate, Equitable Freehold, when not possessed by cestuis que trustent in respect of land devised on trust for sale, but remaining unsold, 74. Evidence, declaration annexed to lodger claim is prima facie, of qualification, in the case of neio as well as old lodger, 190. Excusal. See Poor Rate. Exeter, freeholder of the city of, does not "reside" in Exeter within section 31 of Reform Act, 1832, if, during part of statutory six months, he is serving articles to a solicitor in London, 184. Exeter Cathedral, residentiary canons of, entitled to city votes in respect of their dwellings, 150, 180. Expense voluntarily incurred by landlord, when not to be deducted in ascertaining net annual value of freehold, 61. Fact. See Questions of Fact. Farming, a "business" within section 4 of the Companies Act, 1862... 146. Fee Farm Rent, description of, in list of voters, 357. Fellows. See College, College Fellowship. Fines and Recoveries Act, equitable doctrine as to power of married woman to convey separate real estate by deed not acknowledged under, 81 note (a). Franchise, Municipal, in respect of parts of houses occupied as dwellings, 169. Franchise, Parliamentary, may be established by tenant- occupier without proof of landlord's title, 157 ; under what circumstances conferred by a granary, 159 ; held (before Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885) not affected by orders of Local Government Board made under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876.. 453—456. Freehold. See Cestuis que Trustent. INDEX. 511 Freehold, Customary, vote conferred by, 16, 27 ; land In borough, occupied with, house in same borough, when gives vote for county, 18, 19 ; what an estate of, 25. Freemen, right of voting as, 180 ; not entitled to be placed on parochial electors' register, 175. Gaol, confinement in, when a break of residence, 138. Granary, held to be a " building" conferring the franchise within section 27 of the Eeform Act, 1832... 159. Guardians, Poor Law. See Parochial Relief. Hospital, inmates of, when may not vote as freeholders, 8, 14, 37, 46 ; beadsmen of, when may vote as freeholders, 10, 43 ; brethren of, when may not vote as £10 occupiers, 131. House. See Severance. Cannot give vote for both county and borough, 91 ; part of, used as a cowhouse and part as a dwelling for man, 115; exclusive occupation of part of, 115, 116, 117, 123, 137; calculated for a dwelling, though not used as such, within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832... 117; part of, when occupied as a dwelling-house and when as lodgings, 160, note (a); part of, may (semble), for the purposes of the dwelling-house franchise, consist of rooms on different floors, 165, note (a) ; where wholly let out in rooms to different tenants so as to constitute each tenant the occupier of a "dwelling-house" within the statutes, the mere fact of one of such tenants relin- quishing his tenancy during qualifying year does not affect status of remaining tenants in relation to the franchise, 168 ; part of, separately occupied, gives muni- cipal vote, although used for a dwelling only, 169 ; qualification described as, may be altered to " dwelling- house " under section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 366. Houses in Succession. See List, Occupation, Amendment. Incapacity. See Disqualification, Occupation, Parochial Relief. To acquire county franchise in respect of premises qualifying for a borough vote not affected by section 28, sub-section 14, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 79. 512 INDEX. Incorporeal Tenements, section 18 of 2 Will. 4, c. 45, held to apply to, 83. Incumbent, absence of, when (before 41 Vict. c. 3) a break of residence, 155, 156. Independence of landlord's control essential for the status of an inhabitant occupier, as tenant, 164 — 168, and note (a) on p. 160. Industrial Trainer, of workhouse, when entitled to ser- vice franchise, 220. Infant. See Voter. Inhabitancy, of dwelling-house. See Residence (break of). Inhabitant Occupier. See Control, Occupier. Insurance, payments on account of, not deducted in ascer- taining clear yearly value under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. ..121. Interest. See Building Society. On loan secured by mortgage of land, 20 ; on mort- gage of several freeholds, apportionable, 23 ; freehold, acquired in respect of estate of uncertain tenure, 25 ; in land, not created by receipt of stipend paid from revenues derived from land, 37 ; in land devised on trust for sale, when not a freehold estate therein, 74. Irish Peers, who are not members of the House of Com- mons, not entitled to be registered, 428. Jesus Hospital, Eothwell, inmates of, have no freehold interest therein, 8. Joint Occupation. See Occupation. Joint Stock Company. See Shareholders. King James' Hospital, Gateshead, younger brethren of, have no equitable interest in land or rent-charge by reason of the payments to which they are entitled, 66. Land. See Interest. Owned and occupied with house in borough, under what circumstances held to entitle to county vote, 18; was not required to be contiguous to house in order to give vote for borough under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832... 130. INDEX. 513 Landlord, title of, need not be proved by tenant- occupier, 157; the rating of, and repairing by, do not prevent separate occupier, as tenant, of part of bouse (wholly let out in similar tenancies) from being an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the statutes, 165 ; omission of address of, from new lodger claim, a mis- take which revising barrister is not bound to correct, 259. Leasehold, equitable, quaere if sufficient to qualify, 96, note (a), 99, note (a) ; sufficiently describes a lease for life, 359. Leicester. See Earl Leicester's Hospital. Lessee, for lives, of part of waste of a manor, when has a freehold interest in land demised, 72 ; when interest of, divisible, so as to entitle to vote for both county and borough, 95. Licensed Victuallers' Asylum, inmates not in receipt of alms, 440. Life Interest, sufficiency of evidence to prove, a question of fact for revising barrister, 20, 35 ; equitable, in a term, does not give vote, 95 ; legal, in a term, quaere, if sufficient to qualify, 96, note (a). Liskeard, municipal borough of, properly described as a parish, 331. List, what are not mistakes in a, within section 28, sub- section 1, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 259; parochial, to which objection refers, need not be specified in notice of objection to borough voter, 326; omission of "par- liamentary " from description of list to which parlia- mentary objector belongs, an amendable mistake, 329; may not, in the absence of a declaration, be amended by substituting a successive for a single occupation, 374 ; transfer from Division 3 to Division 1 without claim under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 15, not permissible, 367. Loan. See Building Society. Interest on, when a charge (hminishing value of land, 20. Local Government, a county (local government) elector can only vote in one electoral division of a county, though registered in several divisions, 4. Local Government Board. See Boundaries, Franchise. S. L L 514 INDEX. Lodger. See New Lodger. Not being rateable under 43 Eliz. c. 2, is not an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house "within the statutes, notwithstanding that he occupies rooms in a house "separately as a dwelling," 160; declaration of, annexed to claim is prima facie evidence of qualification in the case of new lodger as well as old, 190 ; duty of revising barrister as to unopposed claim of, 190, note (a); notice of claim of, part of lodger's qualification to vote, and cannot be waived by overseers publishing name in list of lodgers, 193 ; dating claim before end of quali- fying year fatal, 194 ; also absence of date to attestation, 195 ; powers of amendment extends to correction of mistakes in declaration ; claim and declaration parts of integral whole, 196 ; claim sent late to overseers inad- missible under Registration Act, 1886, or otherwise, 1 10 ; attestation by witness not present at claimant's signature invalidates claim, 197 ; power to amend claims, 192. Lord Coningsby's Hospital, servitors of, have a freehold interest in their tenements, 148. Malmesbury, right of voting by burgesses of, 178. Manchester Corn Exchange, shareholders in, have no votes in respect of their shares, 39. Married Woman, power of, in equity, to devise and convey separate real estate to husband, 81, note (a). "Medical or Surgical Assistance," meaning of the words in sections 2 and 4 of the Medical Eelief Disquali- fication Removal Act, 1885... 437. Midwife. See " Medical or Surgical Assistance" Military Service. See Officers, Soldiers. Misdescription. See Declaration, Amendment. Mistake, when omission of objector's place of abode from • notice of objection is a, within section 28, sub-section 2, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 332. Mistakes. See List, New Lodger, Omission. What are, in a " claim," 259 ; what are not, in a "list," 259. Municipal. See Franchise, Occupation. INDEX. 515 Name. See Signature. Objector's, misspelt in list, when need not be adopted by objector in notice of objection, 292. New Lodger, amendment of mistakes in claim of, discre- tionary, 259. Notice in Writing of " desire to appeal " a condition pre- cedent to a case being stated, 490, 494. Objection, objector's signature may precede names objected to, 343 ; obj ector, whose name has been struck out at hearing may yet object, 287 ; sufficiency of description of objector's abode, 286, 288; no ground of objection that another is on list in respect of same premises, 286 ; omission by objector of voter's parish, one of several in same borough, amendable, 288 ; notice not covering real objection not amendable, 336; to freeholder (already on register) cannot be entertained unless stated in notice of objection, 73 ; notice of, when sufficiently states objector's place of abode, 261 ; notice of, must of itself give sufficient information of objector's place of abode, without reference to register, 264; notice of, to overseers may be sent by post, otherwise than in ac- cordance with the statutory mode, 275 ; separate notice of, need not be given to overseers in respect of each voter objected to, 273 ; notice of, need not be dated the day on which signed, 274 ; notice of (in counties), when essential to empower barrister to expunge name, 276 ; notice of, to overseers in counties need not specify list on which voter's name appears, 276 ; notice of, held bad for not specifying ground or grounds of objection, 276 ; notice of, when may be shown by evidence to give requisite information of objector's place of abode, 277 ; original notice of, if produced by voter, available to objector in proof of service, in default of his production of a proper duplicate, 279 ; under a notice of, to third column in freeholders' list in counties, objector may prove property to be such as to give borough vote, 281 ; notice of, must be dated with the year of our Lord, 285, 299, 305 ; notice of, when invalid, although in strict compliance with statutory form, 292 ; notice of, must be signed by objector himself, 292 ; notice of, to borough voter and to overseers in the City of London, not required (before 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26) to specify list to which objection referred, 294, and note (a); notice of, when not vitiated by insertion of superfluous words, ll2 516 INDEX. Objection — contin aed. 295 ; notice of, by freeman, insufficient for not specify- ing list in which his name appeared, 299 ; service of notice of, on parish officer who had not signed list, a good service, 301 ; service of notice of, at voter's qualifying premises (not his abode) insufficient, 301 ; service of notice of, at voter's abode, when insufficient, 302 ; service at place of abode insufficient, if not true place, 338 ; service of notice of, at overseer's abode, when sufficient, notwithstanding lateness of hour, 304 ; notice of, sent by post (in the statutory mode) not vitiated by the fact of postmaster having received it out of appointed hours, 308 ; notice of, to voter, sent by post (in the statutory mode) need not show voter's abode on the face of it, 309 ; notice of, when in- sufficient for not stating list wherein objector's name was to be found, 340 ; notice of, sent by post (in the statutory mode) not vitiated by addition of post town and county to voter's place of abode "as described in list," 318 ; withdrawal of, 318 and note (a) ; notice of, sufficient without specifying in terms the list on which objector's name is to be found, if description be such as to be " commonly understood" to refer to that list, 323 ; notice of (to borough voter), need not specify the particular parochial list to which objection refers, 326 ; need not specify the particular qualification list to which objector belongs, 329 ; not invalidated by omis- sion of "parliamentary" from description of list to which parliamentary objector belongs, 329; notice of, when amendable by supplying omitted place of abode of objector, 332 ; notice of, when more than one franchise list, 333 ; in the absence of, revising barrister may not expunge voters on the ground of their receipt of parochial relief, or of their insufficient occupation, 423. Occupation, successive, may not be substituted for single, without a declaration as to misdescription, 374 ; insuffi- cient, not an incapacity within section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 423 ; by cathedral canons of resi- dentiary house for three months, not occupation for twelve months so as to give vote, 55 ; joint occupation by two persons of dwelling-house of £20 value not forbidden by proviso in 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3... 2; by militiamen, break of residence, 230 ; optional by servant, in lieu of wages, entitles to both county council and parliamentary vote, 7 ; of stand in Spitalfield's market, entitles "as owner or tenant," under 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 5... 238 ; continuous occupation of part of, though not of whole of premises, entitles to vote under 45 & 46 Vict. INDEX. 517 Occupation — continued. c. 50, s. 9... 232; of premises in succession, not rated during qualifying period, does not entitle to parliamentary or municipal vote, 377 ; by one of shop, residing more than seven miles from borough, does not qualify under 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27... 232 ; what is break of resi- dence under 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 31... 174; municipal franchise not extended by Representation of People Act, 1884, s. 3... 239; service occupation followed by ordinary occupation entitles to parliamentary franchise, 229 ; in- sufficiency of objector's description of his list, 340; no breach of continuous occupation by letting for four months, House Occupiers' Disqualification Removal Act, 1878, note (c) 155. Occupier. See Dwelling-house, House. As tenant, of dwelling-house does not occupy the same the less exclusively,, as such, by reason of his taking in a lodger with whom he shares one of the rooms, 149 ; as tenant, need not prove landlord's title, 157 ; of rooms in a house separately as a dwelling is, if rateable, an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house— if not rateable, a lodger, 160, and note (a) on pp. 160, 161. Office. See Beadsmen of Daventry, College Fellowship, Parish Clerk. Officer, public, when did not occupy as owner or tenant, 114. Officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, in the army, entitled to service franchise in respect of their rooms in barracks, 200 — 203. Oldham Parish Church, proprietors of pews in, not en- titled to vote in respect thereof, 51. Omission of the word " parliamentary " in describing par- liamentary list to which ob j ector belongs, an amendable mistake, 329. Over-rule, power of court to, previous decisions, 280, note (a). Overseers' " place of transacting parochial business," 325. Owner, when a public officer did not occupy as, 114. Oxford University, members of, held, on the construction of section 15 of Registration Act, 1885, not entitled to vote for borough in respect of their college rooms, by reason of break of residence, 228. 518 INDEX. Paeish. See Polling District. Parish Clerk, lias no vote in respect of his office, 37 ; nor in respect of ancient burial fee, 37 ; if possessed of free- hold land by virtue of his office, he is within the excep- tion in section 18 of Reform Act, 1832... 42 ; aj>pointment to office of, need not be by deed, 42. Parish List, to which objection refers, need not be specified in notice of objection to borough voter, 326. Parliamentary. See List, Omission. Parochial List, freemen not entitled, 175. Parochial Eelief, excusal from payment of rates, not a receipt of, 373 ; to father, not relief to son, 423 ; receipt of, during qualifying period, not an incapacity within section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 423 ; where money paid by guardians for work done, con- stitutes, 423. Partnership, members of, when entitled to vote, 12, 146 ; members of illegal, when not entitled to be registered, 136 ; rating of members of, by name of firm, 403. Peers of Parliament not entitled to be registered, 428 ; Irish peers, when not entitled to be registered, 428. Perpetual Curate, when entitled to vote in respect of land attached to perpetual curacy, 56. Pews, proprietors of, in Oldham Parish Church, have no freehold interest in soil of the church, 51; proprietors of, in St. Mark's Church, Liverpool, have no freehold in- terest in soil of the church, 58 ; proprietors of, in St. George's Chapel, Stonehouse, have no freehold interest in soil of chapel, 59. Place of Abode. See Abode. Policemen, names of, were (before 50 Vict. sess. 2, c. 9) rightly expunged by revising barrister without objec- tion, under section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26... 435; disability of, to vote at parliamentary elections, removed by statute, 435, note (a) ; cubicle no dwelling-house, 231, 234. Polling District, where jjarish or township is partly in one and partly in another, it is sufficient if objector describe himself as on the register of voters for the parish or township, notwithstanding sect. 22 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58... 281. INDEX. 519 Poor Eate, paid by Government on behalf of its servants, 376 ; paid by landlord on behalf of his tenant, 353, 378 ; what not sufficient evidence of tender of, 38 1 ; when a nullity, 385 ; when payable, although not signed by a majority of parish officers, 388 ; proportion of, payable by incoming tenant, 391, and note (b) on p. 391 ; when "made" and " deemed to be made, '"within the statutes, 392, and note («), 392 ; excusal from payment of, 399, note (a) ; what rates must be paid in order to qualify, 402; allowance or deduction from, 406, and note (a) on p. 407 ; excusal from payment of, not a receipt of "parochial relief or other alms," 421 ; effect of Assess- ment and Collection Act, 1869, s. 19, with section 14 of Eegistration Act, 1878, on rating, note (a), 376. Possession. See Actual Possession. Post, delivery in ordinary course of, 284, 336, 345. Post Office, delay at, in transmission of stamped duplicate, notices of objection does not prejudice objector, 263, 269. Posting, statutory mode of, not obligatory, 275, 309. Postmaster, duties of, performed by managing clerk, 290. Practice, 457 — 495. Prison, confinement in, when a break of residence, 138. Profits (Eealty), receipt of, without vested right to, does not entitle to vote, 14 ; issuing from land owned by incor- porated joint stock company, do not give shareholders the right to vote, 33 ; issuing from land owned by corpo- ration aggregate do not give members the right to vote, 33 ; right to receive money payments out of, such pay- ments being of undefined amount and contingent on a surplus, is not an equitable interest in land or rent issuing therefrom, 66. Property, local description of, when amendable by striking out surplusage, 73. Public Policy, not contrary to, that soldiers should have votes, 200—203. Publication, a waiver of what notices of claim, 246, 248 ; not a waiver of informality in notice of objection, 295, 296 ; of £12 list, held not to have been necessarily vitiated by interpolation of heading of property bst, 360 ; of poor rate, 385, note; lists of county occupation and new lodger claimants not invalidated by late, 450. 520 INDEX. Putney Bridge, shareholders in, not entitled to vote in respect of their shares, 46, 62. Qualification, description of, in fourth column may be amended by striking out surplusage, 73 ; for borough, not rendered available for county vote by the fact of Revising Barrister for borough having dealt with it under section 28, sub-section 14, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, 79; change of, 103; description of, as "freehold rent- charge issuing out of freehold houses," held not to have been supported by proof of an ownership in fee, 361 ; description of, as dwelling-house, sustained by proof of qualification under section 27 of the Beform Act, 1832, 362; description of, as "house" may be altered to "dwelling-house," 365; description of, as " dwelling- house " may not, without a declaration under section 24 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, be altered to " dwelling-houses in succession," 374; nor " freehold " into " leasehold," 366 ; nor " houses in succession" into "dwelling-house," 252 ; but " successive " may be added in third column, where claim faiidy interpreted as for successive occupation, two houses being stated in fourth column, 368. See Amend- ment. Questions of Fact, the court will not review barrister's decision on, unless manifestly wrong, 35, 120, 125, 130, 139, 352, 389 ; the court will reverse barrister's decision on, if he states his reasons and they appear insufficient to justify it, 302. Bate Book, omission of name of occupier from, 379, 395, and note (a), 376. Bate able, an inmate of rooms in a house must be, in order to be qualified as an inhabitant occupier, 160. Bateable Value (£12), made up of aggregate rateable value of lands occupied under different landlords, 164 ; rate book not conclusive evidence of, 164. Bates, when deducted in ascertaining net annual value of freehold, 26 ; payment of, by landlord, does not prevent separate occupier, as tenant, of part of a house (wholly let out in similar tenancies) from being an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, within the statutes, 165. INDEX. 521 Rating, claim to be rated no longer necessary, note (b), 379; nor entry of occupier's name on rate book, note (a), 376 ; what a sufficient, 382, 384 ; in case of successive occu- pation, 383, and note (c), 386 ; separate for part of house, 399, and note (c), 404 ; of members of a firm, by name of firm, 403. Eeal Estate, separate, of wife, may in equity be disposed of by her as if she were a feme sole, note (a) on p. 81. Rector, absence of, when a break of residence, 155, 156, and note (c). Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, construction of sec- tion 17 of, 455. Register, when complete, 445 ; validity of, not affected by want of strict compliance by clerk of the peace with section 47 of 6 Vict. c. 18... 447; corrections in, when ordered by the court, 445. Relief. See Parochial Relief. Rent, necessary expense of collecting, a charge to be de- ducted in ascertaining net annual value of freehold, 31 ; omission of amount of, from new lodger claim, a "mis- take " which revising barrister is not bound to correct, 259. Rent-charge. See Actual Possession. Possession of, what necessary, 14, 68 ; apportionable, 26 ; actual possession of, under Statute of Uses, 44, 68, 84 ; a freehold tenement, although deed contains no power of distress, 48 ; cestui que trust's freehold interest in, when compatible with trustee having absolute power of sale, 69 ; of sufficient value, was held to qualify, although there was no present power of distress avail- able, 70 ; issuing out of lands in more counties than one, held, for the purposes of the franchise, to be apportionable rateably to the quantity and value of the land in each county, 77 ; a tenement within 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, s. 18, and 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 5. ..83. Rent-charges may be joined to make up requisite value, 70. Repairs, cost of, when deducted in ascertaining net annual value of freehold, 23 ; landlord's, not deducted in ascer- taining clear yearly value under section 27 of Reform Act, 1832... 121. 522 INDEX. Eesehved Eights, qualification in respect of, must beidentical with that which existed when Eeform Act passed, 172. Eesidence, compulsory, inconsistent with occupation as owner or tenant, 114, 130, 156; break of, 138, loo, 156, and note (c), 181, 183, 217, 224, 228, see Exeter; of landlord, personal or by his servants, an element in determining the question whether inmates of rooms in a house are occupiers, as tenants, or lodgers, 160, note (a) ; colourable, insufficient to qualify, 171 ; may be that of a guest, 183 ; of lodger, 187 ; occupation of shop in, but residence more than seven miles from borough, no qualification under 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27, both occupation and residence being necessary, 232 ; break of residence, 174. Eevising Barrister, does not, by noting entry of borough qualification under section 28, sub-section 14, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, render such qualification available for the county franchise, 79; duty of, in respect of unopposed lodger claims, 190, note (a) ; has a discretion as to amending new lodger claim from which " address of landlord," and " amount of rent paid," have been omitted, 259; may not expunge without objection, if qualification be good on the face of it, 275 ; may not expunge without notice of objection, under section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, persons who have re- ceived parochial relief within qualifying period, or have not occupied as owners or tenants during qualifying year, 423 ; (se?nble) may not state case for appeal unless intending appellant gives notice in writing of his ' ' desire to appeal/' 490 ; when can amend notice of objection by supplying omitted place of abode of objector, 332 ; may not act upon declaration as to misdescription, unless it has been sent to town clerk in due time, 348 ; empowered by section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, to alter description of qualification from "house" to "dwelling-house," 365 ; may not (at least in the absence of objector) restore name expunged by his colleague, 448 ; qucere if he may under any circumstances, 448, note (a) ; held to have power to amend by transferring name of £12 occupier from property list to that of £12 occupiers, qualification having been rightly stated in third column, 449 ; affidavits by, in opposition to rule to show cause why a case should not be stated, 490 ; may admit evidence to contradict declaration by person objected to under 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 24... 344; has power having, after notice given, declared lists closed, to refuse to hear further applications, 496. See Amend- ment, Claim, Objection. INDEX. 523 St. Bartholomew's Hospital, Sandwich, brethren of, not disqualified by receipt of " alms," 424. St. George's Chapel, Storehouse, proprietors of pews in, not entitled to vote in respect thereof, 59. St. John's Hospital, Sandwich, brethren of, not disquali- fied by receipt of " alms," 424. St. Mark's Church, Liverpool, proprietors of pews in, not entitled to vote in respect thereof, 58. Sale, of buildings in a borough, when does not deprive occupying tenant of borough vote, 135. Scot and Lot Voter, non-payment of rates by, 177. Separate Use. See Married Woman, Real Estate. Sergeant of Militia', occupation by, not as tenant, 156. Serjeants-at-Mace, appointed by Corporation of City of Hereford under their charter, not disqualified by 19 & 20 Vict. c. 69, s. 9... 422. Servant, occupation by, as tenant, 112. Service Franchise. See Occupation, Officers, Soldiers, Shop Assistants, Workhouse Trainer. Severance of part of house from residue, 116, and note (c), 136, and note (b), 137, and note (b), 154, and notes. Shareholders in incorporated joint stock company have no votes in respect of profits derived from land of the company, 32; in "The Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers of Whitstable in the County of Kent," have no votes in respect of their shares therein, 35 ; in Man- chester Corn Exchange (an unincorporated joint stock company), have no votes in respect of their shares therein, 39 ; in Putney Bridge, have no votes in re- spect of their shares therein, 46, 62 ; in Sheffield Music Hall, have no freehold interest in land on which building stands, 42 ; in the Stock Exchange, have no qualifying interest in the land on which that institution is built, 90. Shed, when not a "building" within section 27 of Beform Act, 1832... 141. Sheffield Music Hall, shareholders in, have no freehold interest in land on which building stands, 42. Shop Assistants, when entitled to service franchise, 222. 524 INDEX. Shrewsbury Hospital, Sheffield, inmates of, have no freehold interest in their rooms, 37. Signature, objector's, to duplicate notice of objection, suffi- cient evidence of original having been also signed by him, 270 ; objector's, to duplicate notice of objection, when sufficient, although illegible to a person unac- quainted with his ordinary handwriting, 272 ; to notice of objection, must be objector's personal signature, 292 ; but fac simile thereof may be impressed by him by means of a stamp, 321 ; of overseers, not essential to validity of lists of voters, 444 ; or lists of county occu- pation claimants, 450. Soldiers, private, entitled (as well as officers) to service franchise in respect of their rooms in bai'racks, 200 — 203. Solicitor, service under articles to. See Exeter. Spitalfields Market, occupier of stand in, entitled "as owner or tenant," 238. Splitting Act, conveyance, when not void under, 412 — 415. Staithes, customary tenure in, gives vote, 94. Stamp. See Signature. Stamped Duplicate Notice, production of, dispenses with proof of service, 242, 263, 269. Stand in Spitalfields Market, occupation, 238. Statutes of Uses, conveyance operating under, 44, 67, 84 ; conveyance not operating under, 68 ; House Occupiers' Disqualification Removal Act, 1878, permitting letting for four months, note (c), 155 ; Electoral Disabilities Removal Act, 1891, permitting four months' absence "in the performance of any duty, &c," note (a), 228; Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1887 (50 & 51 Vict. c. 9), note («), 435 ; Medical Relief Disqualification Removal Act, 1885... 435; Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, s. 19, with Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, as affecting claims to be rated, and omissions from rate-book, &c, 376, note (a) ; Splitting Act (7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25), 411 ; section 15 of Registration Act, 1885, removes from members of university disqualification to vote for borough, 228 ; by section 11 of Representation of People Act, 1884, defining "tenement" as "any part of a house separately occupied for the purpose of any trade, business, or pro- fession," Temple Chambers give vote, 150. INDEX. 525 Stock Exchange. See Shareholders. Sub-lessee, of term over sixty years, a "lessee" within section 5 of Representation of the People Act, 1867... 101 ; of term over sixty years, gucere if qualified, unless in actual occupation, 101, note (a). Succession, two houses occupied in, must both be described, 349, 355 ; houses occupied in. See Declaration, List, Occupation. Successive Occupation of houses, when sufficiently described by "house," 251 ; when insufficiently described, 253. Sufficiency of Description. See Amendment, Occupation, Objection. Sunday, service of notice of claim on, 241 ; service of notice of objection through the post on, 296. Surgeon to Greenwich Hospital, occupation by, not as owner or tenant, 114. Surplusage in fourth column of register may be struck out, 73. Temple Chambers give borough occupation vote, 150. TENANT. See Occupier as Tenant, Title. It was not competent to, to join different rents payable to different landlords to obtain vote under Chandos clause, 102; when a servant occupied as, 112; when a public officer did not occupy as, 114; occupier as, under a lease from owner, does not cease to occupy as such by reason of his letting by parol part of the premises to owner for lodgings, 128 ; of buildings and land, when does not lose borough vote by reason of sale by landlord of the premises, 135 ; distinction between, and lodger, 160, note (a) ; one who separately occupies, as part of a house (wholly let out in similar tenancies) is not the less an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the statutes, by reason of landlord being rated, paying the rates, doing the repairs, and not demising the passage and staircase, 165. Tenement, a freehold rent-charge is a, within 2 "Will. TV. c. 45, s. 18, and 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 5. ..83; defined in sect. 11 of Eepresentation of People Act, 1884... 150. 526 INDEX. " Tenement and Garden," description of qualification as, held, under the circumstance of the particular case, to denote a dwelling-house qualification, 374 ; defined, 150. Tenure, burgage, vote conferred by, 16; customary, vote conferred by, 94. Teem, assignee's equitable life interest in, does not qualify for vote, 96; assignee's legal life interest in, quaere if sufficient to qualify, 96, note («) ; a mere equitable in- terest in (other than for life), qucere if sufficient to qualify, 99, note (a) ; right by contract to grant of, 90, note (a). Termor, when entitled to vote for both county and borough in respect of different houses comprised in lease, 96 ; disqualified for county vote in respect of houses (com- prised in lease) situate in borough, 96. Title, landlord's, need not be proved by tenant occupier, 157. Township. See Polling District. Transfer, of name from Division One to Division Three not permissible, except on proof of municipal qualification, 169 ; of name of £12 occupier from wrong list to right one, held permissible, 449. " Travelling Abroad," when may be substituted for place of abode in second column, 353. Trust. See Cestuis que Trustent. University. See Cambridge University, Oxford University. Uses. See Statute of Uses. Value. See Expense, Bates, Repairs, Rent, Rent-charge. Of freehold, capacity for profit the criterion of, 27 ; made up of two distinct rent-charges, 70 ; rateable, could be made up of aggregate rateable value of lands occupied under different landlords, 105 ; rateable, rate- book was not conclusive evidence of, under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 6, sub-s. 2. ..106; of separate buildings, could not be joined to give requisite value for vote, under sec- tion 27 of Eeform Act, 1832...119; yearly, a question of fact for barrister, 120 ; fair annual rent, the criterion of, under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832... 120. INDEX. 527 Voter need not be of full age during the whole of qualifying . period, 425 ; sufficient if he be of age on 31st July next preceding the revision, 425. Wipe. See Married Woman. Windsor, military knights of, held not entitled to borough vote in respect of their dwellings under section 27 of Reform Act, 1832... 132; naval knights of, held not entitled to borough votes in respect of their dwellings under section 27 of Reform. Act, 1832... 152. Women not entitled to parliamentary vote, either for borough, 427 ; or county, 427 ; married or single, being owners but not occupiers of property, not qualified as parochial electors under Local Government Act, 1894... 443. Writing, notice in, of " desire to appeal," (semble) a con- dition precedent to a case being stated, 490, 494. London : Shaw & Sons, Fetter Lane and Crane Court, E.C. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. Form L9 — 15m-10,'48(Bl039)444 At present in force in the United Kingdom, with Practical Notes, Appendices, and a Copious Index. Fourth Edition. By Stephen Dowell, Esq., M.A., of Lincoln's Inn. Assistant Solicitor of Inland Revenue. Price 12s. 6d. ; for Cash, post free, 10s. 6d. 1895 Plumptre on Contracts. A Summary of the Principles of the Law of Simple Contracts. Second Edition. By Claude C. M. PLUMPrRE, Barrister-at-Law, Editor of " Grant on Banking." Price 7*. Gd. ; for Cash, post free, 6s. 3rf. 1897 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT LOS ANGELES BUTTEl supplyit Membej Publish! solicit guaranf Hunt's Boi The Law Sea-bed ; Properti Roads &c, to cable t structuri Joseph Editi rister Oke's C; AHar contai Gun Birds and tl Acts, Revise Barrisl Robinst The ( pendi: Revisi Esq J. H Cash, JN Saint - 1055 — Dig e st of S13d Parliamentary n n d municipal - Sea- shore -aes and Pri registration / 1 *. UCLA-Young Research Library JN1033 .S13d 1896 y 009 592 261 1033 S13d 1896 ^= ther Ways = ' ' ss, Inclos 1 = inedies ai ? ts and Pi 21 By Am Zll Law. Fc ^ I Temple, oi = free, lis ro § ool Oo = -si = itection > = . Certifu § L, Deer, ] = 1 Wild I ^ = dom, wit = Thoroi M.A., L I. lOd. 1897 , with an Ap- Thoroughly C. I. Elton, and Herbert rice 15s. ; for 1897 estimates for Reports that Being the )rts, B. & Co. Copies being ALL LAW REPORTS SUPPLIED. CATALOGUE AND L/STS GRATIS ON APPLICATION. BUTTERWORTH & CO., Law Publishers, Booksellers, Exporters, 7, FLEET STREET, LONDON. Telegraphic Address— "BUTTERWORT, LONDON."