^I Ber I Bo-9 Ste'" Bye Trif I ]5£ic Ere- 1 I Mac Und I Scri i Den Plui I Und 1 Und THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES CT Stueet, (ONDON, 1892. tafcstp. Working-- s prescribed . Post 8vo. 9s. cloth. h. :4s. cloth. lious Fro- ply. 8vo. al Order, ,nd "Wife. I. cloth. 2nd ed. I Brown. e. 168. cl. ontracts. ost 8vo. on. Post Und Ob. cloth. La-w 5nd Edit. 8 Oke' (; to 1884. E Oke' to 1881. E Oke' ^« '''« press. Oke's Au-itBisi/Kiiai xormuiict. vtn Jtaition. avo. yln the. presn. Oke's New Licensing- Laws. 2nd ed. Post 8vo. IDs. cloth. Fisher's Law of Mortg-a^g-e ai^d other Securities upon Pro- lierty. 4tli Eilitioii. 1 vol. KoyalSvo. 2/. 12.>;. 6rf. clotli. Davis's Labour Laws of 1875. 8vo. 12s. cloth. Davis's County Courts Practice. 6th Edit. 8v(). 45s. cloth. Drev/ry's Forms of Claims a.nd Defences in the Chancery Divisiiii: (if (lie l!i<;h Cniirt of .liisticc. I'ost Svo. i).-;. doth. Mozley and Whiteley's Concise Law^ Dictionary. 1 vol. 8vo. •JO.s.'cloUi. Folka-rd's Law^ of Slander and Libel. 5th Edition. 1 vol. Koyiil 8vc). -2/. l.'i.v. olotli. Crump's Law of Marine Insurance and General Averag-e. J{oyiiI .Svo. 2I.S-. doth. Collier's Law of Contributories in the Windingr-up of Joint >Stock (Joinixiiiii's. Post 8vo. il.v. doth. De Colyar's Law of Guarantees and Principal and Surety. 8vo. 2iiil Kditioii. Ki.v. dolh. Grant's Law of Bankers and Banking. 4th Edition, with Supplement, by i). (.',. M. Pi.ii.mi'TIii;. 8vo. II. 9.s-. doth. *»* For complete Catalogue, see end of this Book. Hewitt's Corporation Duty. Post 8vo. 6s. cloth. Eoberts and Grcllan's Public Health cf London. 1 vol. 8vo. 14s. cloth. Glyn, Prob3ni & Jackson's Mayor's Court Practice. 1 vol. 8vo. lof:. cloth. Probyn's Statutory Form of Bill of Sale. Post 8vo. 3s. cloth. Daly's Club Law. 2nd Edit. Fcap. Bvo. 3s. 6d. cloth. Stephen on Support and Subsidence. Poet Bvo. 5b. cloth. Clerke and Brett's Conveyancing: and La'w of Property Acts, lS8i and 1882, and other Acts. 3rd Ed. In 1 vol. Post 8vo. 12s. 6J. cl. Anderson's Law of Execution. 8vo. 32s. cloth. Butterworth & Ellis' Railway and Canal TrafSc Act, 1888, and Practice of Railway Commission. 2nd Edition. 8vo. ISs. 6'/. cloth. Butterw^orth's Railway Comniission Practice. 8vo. 5s. cloth. Brovrn's Copyhold Enfranchisement Acts, 1841—1887. Post Svo. 14s. cloth. ISIayer's French Code cf Commerce, translated. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. Pritchard's Admiralty Dig-est. 3rd Edition. 2 thick vols. Eoyal Svo. 5?. cloth. Wag-grett on Prolongation of Patents. Svo. 7s. cloth, Clifford's Private Bill Legislation. S Vols. Demy Svo. 2^ 15s. cloth. Saint's Regristration Cases, 1843 to 1891, 2nd Edition. Post Svo. 156. cloth. Sa.int on Reg-istration, Post Svo, 10s, Sd. cloth. Flood, The Pitfalls of Testators, or Hints on making- "Wills. In 1 vol. Post Svo. 5s. cloth. Bund's Agrricultural Holding's Act. 2nd Edition. Post Svo. VZ.1. cloth. Bund's Law of Salmon Fisheries, 1876. Poet 8vo. 16b. cloth. Kelly's Conveya,ncing: Draftsman. 2nd ed. Pest 3vo. 12s. Sd. Redman's Law of Arbitrations and Awa^rds. 2nd Edition. Svo. 13s. clctb. Hunt's Law of Frauds and BilLs of Sale. Post Svo. 9s. cloth. Seaborne's Law cf Vendors and Purchasers of Real Pro- perry. 3rd Editiori. - Poet Svo. 12s. 6rf. cloth. Faw^cett's Law of La-ndlord and Tenant. Svo. 14s. cloth. Shelford's Law^ and Practice of Joint Stock Companies. 2nd Edition. By D. Pitcaibx and P. L. Latham. Svo. 2Is. cloth. Shelford's Law of Railways. 4th edit. By W. C. Grlen, Esq. In 2 vols. Royal Svo. 6Ss. cloth. Ing-ram's Law of Compensation for Lands and Houses, 2nd Edition. By Elmes. Post Svo. 12s. cloth. Coote's Admiralty Practice, 2nd Edition, with Forms and Tables of Costs. Svo. 16s. cloth. Bainbridg-e's Mines and Minerals, 4th Edition, 45s. cloth. Trower's Church, Parscna-ge s.nd Schools Building- Laws, continued to 1874. Post Svo. 8s. cloth. Sir Robert Phillimore's International La-w. 3rd Edition. Vol. 1, 24s. cloth. Vol. 2, 26s. cloth. Vol. 3, 36s. cloth. Vol. 4, 36s, cl. Hunt's La-w of Boundaries and Fences and Rights of "Waters. 3rd Edition. By Aschibald Bbowv, Esq. 14s. cloth. Dixon's Law of Partnership. Svo, 2Ss. cloth, Tudor's Leading Cases on Real Property, Conveyancing, "Wills and Deeds. 3rd Edition. Royal Svo. 21. 12s. 6d. cloth. For complete Catalogue, see end of this Book. >^^ I .513 OP llarliamentatB antr iWunicipal REGISTRATION CASES. SECOND EDITION. A DIGEST OF PAELIAMENTAKY AND MUNICIPAL CONTAINING AN ABSTRACT OF THE CASES DECIDED ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISIONS OF REVISING BARRISTERS DI'RING THE PERIOD COMMENCING 1843 AND ENDING 1891. ^eronti iHtrition, ]V///i SUPPLEMENTS bringing the Cases dotvn to end of the year 1891. BY JOHN JAMES HEATH ^SATNT, Esq., B.A., Of the Inner Temple and Midland Circuit, Barrlster-cit-Laiv, Recorder of Leicester, Author of "Saint's Manual of Eegistrnlion." LONDON : BUTTERWORTHS, 7, FLEET STREET, ICato ^ufiltsf)crs to tl)c (J^uccn's most atdlcnt Jinnjcsti). DUBLIN: HODGES, FIGGIS k CO., GRAFTON STREET. CALCUTTA: THACKER, SPINK & CO. MELBOURNE: G. ROBERTSON & CO. MANCHESTER : IMEREDITH, RAY & LITTLER. EDINBURGH: T. & T. CLARK; BELL & BRADFUTE. 1892 18 0CT.^^^ LONDON PEINTBB BY C. F. KOWOETII, GEKAT NEW 8TEBET, FETTEE LANE. PREFACE. vi Encouraged by the favourable reception accorded t/> to my "Digest of Registration Cases," and having ^ regard to the changes effected by recent legisla- cation relating to the Franchise and the Registra- tion of Voters, I venture to think that a new Edition of the Work may be of use to Revising Barristers and others concerned in the business of Registration. Acting on this view, I have compiled the present OT Edition, in which the arrangement and classifica- '^ tion of Cases are in substantial conformity with ^ those in the former Edition. But, the Occupation Qualification in Counties and Boroughs having (by virtue of 48 Vict. c. 3) become assimilated, I have (in reporting cases decided on the Occupation Franchise since 1884) discontinued the use of distinctive headings indi- cating the Occupation Franchise in Counties and c3 Boroughs respectively, and have substituted the o general term of " Occupation Franchise under g 48 Vict. c. 3." a8sn38 VI rilEFACE. In order to obviate au inconvenience which was pointed Out to me in the former Edition, I have (in compiling the Table of Cases) caused the figures denoting a page or pages containing the report of a case to appear in larger type than the figures denoting a page, which contains merely a reference to the particular case. The size of the volume has been necessarily enlarged ; but I trust not inconveniently so. To the above remarks I wish to add an expres- sion of my acknowledgment of the very useful suggestions which I have received from my friend, Mr. Octavius J. Williamson, of 9, Stone Buildings, Lincoln's Inn. JOHN J. H. SAINT. 9, King's Bench Walk, Templk, August, 1887. CONTENTS. Table of Cases Table of Abbreviations . PAGE ix — xxi xxiii, xxiv County Franchise — Freeholds . County Franchise — Other Tenures than Freehold County Franchise — Terms . County Franchise — Occupation (50^, Eental) County Franchise — Occupation (12Z. Eate^ able Value) Borough Franchise — Occupation . Borough Franchise — Eeserved Eights Borough Franchise — Lodgings . Occupation Franchise under 48 Vict. c. 3 including Claihs for the same Notices of Claim — Counties . Notices of Claim — Boroughs Notices of Objection — Counties . Notices of Objection — Boroughs Declarations for correcting Misdbscrip TioN in List 1—81 82—85 86—92 93—95 96—98 99—163 164—175 176—183 184—216 217—225 226—233 234—258 259—302 303—305 Vlll CONTENTS. PAGE Sufficiency of Description in Lists of Voters 306—329 Eating and Payment of Eates . . . 330 — 365 Assessed Taxes 366 — 368 Creating Votes 369 — 374 Personal Disqualifications . . . 375 — 395 Lists of Voters 396—402 Boundaries 403—408 Practice 409—444 Costs of Appeal 445 — 449 INDEX 451—472 ( ix ) TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Abel v. Lee 356, 357 Acland v. Lewis 24, 25 Adams v. Bostock 300, 301 V. Ford 205—207 V. Gamble 72 V Harris 133, 134 Adey i\ Hill 422 Agnew V. Campbell 425, 435 V. Fowler 431, 435 V. Reilly 354 Ainsworth v. Creeke 351, 352 Aldridge v. Medwin 291 Aldworth v. Dore 427, 428 Alexander v. Newman 369, 370, 371, 372, 373, 374 AUan V. Waterhoiise . . . .259, 260, 411, 412, 416, 421, 434 Allen V. Geddes 292 V. Greensill 269, 270 f. House 264, 265 , Re 397 V. The Town Clerk of Warrington 292 Ancketill v. Baylis 160, 161 Anelay v. Lewis 20 Asbmore v. Lees 5 — 7, 414, 416 Ashworth v. Hopper 59, 60 Astbury v. Henderson 19 Atkinson v. Collard. . . .184— 189, 190, 191, 194, 197, 199, 203 Att.-Gen. v. Pearson 26 Austin V. CiUl 358, 359 Autey V. Topham 409,421 Bage V. Perkins 415, 416, 429, 430, 434 Baker v. Locke 338, 341, 342 Bakewell v. Peters 177, 178 X TABLE OF CASES. PAOE Ballard v. Robins 400, 401 Bane and others, In re 225, 441, 442 Banks v. Mansell 212—215 Barclay v. Parrott 278 Barlow v Mumford 230 Barnes v. Peters 177, 178 Barrow v. Buckmaster 18, C8 Bartlett v. Gibbs 306 Barton v. Ashley 241, 265, 266 V. Birmingham 330, 350, 35G, 364 Baxter v. Brown 3 — 5 V. Doncaster 376, 377 V. Newman 3 — 5 Bayley v. Nantwich 217, 218 Beal V. Ford 173, 174 Beamish v. Stoke 13—15, 30, 52 Beam v. Watson 66 — 68 Beauchamp, Earl of v. Madresfield 385 Beenlen v. Hockin 269 Beeson v. Burton 16, 17 Bendle v. Watson 318, 319 Benesh v. Booth 285, 416, 420, 434 Bennett v. Atkins 364, 365, 415 V. Blain 5, 31, 32, 39 V. Brumfitt 290 V. (Alder.son's case) 249, 250 — V. (Ashcroft's case) 439 Berry v. Harris 134 Beswick v. Aked 372 V. Alker 55 V. Ashworth 372 Bickley v. Tucker 123, 124 Birch V. Edwards 238 Birks V. Allison (Brisby's case) 314 V. (Dixon's case) 315 Bishop V. Cox 237 V. Helps 218, 236, 237, 240, 241, 243, 279 V. Jones 348, 349 V. Smedley 335 BLiin V. PUkington 399, 400 Blosse V. Wheatley 323 BoUen v. Southall 301, 302 TABLE OF CASES. XI PAGE Bond V. St. George's, Hanover Square 179 Boon V. Howard 361—363 Boxall V. Bailey 197—199 Bradley v. Baylis 152—155, 157, 159, 161, 162 Brewer v. McGowen 139 Bridgewater v. Durant 124, 125 Bright V. Devenish 289 Brown v. Tamplin 240, 241 Brumfitt V. Bremner 397—399 ■ V. Roberts 48, 49, 50, 439, 440 Buckley v. Wrigley 52 Bulmer v. Norris 24 Burton v. Aston 11 r. Blake 431 V. Brooks 12, 13, llo, 431 V. Cove 431 V. Geiy 93, 94, 311, 312, 415 V. Langhani 94, 95 Bushell V. Eastes 28, 29 V. Luckett 334 Busher v. Thompson 8, 9, 420 Calver v. Roberts 235, 252, 253 Capel V. Aston 11, 12 Gaunter v. Addams 340, 341 Chilcott V. Bullen 68, 69 Chorlton v. Johnson (Bunting's case) 87, 88 V. (Ree's case) 249 V. Kessler 385 V. Lings 383, 384 V. Stretford 91, 92 ». Tonge 253, 254 Clarke v. Beaton 422 -V. Brown 350, 351 V. Biuy St. Edmunds 118, 119 Collier v. King 25—27 Collins V. Thomas 118 Colvill V. Lewis 266, 418, 420 V. Wood 109 Colville V. Rochester 414 Coogan V. Luckett 108, 109 XU TABLE OF CASES, PAGE Cook «'. Humber ....101, 104, 105, 106, 111, 125, 126, 127, 131, 177, 311 V. Luckett 337 Cooke V. Butler 96, 97 Cooper V. Ashfield 313, 314 V. Coates 411, 412 V. Gordon 27 V. Harris (Austin's case) ... .375, 414, 415, 429, 431 V. (Clenisliaw's case) 377, 378 Copland v. Bartlett 10, 30, -52 Cotton V. Prall (Akenhead's case) 285, 286 V. (Frankenstein's case) 286 Crocker v. Lambeth 415, 416, 430 Cross V. Alsop 176, 354—356, 364 Croucher v. Browne 166, 167, 416 Crowtlier v. Bradney 282 Cull V. Austin 358, 359 Cullcn V. Morris 168 Cuming i\ Toms 260, 261 Curtis V. Blight 279—281 Cuthbertson v. Butterworth 137 V. Hains 176, 352, 353 Daking v. Fraser 305 Daniel v. Camplin 308, 309 V. Coulstiiig 105, 106, 308 Dashwood v. Ayles 326, 327 Davies v. Hopkins 182, 221, 222, 223, 225 Davis V. Waddingtou 1 Dawson v. Robins 61 De Boinville v. Arnold 379, 380 Devenish v. Digby 380 Dewhui'st V. Fielden 107 Dobson V. Jones 102, 103 Dodds V. Thompson 39, 40 Donoghue v. Byrne 190 V. Ritchie 190 Doulon V. Halse 393, 394 Down V. Steele 406, 407 Downing v. Luckett 112 Druitt r. Christchiu-ch 67, 70, 73, 74 TABLE OF CASES. Xlll PAGK Druitt V. Laue 70, 443, 444 Durant v. Carter 146, 147 V. Fletcher 361 . V. Keunett 141, 142 V. Withers 360, 361 Dyer v. Gough 375, 376, 377 Eaden v. Cooper 228, 229 Eckersley v. Barker 307, 308 Eidsfoith V. Farrer 268, 269 Elliott r. St. Mary Within 218-220, 416, 420 EUia V. Burch 145, 146 Farrer v. Edsworth 288, 269 Faulkner v. Boddington 20, 21 Feddon v. Sawyers 275 Femie v. Scott 53 — 55 Firth V. Widdicorabe-in-the-Moor 222, 223 Flatcher v. Boodle 344—346 Flint V. Sharp 242 Flounders v. Donner 227 Force v. Floud 283, 284 Ford V. Barnes 203, 204, 216 V. Boon 230, 231 V. Drew 174, 175 V. ELmsley 204 v. Harington 140, 141, 171, 172, 413 V. Hart 172, 173 V. Hoar 321, 322, 325 V. Pardoe 190 t;. Pye 147, 148 V. Smedley 366, 367 V. Smedon 444 V. Smerdon 190 Foskett V. Kaufman 303, 304, 306, 321, 322, 324, 325 Foster and others v. Medwin 403—405, 408 Fowle V. Trevor 150, 151, 1-52 Fox V. DaUy 148—150 V. Davies 338, 339 V. Shaston St. Peter, Shaftesbury 338, 339, 414 XIV TA15I.E OF CASES. PAGE Freeman v. Gainsfrml (re Lonl Slirewnbury's Hospital) . , 6, 27, 28, ;55 ■ V. (re Sheffield Music Hall) 39 V. Newman 257, 258 French v. Tucker 123, 124 Friend v. Towers 320, 321 Frisby v. Black 81 Fryer v. Bodenham 137, 138 Gadsby v. Barrow 93 V. Warbiirton 234, 235, 413 Gainsford v. Freeman 86, 87, 90 Gale V. Chubb 168, 169 Garbutt v. Trevor 82—85 Gaydon v. Bencraft 170, 171 Gilham v. Harris 131, 132, 134 Godsell V. Innous 240, 241 Grant v. Pagham 388—390 Green v. Mepham 293, 294, 396 Greenway v. Batchelor (Aldridge's case) 162 V. (Jacob's case) 163 V. Hockin 50 Gregoiy v. Turner 414, 438 Grover v. Bontems 424 Hains v. Cuthbertson 176, 353 HaU V. Cropper 295—297 V. Lewis 29, 30 Hamilton v. Bass 15 Hanks v. Jones 348, 349 Hannaford v. Whiieway 276, 277 Hargreaves v. Hopper 383, 386 Harris v. Amery 135, 136 Harrison v. Carter (Cook's case) 387, 388 V. (Port's case) 387, 388 Hayden v. Twerton , 7, 8, 58 Hayward v. Scott 390, 391 Heartley v. Banks 28, 35, 121, 122 Heath v. Haynes 119, 120 Heelis v. Blain 35, 36, 75 TABLE OF CASES. XV PAGE Henrette r. Booth 127, 177 Herbert v. Chatham 194—197 Hersant v. Halse 182, 183, 222 Hickton v. Antrobus 237 Hinde v. Chorlton 42, 43, 50 Hinton v. Hinton 262 V. Wenlock 412 Hitchins v. Brown 226, 417 Hodges r. Harris 132, 133, 134, 135 Honeybone v. Hambridge 394, 395 Homsby v. Robson 241, 242, 243 Hewitt V. Stephens 312, 313 Hoyland v. Bremner 370 Huckle V. Piper 96 Huggett V. Lewis 275, 276 Hughes V. Chatham 99, 100, 330 James v. Howarth 297, 298 v. Smith 245 Jarvis v. Peele 169, 170, 430 r. The Town Clerk of Shrewsbury 430 JeflPery v. Kitchener 165, 166 Jessop V. Ipswich 434 Jolliffe V. Rice 113, 114 Jones V. Bubb 346 V. Friend 325 r. Innous 240, 241 . V. Jones 247, 248, 315 V. MarshaU 425, 440 V. Pritchard 250 V. Reeve 407, 408 Judson V. Luckett 311, 337, 338 Kirby v. Biffen 154, 157—159 Kirton v. Dear 46 Knowles v. Brooking 266, 267, 268 Lambert v. St. Thomas, New Sarum 239 Lawe V. Maillard 449 Lee V. Bradford 367, 368 f. Hutchinson 12 Leonard v. Alloways 223, 253 XVI TAHI.K OF CASES. PAOE Lewis V. EvaiiH 256, 257 V. Roberts 244 Little V. Penrith 359, 360 Lowcock V. Broug-liton 35, 74, 75 Lowiy V. Collard 190, 191 Luckett 1^. Bright 107, 108 V. Gilder 433, 434 V. Gollop 433, 434 V. Knowles 310 V. Voller 433, 434 L3^nch V. Wheatley 323 McGarrill v. Whitehaven 391—393 McGowan v. Coleman 190 McKillop V. Griffith 71, 72, 73 McQuillan v. Solomon 191—194 Marshall v. Bown 369, 370 Mashiter v. Dunn 378, 379 Mason v. Bennett 347, 348 V. Harris 132, 134 Mather r. Allendale 315, 316 Medwin v. Streeter 353, 354 Melbourne v. Greenfield 235, 243, 244, 253, 267 Meyler v. Metcalfe 121 Mills V. Cobb 41, 68 Minifie v. Banger 328, 329 Moffit V. Collard 190 Moger V. Escott 357, 358 Moon V. Andrew 290, 291 Moore v. Carisbrooke 16 r. Salford 438, 439 Moorhouse v. Gilbertson 18, 19 Morfee v. Novis 154, 156, 157 Morgan v. Parry 396 Mortlock V. Farrer 294, 295, 296 Morton v. Palmer 161 Moss V. Lichfield , 332 Muldowney v. Malcolmson 354 Murray v. Thorniley 7, 58, 70 Myers v. Perigal 5 Nettleton v. Burrell 413, 414 Newton v. Crowley 374 TABLE OF CASES, XVU PAGE Newton v. Hargreaves 372, 373 V. Mobberley 373, 374, 418, 428 NichoUs V. Bulwer 316, 317 Nicks V. Field 167, 168, 416, 423 Norris V. Hastings (Andrew's case) 349 V. (Imeson's case) 350 V. PUcher 251, 252, 271 Non-ish v. Harris 135 Norton v. Salisbury 422, 423 Nosewortby r. Buckland-in-the-Moor 255, 256 Nunn V. Denton 103, 414 Nuth V. Tamplin 180, 181 O'Flalierty v. Chambers 190 Oldham 397 Onions v. Bowdler 312 Oram v. Cole 284, 285 Ormerod v. Chadwick 338 O'Sullivan v. Collard 190 Paddon V. Whiteway 277, 278 Palmer v. AHen 114, 115, 416, 420, 425—427 Pariente v. Luckett 336 Passingham v. Pitty 19, 20 Peele v. Downes 99 V. Hinton 410 V. Williams 99 Perowne v. Peters 177, 178 Perry v. Shipway 27 Petherbridge v. Ash 421 Phillips V. Salmon 61, 62 Pickard v. Baylis 181, 231—233 Piercy v. Maclean 142 — 144 Pitts z-. Smedley 13, 104, 105, 106, 111, 125, 415 Points V. Attwood 272—274 Porrett v. Lord 303, 304, 325 Porter and others v. Clarke and others 27 S. b XVIU TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Powell v. Boraston 113, 130, 131 v. Bradley 383, 386 V. CasweU 374, 375, 414,429 V. Farmer 129 V. Gue§t 128 V. Jones 343, 344 V. Price 110 V. Pugh „ , , 344 Pownall V. Dawson 117 V. Hood 414, 430, 431 Pring V. Estcourt 416, 419, 421, 422, 423, 424 Prior V. Waring 4, 136, 159, 427, 432 Proctor V. Annison 82 Proudfoot V. Barnes 287 Prout V. Harris 133, 134 Pruen v. Cox 236 Rawlins v. Bremner 372 V. West Derby 217, 417 Reg. V. Ireland 381 V. Mayor of Belfast c 121 V. The Justices of Salop 422 Rendlesham, Lord v. Haward 386 Lord V. Tabor 386 Rex V. Newcomb 338 Riley v. Crossley 372 Roberts v. Drewitt 33, 34 V. Murphy 199—203 V. Percival 34, 35, 59, 138, 253 Robinson v. Ainge 44 • V. Dunkley 15, 30, 31, 52 Robson V. Brown , 4, 136, 432 Rogers v. Harvey 120, 121 V. Lewis 339, 357 RoUeston v. Cope 10, 13, 15, 30, 51, 52 Sale, In re 222, 223—225, 442, 443 Salisbury, Marquis of v. Bontems 385 TABLE OF CASES. XIX PAGE Salisbury, Marquis of v. Bulwer 385 V. South Mims 385 Samuel v. Hitchmough 281 Sanders v. Searson 97, 98 V. Smith 65, 66 Sandwich case, The 382 Sargent v. Rodd 298, 299 Score V. Huggett 104, 105, 125 Scott V. Durant 435, 438 Sedgwick v. Neville 190 V. Trevor 246 Sheddon v. Butt 412, 416, 432 Sheldon v. Flatcher 238, 270, 271, 289 Sherlock v. Steward 23 Sherwin v. Whyman 319, 441 Sibbald v. Roderick 338 Simey v. Dixon 254, 255 V. MarshaU 56,57 Simpson t: Wilkinson 2, 3, 34, 35, 138, 409 Smerdon v. Tucker 123, 124 Smith f. Foreman 95 V. Hall 381—383 V. HoUoway 247 V. Huggett 245, 278, 279 V. James 245 V. 248 V. Lancaster 139, 140 V. SeghiU 330, 356, 364 V. Woolston 63 Speight, In re 449 Spencer v. Harrison 64, 65 Spittall V. Brook 215, 216 Stanton v. Jeffery 166 Steele v. Bosworth 32 Stothard v. Pui-cell 190 Stowe V. JoUiffe -. 391 Stribling v. Halse 207—209 Tanner v. Carter 209—211 V. Castor 209—211 62 XX TABLE OF CASES. PAGE Taylor v. Meads 72 V. St. Mary Abbotts, Kensington 178, 179 Tapper v. NichoUs 36—38, 53, 248 Thackway v. Pilcher 288, 289 Thompson v. "Ward 144, 145, 146 Tbomiley v. Aspland 372 TUston V. Bott 190 Tomsv. Cuming 261, 262 V. Luckett 104, 111, 125 Townshend v. St. Mary-le-bone 317, 318 Trenfield v. Lowe 44—46 Trevor v. Fowle 151, 152 Trotter v. Trevor (Anderson's case) 348, 349 V. 380, 381 V. Walker (Aylan's case) 245, 246 V. (Hallam's case) 246 V. Watson 88-90 Tudball V. Bristol 259, 289 Vance's case 87 Wadmore v. Aries 53 V. Dear 38, 53 Walker v. Payne 310 Wallis V. Birks 47 Wanklyn v. WooUett ...,8, 151, 168, 233, 238, 297, 304, 419, 424, 425, 435 Wansey v. Perkins (HiU's case) 104, 106, 125, 416, 430 V. (Lockey's case) 333 V. (Quigley's case) 263, 264 V. St. Peter-lo-Poor 415 Warbnrton v. Denton 90, 91 Watson V. Black 75—81 V. Cotton 112, 113, 129, 131 V. Pitt 271, 272 Webb V. Aston, near Birmingham 410 V. Aston 86 Webster v. Ashton-under-Lyne (Hadfield's case) .... 58, 59 TABLE OF CASES. XXI PAGE Webster v. Ashton-under-Lyne (Orme's case) 57, 58 Wella V. Stanforth 401, 402 West V. Robson 7, 21—23, 68, 414, 432, 433 White V. Prmg 116, 117, 416, 429, 430, 434 Wbithom v. Thomas 164, 165, 410, 413 Whitmore v. Bedford 99, 410 Wills r. Adey 267, 268 Wilson V. Roberts 126 V. Salford 438, 439 Wood V. Hopper 60 V. Wniesden 309 WooUett V. Davis 237, 238 Wright V. Stockport 101, 331 ( xxiii ) TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS. Ad. & E Adolphus and Ellis (Queen's Bench) Reports. Alcock R. C. R. . . Alcock's Registry Cases Reserved (Ireland). B. & Am Barrow and Arnold's Election and Registra- tion Cases. Co. Litt Coke upon Littleton. C. B Common Bench Reports. C. B., N. S Common Bench Reports, New Series. Com. L. R Common Law Reports. De Gr. M. & G. . .De Gex, Macnaughten and Gordon's Chan- cery Reports. Giff Giffard's Reports (Chancery). H. & C Hopwood and Coltman's Registration Cases- H. & P Hopwood and PhUbrick's Registration Cases. H. & R Harrison and Rutherfurd's Reports. Ir. Ch. Rep Irish Chancery Reports. Ir. C. L. R Iiish Common Law Reports. Ir. Jut. 0. S Irish Jurist, Old Series. Ir.R. C. L. Q. B. . . Irish Reports, Common Law Series (Queen's Bench). Joum Journals of the House of Commons. Jut Jurist Reports. Jur. N. S Jurist Reports, New Series. K. & G Keane and Grant's Registration Cases. L. J. Ch Law Journal Reports, Chancery. L. J. C. P Law Journal Reports, Common Pleas. L. J. C. P. D Law Journal Reports, Common Pleas Di- vision. L. J. Q. B. D. ..Law Journal Reports, Queen's Bench Di- vision. L. R. Ch. Ap. . .Law Reports, Chancery Appeals. XXIV TABLE OF ABBREVIATIONS. L. R. C. P Law Reports, Common Pleas. L. R. C. P. D. . .Law Reports, Common Pleas Division. L. R. Eq. Cas. . . Law Reports, Equity Cases. L. R. Q. B Law Reports, Queen's Bench. L. R. Q. B. D. . .Law Reports, Queen's Bench Diyision. L. R. W. N Law Reports, Weekly Notes. L. T Law Times. L. T., N. S Law Times, New Series. Lutw Lutwyche's Registration Cases. M. & G Manning and Granger's (Common Pleas) Reports. M. & "W Meeson and Welsby's (Exchequer) Reports. Meriv Meri vale's (Chancery) Reports. N. & P Neville and Perry's Reports. O'M. & H O'Malley and Hardcastle's Reports of Elec- tion Petitions. Scott N. R Scott's New (Common Pleas) Reports. Scott Fox's Reg. Cas Scott Fox's Registration Cases. Sim Simon's Reports (Chancery). Stark. N. P. C. . .Starkie's Nisi Prius Cases. W. R Weekly Reporter. DIGEST OF PAELIAMENTAEY AND MUNICIPAL COUNTY FRANCHISE— FEEEHOLDS. Jnmates of Jesus Hospitcd, Rothicelly being removable at the icill of the goverjiors, have no vote in resjject of the premises theij occupy. North Northamptonshire. D. and B. claimed votes each in respect of a freehold interest in Jesus Hospital, Rothwell. They held appointments, D. as principal, and B. as ordinary inmate, of the hospital, and as such were severally provided with premises therein, the premises of each being of more than the annual value of 40.S'. By letters patent, dated 38 Eliz., the hospital was incorporated, and its governors were empowered by the charter of incorporation to appoint, expel, and remove, the principal and inmates " as often as should seem fit to them or the greater nmnber of them." The governors were further empowered by the charter to make bye-laws, which they accordingly did. Such bye-laws distinctly recognized the existence of the general power of expulsion and removal €ontained in the terms of the charter. No case of expulsion was on record. Held, that the claimants' estate, being determin- able at the discretion of the governors, was insufficient to give them the county franchise : Davis v. Waci- isfo>-d, 11 C. B., N. S. 6S, post, pp. 27, 28. COT-XTY FRANCHISE FKEEHOLDS. 7 two counties was apportionable (a) : AsJimore v. Lees^ 2 C. B. 31; 1 Lutw. 337; 15 L. J. C. P. 65; 9 Jur. 1109. Grantee of rent-charge {b) at common law not entitled to he registered, unless he has had, for requisite jjeriod, a 2^ossession in fact as contradistinguished from a possession in law. North Cheshire. A. and B. were on the list of voters, each in respect of an " undivided share of freehold rent-charge." The rent-charge (annual value £6 3s.) was con- veyed to A. and B., and their heirs, by a deed dated 29th January, 1845, having been created by a deed dated 28th January, 1845, whereby the fii'st payment was to become due 1st January, 1846. Held, that the words " actual possession " in 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26, meant a possession in fact, as contradistinguished from a possession in law, and, therefore, that A. and B., not having been in receipt of the rent for six calendar months next previous to 31st July, 1845, were not entitled to be registered in that year: Murray v. Thorniki/, 2 C. B. 217; 1 Lutw. 496; 15 L. J. C. P. 155"; 10 Jur. 270; B. & Arn. 742. Assignee of rent-charge (b) by virtue of a conveyance ope- rating at common law not entitled to be registered, unless he has been in actual possession thereof for six months next 2^>'cvious to 31st July preceding the revision. East Somersetshire. Fifty persons claimed to be registered, each in respect of an undivided share of a freehold rent- charge. («) See West v. Robson, 3 C. B., N. S. 422, post. {b) The rent-charge qualification was, with some exceptions, and with a savnjig of existing rights, abolished by the Kepre- sentation of the People Act, 18S4 ; see sections 4 and 10 of that Act. 8 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The rent-charge (£100 per annum) was originally created in 1838, in favom- of one N., his heirs and assigns. It had been regularly paid up to 29th September, 1845. On 19th January, 1846, N. con- veyed all his interest in the said rent-charge to T., F., and J. (being three of the claimants), their heirs and assigns ; and, upon the same day, an indenture was executed between the said T., F., and J., and forty-seven other persons (the remainder of the claimants), whereby it appeared that T., F., and J., held the rent-charge in trust for themselves and the forty-seven other persons, and their respective heirs and assigns as tenants in common. The first payment of rent which became due after the execution of the conveyance was for the half year ending 25th March, 1846, and was paid to the parties entitled thereto (the claimants) on 29th April following. Held, that the claimants had not been in the " actual possession " of the rent- charge for the six months next previous to the last day of July, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26, and were, therefore, not entitled to be registered : Haydcn (a) v. Ticcvton, 4 C. B. 1 ; 1 Lutw. 510 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 88 ; 10 Jur. 950. Vote conferred hy customary freehold. "Westmoreland. The appellant was on the list of claimants in respect of " one-third share of burgage houses and garden." He was one of the owners of certain houses within the township and within the limits of the ancient borough of Kirkby-in-Kendal. The houses were of burgage tenure, and the appellant's interest in their annual value exceeded 406., but was less than £10. (rt) The heading of the above iippetil (4 C. B. 1) was "James George Haydon on behalf of Thomas Serel;" see Wanhh/n v. ll'oolktt, 4 C. B. 8G, and the note {a) to tliat case, 2^ost, "Practice." COUNTY FRA^'CHISE FREEHOLDS. "J The burgage tenements within the borough (of which there were many) had always been conveyed by deed of grant, or bargain and sale, without livery of seisin, and without a lease for a year, or any inrolment. No surrender or admittance was, how- ever, required, nor was any fine paid on descent or ahenation. There was no record of courts baron, or customary courts, having ever been held within the township, though a tradition existed that such courts were formerly held, and that upon every change of a tenant of a burgage tenement, a " Grod's-penny " was paid, but no fine. The mode of descent of such burgage tenements followed the common law, except that, instead of females inheriting as co-parceners, the eldest inherited to the exclusion of the rest. The custom with regard to femes covert had always been, that husband and wife have conveyed the burgage tenements of the wife, without any separate examination of the latter ; and that, upon the death of a person dying seised of a burgage tenement, and leaving a widow, such widow, instead of her dower at common law, had the whole of the burgage tene- ments of which her husband died seised, and retained them during her chaste viduity. The burgage tenements were devisable as ordinary freeholds, and they were held subject only to the payment of certain fixed annual rents payable to some individual. The o\\Tiers of these bm-gage tenements voted in. respect of them at the county elections in 1818, 1820, 1826, and 1832. Held, that in the absence of evidence showing the freehold to be in any one else, it must (notwith- standing the peculiarity of some of the incidents of tenure specified in the case) be presumed to be in the appellant, and, the value being sufiicient, he was therefore entitled to be registered : Buaher v. Thomp- son, 4 C. B. 48 ; 1 Lutw. 551 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 57 ; 11 Jur. 45. 10 DIGEST OF PARLIA^IE^^TARY REGISTRATION CASES. Periodical lyaymcntfi (a) to huUdi)ig society, a charge reducing annual value of freehold as againM mortgagor in jwssession. South Essex. B. was on tlie list of freehold voters for the parish of Springfield. He was a member of a building society established under 6 & 7 Will. lY. c. 32, and he held therein one share and a half, for which he had to pay 15s. a month to the society (£9 a year) . More than six months before the 31st of July, 1848, he purchased in fee simple a cottage and garden in Springfield, of the annual value of £8. The purchase-money (£65) was advanced by the society, to whom B. mortgaged the premises, to secure the monthly payments becoming due on his shares. In default of such payments for three successive months, the society was entitled, under the mort- gage, to enter and retain possession of the premises until payment of arrears. But B. was to enjoy the property until such default, and he had never been a defaulter in making his payments. The revising barrister was of opinion that the annual value of the property (£8) was reduced by the charge of 15.s. a month below the amount of 4:0s. a year ; and he expunged B.'s name from the list. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the monthly payments were a " charge " within 8 Hen. YI. c. 7, and that, the annual value of the property being reduced thereby below 406-., B., although a mortgagor in possession (G Yict. c. 18, s. 74), was not entitled to the franchise : Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18; 2 Lutw. 102 ; 18 L. J. 0. B. 50; 13 Jur. 127; 12L. T. 243. [a) In this case no distinction was drawn between periodical payments of interest on the purchase-money, and periodical pay- ments in reduction of the purchase-money itself. It is now settled that of these payments the former alone are a charge to be deducted in ascertaining the annual value of the property: see liollcston V. Cope, L. E. 6 C. P. 292, post, pp. 51, 52. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 11 Owner and occupier of freehold land {of clear annual value o/"40.s.) icithin a parUamentarij borough, not deprived of countij franchm by reason of his occu- pying, as tenant, a house (by itself of less, but together with the land of more, than the annual value of £10) uithin same borough. North Warwickshire. B. claimed to be in- serted in the list of voters in respect of " freehold building land." The claimant was the owner and occupier of free- hold land of the clear annual value of 40s., in the parish of Aston, and also occupied, as tenant, a house (value less than £10 a year) in the parish of Birmingham at a distance from the land. Both house and land were within the parliamen- tary borough of Birmingham, and, taken together, were of sufficient value to give a vote for the borough. Held, that as B. occupied the land as owner and the house as tenant, the value of the land could not be added to that of the house so as to qualify him for a borough vote under 2 Will. lY. c. 45, s. 27 {a), and, consequently, that he was entitled to be regis- tered for the county in respect of the land : Burton, V. Aston, 8 C. B. 7 ; 2 Lutw. 143 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 28 ; 14 L. T. 272. OwnQT and occupier of freehold land [of clear annual value of 4:0s.) icithin a parliamentary borough, not deprived of county franchise by reason of his occupying, as tenant, a house {of clear annual value of iJlO) icithin same borough. North Warwickshire. C. claimed to be in- serted in the list of voters in respect of " freehold building land." The claimant owned and occupied freehold land of the clear annual value of 406-., in the parish of Aston, and also occupied, as tenant, a house (worth more than £10 a year) in the parish of Birmingham at a («) See note {b), post, on p. 103. 12 DIGEST OF PAliLlAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. ■ distance from the land. Both house and land were within the parliamentary borough of Birmingham. Held, that as C. occupied the land as oicner, and the house as tenant, he did not come within section 24 of 2 Will. lY. c. 45, as explained by section 27 of that Act, and consequently, was entitled to be registered for the county in respect of the land : Capel V. Aston, 8 C. B. 1 ; 2 Lutw. 143 ; 19 L. J. C. P. 28 ; 14 L. T. 272. Interest on a loan, the repayment of which is secured hy mortgage of land, a charge in deduction of value of the land, although such interest he not secured hy the mortgage. East Surrey. The respondent was mortgagor in possession of certain freehold land, which was of the annual value of £5. He had mortgaged the estate in 1846, to secure the repayment of a loan of £100. The mortgage was expressed to be made as a secu- rity for the principal sum only, and did not extend ta the interest thereon. The time for repaying the principal sum had ex- pired ; but the respondent had regularly paid interest on the loan at 5 per cent, per annum ever since the date of the mortgage. Held, that the interest paid by the respondent, being in fact a condition of his remaining in possession, was a "charge" within the meaning of 8 Hen. YI. c. 7, and, consequently, that the respondent, not having a freehold estate of the clear annual value of 40.S'. above all charges, was not entitled to the county franchise : Lee v. Hutchinson, 8 C. B. 16 ; 2 Lutw. 159 ; 20 L. J. C. P. 4 ; 16 L. T. 283. Sufficiency of evidence to prove a life interest, a question for revising harrister. The court draics conclusion of law from his finding. South Northamptonshire. The respondent was on the list of voters in respect of a " freehold interest in a house and garden." COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 13 He was the minister of a dissenting congregation, and stated (a) that he held his office for life. He occupied a house and garden, value exceeding 40-s, a year, by consent of trustees, in whom the legal estate therein was vested by deed ; which deed, bearing date 24th July, 1844, contained among others the following trusts : — " To permit," one D., the then minister, " for his life, if he should so long continue the minister, and after his death, or his ceasing to be the minister, to permit the minister for the time being to reside in the said premises without paying any rent." The revising barrister having, on objection, decided in favour of the respondent's vote. The court, assuming that the barrister was satisfied on the evidence before him that the respondent had his appointment for life, and there being no appeal on questions of fact, held, that the respondent's interest in the house and garden was a freehold interest entitling him to the franchise : Burton v. Brooh^, 11 C. B. 41 ; 2 Lutw. 197 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 7 ; 16 Jur. 569. Beriodkal paymeni^ (b) to huilding society in respect of both principal and interest, a charge reducing annual value of freehold as against mortgagor in 2)ossessio)K North "Warwickshire. The appellant was objected to on the list of freehold voters for the parish of Stoke. He was a member of, and held three shares in, a building society established under 6 & 7 Will. IV. €. 32. (a) See FUfs v. Smedktj, 7 M. & G. 85, and the note {a) to that case, post, " Practice." [h) The law in relation to these periodical payments has now been declared to be otherwise than as here stated ; see Jlolleston v. Cope, L. R. 6 C. P. 292, post, pp. 51, 52. 14 DIGEST OF PAKIJAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. By the rules of the society every member was hound to pay Is. (id. weekly for each of his shares, and, upon receiving an advance from the society, to execute to the trustees thereof a mortgage to secure to them the following payments : — 1. The amount of the member's debt to the society. 2. A premium for prior advances, equal to 5 per cent, per annum on the amount advanced until repaid. 3. Such sum, not exceeding 2s. 6d. per share per annum for incidental expenses, as the committee should fix. The rules fuiiher required that the mortgage should reserve to the trustees a power of sale, in case the member should fail for twenty-six weekly meet- ings to pay his subscriptions, or observe the regula- tions of the society. In October, 1850, the appellant purchased some freehold land in Stoke, value £6 per annum. The society having advanced to him the amount of the purchase-money, expenses, &c. (£84 14.s.), he mortgaged the land to the trustees, according to the above rules. No default having been made in the payment of his contributions, the appellant had always been, and still was, in possession of the property. The sum due from him to the society on 30th January, 1851, was £47 10s. 3d. Since that time the appellant's weekly payments of 4.s. 6d. for his three shares, amounting to £11 14-5. per annum, had been appropriated by the society thus : — In part liquidation of the principal Premium or interest on amount of prin cipal remaining unpaid Incidental expenses of working the society £ s. d. - 8 18 - 2 10 7 6 £11 14 COrNTY FRA>'CHISE — FREEHOLDS. 15 It was contended before the revising bamster, that only so much of the above amount as represented interest and working expenses (£2 IQs.) was to be deducted from the annual value of the property The barrister was of opinion that the entii"e sum of £11 14.s\ was a charge uiDon the estate, and that the annual value thereof was thus reduced below 40s., and he therefore expunged the appellant's name from the list. The court affirmed the decision : Beamish v. Stoke y 11 C. B. 29 ; 2 Lutw. 189 ; 21 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 16 Jur. 597 (a). Cost of landlord's rcjxnrs )iecessar// fo make premises tcortli 40-5. a year, a cliarge to he deducted in ascer- taining net annual value. East Cumberland. B., and twenty-nine others, were on the register of voters in respect of freehold premises, which they let at a gross annual rental of £75 15.S., reduced by certain necessary payments on the part of the landlords to £63 Zs. Id. Besides the payments above referred to, the land- lords expended annually sums of money averaging £4 a year in keeping the premises in repair. The revising barrister found that the last-men- tioned annual expenditure was necessary to enable the landlords to obtain the net annual rental of £63 3s. Id., and accordingly deducted £4 therefrom in ascertaining the net annual value of the premises. As a consequence of this, he found such value to be less than 4Us. a year to each landlord, and therefore expunged the names from the register. Held, that upon the facts the names were rightly expunged : Hamilton v. Bass, 12 C. B. 631 ; 2 Lutw. 213 ; 22 L. J. 0. P. 29 ; 17 Jui-. 115 ; 20 L. T. 80. {a) But see Robinson v. DunJdey, post, pp. 30, 31, and Eolleston v. Cope, post, pp. 51, 52. 16 DIGEST OF PAR-LIAMENTARY REGISTRATIOX CASES. Interest on mortgage upon several freeJwkh, appor- tionahle. Isle of Wight. S. was on tlie register of voters in respect of freeliold land of the annual value of £5. This land, together with other land belonging to S. of the annual value of £50, which was assumed, in the absence of any statement in the case to the contrary, to be freehold and in the same county, was mortgaged for £300. The interest payable on such mortgage was £15 a year. Held, that the interest was apportionable, and that consequently, S. was entitled to vote : Moore v. Carisbroolcc, 12 C. B. 661 ; 2 Lutw. 233 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 64; 17 Jur. 116; 1 W. R. 67; 20 L. T. 81, 97. An estate of uncertain tenure, not detcrminahle at mere will of the lord, hut ic/iic/t may enure for life of the parti/^ an estate of freehold. South Leicestershire. B. claimed in respect of " freehold interest in building and land." He was a resident freeman of the borough of Leicester, and possessed an allotment of land, with buildings thereon, the land having been allotted to him under the provisions of 8 & 9 Vict. c. 6 (private) . By that Act, the resident freemen were empowered to elect from their own body a certain number of deputies to act for them in the management of the freemen's allotments. The deputies were empowered by section 8, to take possession of certain lands (including the land in respect of which the present claim was made), and to divide the same into small allotments among the resident freemen desiring to become occupiers thereof, at a small annual rent ; " the allotments " (so the COUNTY FRAXCHISE FREEHOLDS. 17 section ran), " to be held respectively by each resident freeman desiring to become the occupier, and obtain- ing possession thereof, so long as he shall be willing to hold the same, and shall pay the annual rent, and conform to the orders and regulations to be made from time to time by the said deputies." By section 15, the lands in question were vested absolutely in the deputies, in trust for the resident freemen. Section 17 empov.-ered the deputies to dispose of the same by sale, but section 22 provided, that no sale should be effected under the powers of the Act, without the consent of a majority of the freemen assembled at a public meeting convened for that ■purpose. By section 32, a power of re-entry was reserved to the deputies, in case any freeman should be in arrear of rent for his allotment for fourteen days, or should fail to conform to the provisions of the Act, or the orders, rules, and regulations to be made by the deputies. Held, that, as B.'s estate was not dependent for its duration on the mere -will of the deputies, but was subject to their consent, and that of the majority of the resident freemen, of whom B. himsef 2cas one, it fell within the definition of an estate for life in Co. Litt. 42a {a), and consequently B. was entitled to be registered : Beeson v. Burton, 12 C. B. 647 ; 2 Lutw. 225 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 33 : 20 L. T. 81—111. {a) "If a man grant an estate to a woman dum sola fuerit, or durante viditiiate, or quamdiu se bene gesserit, or to a man and a woman during the coverture, or as long as the grantee dwell in such a house, or so long as he pay £10, &c., or until the grantee he promoted to a benefice, or for any like uncertain time, which time, as Beacton saith, is tempus indeterminatum : in all these cases, if it be of lands or tenements, the lessee hath in judgment of law an estate for life detenninable, if livery be made ; and if it be of rents, advowsous, or any other thing that lie in grant, he hath a like estate for life by the delivery of the deed, and in count or pleading he shall allege the lease, and conclude, that by force thereof he was seised generally for term of his hfe." Co. Litt. 42a. S. C 18 DIGEST OF PAKLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES, Rent-charge apportionahkfor the purpose of the franchise. South Lancashire. The owners in fee of a plot of land, subject to a yearly rent-charge of £14 l.s. IcL, conveyed a portion of it to ten persons as tenants in common in fee, subject to the annual payment of £4 5.5., as their proportion of the rent-charge on the whole property. The grantors covenanted to pay the remainder of the rent-charge, viz., the sum of £9 IG-s. 7d., and to keep the grantees indemnified against all damages and expenses which might arise by reason of the non-payment thereof ; and they further covenanted that the grantees, if required to pay the said sum of £9 16s. 7d., or any part of it, should have power to distrain on the residue of the plot of land (assumed to be of sufficient value to meet such distress) for so much of such last-mentioned sum as should have been required to be paid by them. Held, that, although in point of law the portion of land so conveyed was liable to the whole rent- charge of £14 Is. 7f/., yet for the purpose of the parliamentary franchise the rent-charge was appor- tionable, and that, as the grantees could enforce contribution for all beyond £4 5.s., that amount only was to be deducted in ascertaining the value of their interest in relation to the franchise : Barrotv v. Biick- masfer, 12 C. B. 664 ; 2 Lutw. 235 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 65; 17 Jm\ 117; 20 L. T. 98. Tenants^ redes, if paid hy 'landlord, deducted in ascer- taining net annual value. North Lancashire. ~R. was on the register of voters in respect of certain freehold property, which he let for 40.s. a year. In pursuance of the terms of letting he paid the usual tenants' rates, which, if paid by the tenant, would have reduced the annual rent below 40.s. Held, that R. had not an estate of freehold of the COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 19 clear yearly value of 40.s,, and was, therefore, not entitled to the franchise : MoorJtouse v. Gilhertson, 14 C. B. 70 ; 2 Lutw. 260 ; 23 L. J. C. P. 19 ; 17 Jur. 1184; 2 W. E. 58; 2 Com. L. E. 38 ; 22 L. T. 120. Capacity for 2)i'ofit, the criterion of value. East Surrey. A. claimed a vote in respect of freehold land, which he had bought for building purposes, and for which he had paid £150. The land, since A.'s purchase of it, had remained wholly unoccupied, and unprofitable. It was worth an annual ground-rent of at least £15, if let on a building lease, a sum which A. had in fact been offered for it. But if let for any other purpose than building, its annual value would be less than 40.s. Held, that A. was entitled to be registered : Astburi/ V. Henderson, 15 0. B. 251 ; K. & Gr. 6 ; 24 L. J. C. P. 20 ; 1 Jur., N. S. 258 ; 3 W. E. 67 ; 3 Com. L. E. 164 ; 24 L. T. 145. Vote conferred hy customary freehold. Hertfordshire. The respondent claimed a vote in respect of a house and land of which he was seised in fee in the manor of Digswell, of the annual value of more than 40s. and less than £10. The property in question was one of several estates within the manor, which were held and conveyed as ordinary freeholds, subject to the fol- lowing customary incidents : — 1. When a tenant died or aliened, the fact of such death or alienation had by custom to be presented at a subsequent court. 2. The lord had by custom a right to compel the new tenant by distress to come in and acknowledge free tenure. It appeared from the court rolls of the manor, c2 20 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. that, at a court baron held, in 1838, the respondent had acknowledged to hold of the lord hy free deed, fealty, suit of court, and the yearly rent of 4c/., and that he had paid the lord id. for a relief. Held, that the respondent was a freeholder, and entitled to he registered as a county voter : Passinr/- ham V. Fitty, 17 C. B. 299 ; K. & G. 26 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 4 ; 2 Jur., N. S. 837 ; 4 W. E. 122 ; 26 L. T. 125. Bare equUahle right of cestui que trust to ^^ossession of land, without " actual possession or receipt of the rents and profits" insufficient to qualify tinder 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 74. West Kent. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of " freehold land." In 1853 he bought some freehold land at Forest Hill of the qualifying value, and paid the purchase- money thereof in full. The conveyance, which was delayed at his own request, had never been executed. The land was unlet, and remained in the possession of the vendor. Held, that the appellant not being in " actual possession, or receipt of the rents and profits," within the meaning of 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 74, was not entitled to the franchise : Anclai/ v. Lewis, 17 0. B. 316 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 121 ; K. & (x. 36; 2 Jui-., N. S. 164 ; 4 W. E. 286 ; 26 L. T. 273. Appointment as a headsman of Daventry, not a ^^ promotion to an office.''^ South Northamptonshire. Six persons " The Beadsmen of Daventry" claimed to be registered, each in respect of a freehold interest in land situate in Upper Boddington. In 1776 the land in question was, in compliance with two wills, conveyed to trustees, on trust {inter COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 21 alia), to pay to "the six Beadsmen of Daventry," a certain portion of the rents. The net amount of rent produced by the land and received by the trustees was £100, out of which they had, in execution of the trusts, annually for many years past paid each beadsman 50.s. The claimants had been appointed since the passing of the Reform Act, 1832. There was no evidence as to the first appointment of six beadsmen of Daventry, but from very early times the same number had been kept uj), the appointment, which was for life, being vested in the corporation of Daventry, who were trustees under the above-men- tioned wills. The beadsmen had no duties or services to perform, either imder the trusts, or in their character as beadsmen. Held, that the claimants (assuming them to have an equitable interest in land) had not an estate coming to them " by promotion to an office," mthin the meaning of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 18, and, there- fore, the value being insufficient, they were not entitled to be registered : Faulkner v. Boddington, 3 C. B., N. S. 412 ; K & a. 132 ; 27 L. J. 0. P. 20; 6 W. R. 101 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 692 ; 30 L. T. 168. Fellows of a college entitled as such, under a icill, to annual pay ments from realty profits, do not acquire an estate " hy devise.'" Appointment to college felloicslup, not "^jromotion to an office." Payment charged on land in two counties to he rateahly apportioned to net j^roceeds of land in each county. North Durham. 0. and W. claimed to be in- serted in the list of voters for the parish of Hunston worth in respect of a " rent -charge " {a). They were feUows of Lincoln College, Oxford, and {a) See ante, note {h) on p. 7. 22 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. as such were entitled to, and did, receive annually the sum of £10 apiece, under the following circum- stances : Lands situate at Hunstonworth, and in the county of Northumberland, were devised by will in 1720, to trustees in fee, on trust, out of the rents and profits thereof, to pay certain yearly sums to and for certain specific persons and objects, including the yearly sum of £10 to each of the fellows of Lincoln College. These last-mentioned sums were, and always had been, pm'suant to the directions in the will, received by the bursar of the college for the time being from the trustees, and by him paid over to the individuals severally entitled thereto. The will contained directions as to the application of the surplus rents after all the annual payments had been made. The annual sums so primarily made payable under the will were, and always had been, paid out of a joint fund, derived from the rents and profits of the estates in North Durham and Northumberland, without distinction. The aggregate amount of such annual sums was £740. The net annual proceeds of the land in North Durham were at most £735. The net annual proceeds of the land in Northumber- land were £6,100 {a). Held, 1. That the yearly sum of £10 paid to each of the claimants under the will was not an estate coming to him " by devise," within section 18 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. 2. That the college fellowship was not an " office" within that section. {(() The amount is eiToneously stated in the judgment of the court, as reported in Common Bench Reports, Keane & Grant, "Weekly Reporter, and Jui'ist," as being £5,600, and in the " Law Journal" as £3, GOO. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 23 3. That the lands in the two counties must be deemed to be rateably apportioned for the payment of the annual sums under the will, and that, consequently, the claimants (assuming each to be a " cestui que trud in actual possession," within the meaning of 6 Vict. e. 18, s, 74) had not freeholds of 40s. a year in North Durham : West v, Eobson, 3 aB.,N.S. 422; K. & G. 141; 27 L. J. C. P. 262 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 666 ; 6 W. E. 659. Mecessary expense of collecting rent, a charge to he deducted in ascertaining net annual value. South Lancashire. S., and twenty-one others, "were on the list of voters, each in respect of an undivided thii'ty-fifth share of certain freehold property, the gross annual rental of which was £110 14.S. 4c/. The outgoings during the year ending 31st July, 1859, exclusive of a commission for collecting the rents, amounted to £39 17s. 6d., leaving a balance of £70 16s. lOr/., or about £2 Os. 6d. per share. The owners employed one of their body to collect the rents, and allowed him a commission of £5 a year for so doing. The revising baiTister found that, from the nature of the property, this expenditure was necessary for the collection of the rents, and decided that the clear yearly value to each owner was, consequently, re- duced to less than 40.s. He accordingly expunged the names of S., and the twenty-one other persons, fi'om the register. Held, that upon the above finding, which was binding upon the court, the decision of the revising barrister was correct : Sherlock v. Steward, 7 C. B., N. S. 21 ; K. & G-. 286 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 87 ; 6 Jur., N. S. 611 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 100. 24 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Shareholder in joint stock company, incorporated under Joint Stock Companies Acts, 1856 8^ 1857, does not possess, as such shareholder, any freehold estate, legal or equitable, in real property owned by com- pany, but merely a right to^jarticijMte in the profits. West Riding of Yorkshire. B. claimed to be registered in respect of " share in freehold mill and tenements." These premises were the proj)erty of a joint stock company incorporated under the Joint Stock Com- panies Acts, 19 & 20 Yict. c. 47 ; and 20 & 21 Yict. c. 14. B. was a shareholder in the company, and had 40s. a year in respect of his shares arising out of the said freehold premises. Held, that B. had no freehold estate, legal or equitable, in the property, but merely a right to a proportionate share in the profits of the company, and, consequently, was not entitled to be registered as a voter: Buhner v. Norris, 9 C. B., N. S. 19; K & a. 321 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 7 Jur., N. S. 342 ; 9 W. R. 122; 3L. T., N. S. 470. Members of corporation aggregate seised of real property, not entitled to be registered in resjicct thereof, they having, individually, no estate therein, legal or equitable, but a mere right to participate in profits. East Kent. A. and others claimed to be inserted in the list of voters, each in respect of freehold land of the clear annual value of 40.s. They were members of a corporation called " The Company of Free Fishers and Dredgers of Whitstable, in the County of Kent." The corporation was created by stat. 33 Greo. III. c. 42, which, after reciting that a certain company, called " The Whitstable Company of Dredgers," had, from time out of mind, held and carried on an oyster fishery within the manor and royalty of Whitstable, as tenants under the lord of the said COUNTY FKANCHTSE — FREEHOLDS. 25 manor and royalty, and that it was desirable that the said company should be allowed to purchase the said manor and royalty, or such part thereof as would be convenient for the better regulation of the fishery^ but that they were disabled from doing so because it was doubtful whether they were a corporation in law, and also on account of the Statutes of Mortmain, proceeded to enact, that the said company should thenceforth be a body corporate, with power to pur- chase the said manor and royalty. In pursuance of the power thus given, part of the said manor and royalty were, soon after the passing of the Act, purchased by, and conveyed to, the corporation, their successors and assigns, to the only proper use and behoof of the corporation, their successors and assigns for ever. The corporation have, ever since the above pur- chase, held and enjoyed the property so conveyed, the net profits whereof have always been divided proportionably among the members, and have always exceeded 40.s. per annum for each member. The members have always considered and treated the whole of the property so held by them as belong- ing to themselves jointly, as liable to be disposed of and used by them for their own individual benefit, at the pleasure of the corporation. Held, that the right of the individual members was confined to a share in the net profits, and did not extend to a legal or equitable interest in the land itself, and that, consequently, the claimants were not entitled to be registered : Adand v. Leiris, 9 C. B., N. S. 32 ; Iv. & G-. 334 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 29 ; 9 W. E. 123 ; 7 Jur., N. IS. 421 ; 3 L. T., N. S. 470, 472. Revising barrister having decided against a life interest ^ the court icould not interfere, as t/ie facts did not necessarily prove the existence of such an interest. SoL'TH Wilts. C, the minister of a dissenting congregation, was on the list of voters in respect of a 26 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. dwelling-liouse and premises. These premises were, by deed dated 25th September, 1813, vested in trustees, on trust, " to permit the said dwelling-house and premises to be held, used, and occupied by the minister of the said congregation for the time being, as and for his place of abode and residence." The deed contained no direction as to the mode by which the minister should be appointed, and gave no power for his removal. The following facts were adduced in evidence as to the mode and duration of C.'s appointment. Some years prior to the revision, he received a letter from three deacons of the congregation, inviting him to become their minister, and he, accordingly, under- took the duties for a probationary period of three months, and at the expiration of that time he re- ceived, verbally, a second call in general terms to become the minister of the congregation, which he did, and had remained so ever since, and occupied as such the premises in question. Both C. himself, and one of the deacons (who had known the usage for thirty-five years), stated that they considered the " appointment to be for life." The revising barrister being of opinion that the facts did not establish that C.'s appointment was for life, expunged the name. The court affirmed the decision, as the facts did not necessarily prove that such general appointment operated as an appointment for life (a) : CoJUer v. (rt) Eele, C. J., in delivering the judgment of the court, said : — "Although the question referred to iis is, strictly speaking, a question of fact, it is probably sent to us in order that some prin- ciple may be suggested for future guidance. "We, therefore, add, that the question is the same as that which would arise in equity, if the trustees brought ejectment against the minister without any legal cause for I'cmoval, and the minister applied for an injunction to stay the action. Lord Eldon, for his guidance on that point in the Attorney-General v. Fcarsoii (3 Meriv. -120), directed the master to inquire as to the usage in respect of the duration of the office, and particularly whether any agreement or understanding was entered into between the minister, and the persons for the time being members of the congregation attending the meeting-house COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 27 Kinq, 11 C. B., N. S. 14 ; K. & Q. 385 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 80 ; 8 Jul'., N. S. 676 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 674. Inmates of Shrcicsburi/ Hospital, Sheffield, have no votes in respect of the rooms tliey occupy therein. West Eiding of Yorkshire. B. claimed a vote in respect of a " freehold house." He was an inmate of Shrewsbmy Hospital, Shef- field, and occupied rooms therein under the trusts and constitutions of the hospital. The annual value of the rooms thus occupied by B. exceeded 40s., and they had been in his possession for the requisite period. and subscribing- to its support, toucliing the duration of the ministry of the minister. According to the result of such enquiry upon the duration of the appointment would be the decision of the revising barrister for or against the qualification." In 1829, the Coiu't of Chanceiy refused to interfere to prevent the removal of the minister of a dissenting chapel vested in trus- tees, the deed being silent as to the mode of electing the minister and his continuance in office, and containing no iDro^dsion for his support, but he was dependent for it on the voluntary contribu- tions of his flock : Porter and others v. Clarke and others, 2 Sim. 520. By the triist deeds of a congregation of Independents, a chapel, a house, and other property, were vested in trustees for the use of the congregation, and to permit the minister for the time being to occupy the house. The deeds contained no express provision for the appointment or removal of a minister. In 1866, G. was in- vited by a resolution of the church members of the congregation to become co-pastor with the then minister. In 1868, a majority of the church members resolved that G. be dismissed, and the majority of the trustees concurred in this resolution. G. claimed to hold his office for life, in the absence of immorality or preaching contrary to the tenets of the denomination, neither of which was charged. It was held, that G. was duly dismissed: Cooper v. Gordon, L. R. 8 Eq. Cas. 249. Stxtaet, V.-C, in giving judgment in the above case, said: — "It is scarcely necessary to notice the argument that the tenure of his' ' (G.' s) ' ' ministry for life must be implied from the terms of the invitation and acceptance mentioning no shorter period. Nothing that involves an absurdity can by impUcation be made part of a contract. If it is to be implied that he was made minister for his lifetime, then the unanimous vote of the congre- gation would not displace him ; and if he could not be displaced, there would be the absiu-dity of his being the officiating minister of a congregation unanimously recusant of his services." See also Fcrr!/ v. Shiptvat/, 1 GifE. 1. 28 DIGEST OF PAIILIAME]S"TARY REGISTRATION CASES. The hospital was founded in 1625, under the will of Grilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury. Its lands and revenues were vested in trustees, on trust, among other things, to maintain and keep the hospital buildings in repair, and pay certain stipends and allowances to the officers and inmates of the institu- tion. The constitutions required, as a qualification for admission, that the inmates should be poor, indigent people, and such as by persons of honest repute should be judged fit objects of the charity. They further ordained that each inmate should be provided with separate accommodation in the hospital for life, but it did not appear that each was not removable from one set of rooms to another at the will of the governors. By virtue of the same authority the inmates were prevented from underletting, assigning, or jointly occupying with others, the rooms appropriated to them respectively. Any inmate failing to satisfy the conditions of membership, or committing certain breaches of the rules and constitutions, was liable to expulsion, but no member had ever been expelled. Held, in accordance with Ileartlo/ v. Banks (5 C. B., N. S. 40, post, pp. 121, 122), that B. had no estate of freehold, legal or equitable, in the rooms in which he resided, and was consequently not en- titled to be registered : Freeman v. Gainxford [re Shrewsbury Hospital), 11 C. B., N. S. 68; K. & O. 448; al L. J. C. P. 33 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 717; 5 L. T., N. S. 611. Parish clerk has no vote in respect of his office ; nor, if entitled hij ancient custom to a burial fee on the opening of every grave in jyarish churchyard, does he thereby acquire a freehold interest in land. East Kent. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of a " freehold office." He was in COUjS'TY franchise — FREEHOLDS. 29 1826 duly appointed parish clerk of the parish of St. James, Dover, and held the appointment for life. He received, as part of the emoluments of the office, the clerk's share of an ancient due, which was pay- able to the clerk and sexton on the opening of every grave in the parish churchyard. The clerk had nothing to do with the opening of the graves, a duty which was performed entirely by the sexton, who was paid for making each grave independently of the fee which he shared with the clerk. The clerk's share of the fees thus received by the appellant amounted to 40s. a year. Held, that the appellant was not entitled to the franchise, either in respect of his office, or as having a freehold interest in land : Bushcll v. JEastes, 11 C. B., N. S. 106 ; K. & G. 484 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 44 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 645 ; 10 W. E. 153 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 580. Emoluments of an office, paid out of revenues derived from land, do not create in holder of such office an ■ interest in land entitling to vote. East Kent. H., one of the six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral, B., one of its lay-clerks, and P., one of the cathedi-al bell-ringers, claimed to be registered, each in respect of a freehold office in the parish of C. They held their respective offices for life, or diu'ing good beha^'iolU', and severally received certain stijoends, of not less than £20 a year, in l)ay- ment for the discharge of their duties. These stipends were paid to them annually by the dean and chapter out of the chaj^ter revenues, which were derived either wholly or in part from lands vested in the dean and chapter, and situate {a) in the [a) The case does not state that the profits of the land in East Kent were sufficient to give each claimant 40s. a year. The ques- tion of value, however, proved to be immaterial, as the decision turned upon the question of equitable interest. 30 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. parish of C. and other parishes in East Kent, and elsewhere out of the county. Held, that the claimants had no equitable interest in land entitling them to vote : Hall v. Lewis, 11 C. B., N. S. 114 ; K. & a. 499 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 45 ; 8 Jm-., N. S. 646 ; 10 ^Y. E. 151 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 491. Member of building society entitled to vote, although his periodical pai/ments exceed annual value of mort- gaged piremises, provided he has a beneficial interest therein of 40s. per annum. South Northamptonshire. At the revision of 1863, D. was objected to on the list of freehold voters for the parish of St. Sepulchre. He was a member of, and held a share in, a building society. Some years before the revision, the society ad- vanced to him £73, wherewith he purchased some freehold land of the annual value of £3. He then mortgaged the land to the society to secure the monthly payments due upon his share, amounting to £4 per annum. In the event of failm-e by D. to pay his instalments for a certain limited period, the society was empowered to enter and take possession of the land. D. was entitled to redeem the property by the payment of these monthly instalments alone, without any other payment of principal. He had, without default, paid up £71 before 31st January, 1863, and the remaining £2 between that date and 31st July following. The revising barrister found, on these facts, that D, had a freehold interest prior to 31st January, 1863, of the annual value of 40.s. above all charges, and retained his name on the list. The court affirmed the decision {a) : Robinson v. {a) This case apparently conflicts witli Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18, ante, p. 10, and Jieamhh v. Stoke, 11 C. B. 29, ante, pp. 14, 1-5. However, in those cases the vahio of the equity of rcdeinptiou was not found : see the judirmeuts of Willcs and Montagu Smith, JJ., in Rollcston v. Cope, L. B. G C. P. 300 ct seq. COUNTY FKAXCHISE FREEHOLDS. 31 Dunl^hy, 15 C. B., N. S. 478 ; H. & P. 1 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 57; 9 Jur., N. S. 1342; 12 W. E. 202; 9 L. T., N. S. 481. BhareJwIdcrs in Manchester Corn Exchange {an unin- cotyoratcd joint stock compani/) held not to possess, as such shareholders, amj freehold estate, legal or equitable, in land on ivhich the hnilding stands, hut merely a right to participate in the profits. South Lancashire. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of a share (value 40s. a year) in the Manchester Corn Exchange. The company of proprietors of the exchange was established by deed of settlement in 1837, and was registered under 7 & 8 Yict. c. 110, s. 58. The object for which the company was formed was to provide and maintain in Manchester a building for effecting contracts of sale therein, by sample or otherwise than by bulk, of corn, &c. The land on which the building was erected was freehold, and was vested in trustees for the purposes of the company. The affairs of the company were, in accordance with the deed of settlement, under the control of a committee of shareholders. This committee made a profit out of the exchange by levying payments in respect of its user for the business for which it was built, and by letting it for other purposes; and, after deducting the amount necessary for expenses, they divided the surplus among the shareholders. The shares were declared by the deed of settlement to be personal property, and were transferable as the committee might appoint. Held, 1. That the company, having been only provisionally registered under section 58 of 7 & 8 Yict. c. 110, was not a corporation ; 2. That the shareholders had no freehold interest in land, either 32 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. at law or in equity, but merely a rigkt to sHare the company's profits, and, therefore, that the appellant was not entitled to be registered as a voter : Bennett V. Bkdn, 15 C. B., N. S. 518 ; H. & P. 35 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 63 ; 12 W. R. 175 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 506 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 130. Equitable right of inmates of Bottesford Hospital to imyments under trusts of that institution, not an equitable freehold interest in land. North Leicestershire. The apj)ellant was on the register in respect of a "freehold interest in land." He was one of the inmates of Bottesford Hospital, founded by the Duke of Rutland in or about 1692 for the support of poor men. By a deed of 1762 the lands of the charity were re-conveyed by the then Duke of Rutland to trustees, on trust, to permit the rectors for the time being of the parishes of B. and H. to receive the rents and profits, and apply the same {inter alia) to the pay- ment and distribution of certain specified sums and allowances to each of the then and future inmates of the hospital. The deed contained no provision as to the disposal of the sm'plus revenues ; they were, in fact, distri- buted among the inmates. The sums paid to each inmate in each year ex- ceeded in the aggregate £10. Each inmate occupied a separate room ; he paid no rates or taxes, did no repairs, and was removable for misconduct. Held, that the appellant had no equitable freehold interest in the lands of the hospital, but only a right to certain money payments and allowances from the trustees, and was, consequently, not entitled to the franchise : Steele v. Bos worth, 18 C. B., N. S. 22 ; H. & P. 106; 34 L. J. C. P. 57; 10 Jur., N. S. 1239 ; 13 W. R. 200 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 507. COUNTY FRAXCHISE FREEHOLDS. 33 Where revising barrister held that voter had, hy virtue of his office as parish clerk, a freehold interest in land entitling him to vote, and the facts disclosed no impossibility of his having such interest, the court would not review the decision. Apjmntment as jjarish clerk need not be by deed. Oxfordshire. The respondent's name appeared in the list of voters for the parish of M. in respect of " freehold office of parish clerk." It was proved that he was duly appointed parish clerk for the parish of M. by the vicar, and had performed the duties of such office for thirty years : but there was no proof of appointment by deed. By virtue of his office of parish clerk, he was entitled to one-twelfth share in twenty-six acres of freehold land situate in the parish, so long as he continued parish clerk. The yearly value of his share was 40s. ; and it was let by him for that sum. It was fiu'ther proved tliat the right of the parish clerk of M. for the time being to the said twelfth share was fixed and certain ; that the respondent's predecessors in office had always received and en- joyed it ; and that he himself had enjoyed it ever since his appointment. The only other evidence as to the original title of the parish clerk of M. to the share in question was an extract from the report of the charity commis- sioners relating to the parish, bearing date 9th July, 1824, as follows : — " There is in this parish a piece of bushy land, containing about twenty-six acres, on which twelve of the poor men have a right of common for a cow. We could not discover the origin of this right ; and it is doubtful whether it can be refeiTed to any charitable foundation. These twelve cow commons ■are, however, always enjoyed by twelve poor persons, of whom the parish clerk is one." There was no evidence of any election of the respondent as one of such poor men. S. D 34 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. It was contended before the revising barrister, — 1. That the respondent took no freehold in- terest in his share, but that his interest therein was eleemosynary. 2. That even if his interest were freehold, yet the annual value thereof, being less than £10, Avas insufficient, as the calling of "parish clerk" was not an "office" within the exception in section 18 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. 3. That the appointment of parish clerk must be by deed (a) . The revising barrister decided that on the above facts the respondent did take a freehold interest in his share, and that "parish clerk" was an "office" within section IS of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 ; and accord- ingly he retained the respondent's name in the list, and amended the third column to " freehold land, in right of office." The court held that the facts disclosed no impossi- bility of the respondent having a freehold interest in the land, and, therefore, the revising barrister's decision was not open to review : Roberts v. Breu-ift, 18 C. B., N. S. 48 ; H. & P. 132. Bedesmen of BurUigh Hospital have an equitahle free- Jiokl interest in their rooms respectively, and are consequent! ij entitled to rote. North Northamptoxshire. B. and twelve others (bedesmen of Burleigh Hospital) were on the register of voters, each in respect of a " freehold tenement or room." [The facts as to the appointment of the several voters and the natm^e and mode of enjoyment of the qualifying property being similar to the facts as stated in Simpson v. Wilkinson, 7 M. & Gr. 50, ante, pp. 2, 3, it was agreed at the revision court that the barrister's statement of the last-mentioned case should betaken, mutatis mutandis, as forming part of this.] (fl) This point (reserved with others for the Coiirt of Appeal) •was abandoned on the arorument. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 35 The following additional facts were proved: — lu 1846 the warden and bedesmen sold a portion of the hospital premises to a railway company. They conducted the sale as owners, without the in- tervention of any other person, and they expended the purchase-money in erecting buildings for their own purposes in the garden attached to the hospital. Held, in accordance with Simpson v. Wilkinson^ 7 M. & Gr. 50, ante, pp. 2, 3, and distinguishing Beartley v. Banker, 5 C. B., N. S. 40, post, pp. 121, 122, and Freeman v. Gahisford, 11 C. B., N. S. 68, ante, pp. 27, 28, that the bedesmen had an equitable freehold interest in their rooms respectively, and were, consequently, entitled to vote {a) : Roberts v. Percivat, 18 C. B., N. S. 36 ; H. & P. 121 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 84; 11 Jur., N. S. 40; 13 W. R. 265; 11 L. T., N. S. 603. Cestui (pie use, under a conveyance to uses, of a rent' charge [h), is '^in actual possession" thereof, uithin 2 Will IV. c. 45, s. 26, from the date of the execution of the conveyance. South Lancashire. The appellant was on the list of voters (revised in 1864) in respect of an undivided share of an annual freehold rent-charge of £50. The rent-charge (created in 1839) was by a deed of 27th January, 1864, conveyed to one H. and his [a] It was objected before the revising barrister that the point in dispute in the above case was concluded by Simpson v. Willcinson, and, consequently, that the barrister was prevented by section 66 of 6 Vict. c. 18, from re-opening the inquiry. The revising barrister overruled the objection, but reserved the point. Counsel for the respondent argued, that section 66 only meant that th& decision of the court should be conclusive in the particular case irt which the decision was given. The court said, that the burden of showing that such was not the true construction was on the other side ; see per Beett, and Geove, JJ., in HadfielcVs case, L. R. 8 C. P. 311, 320, 321 : and per Lord Coleeidge, C. J., in Lowcock V. Brougton, L. R. 12 Q. B. D. on pp. 371, 372. ip) See ayite, note {b), on p. 7. n2 36 DIGEST OF PARLIAMEXTARY REGISTRATION CASES. heirs, to the use of the said H. and five others, of whom the appellant was one, their heirs and assigns, equally in undivided shares, as tenants in common. The rent was payable half-yearly, on 24th June, and 25th December. The first half-year's rent, due on the 24th June, 1864, was paid to the parties entitled thereto between the 24th of June and the 30th July in that year. Held, that as the deed of the 27th of January, 1864, operated under the Statute of Uses, the appellant was by force of that statute in " actual possession " of the rent-charge within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26, immediately on the execution of the deed, and was therefore entitled to the franchise : Heelis V. Blain, 18 0. B., N. S. 90 ; H. & P. 189 ; 34L. J.C. P. 88; 11 Jur., N. S. 18; 13W. P. 262; 11 L. T., N. S. 480. Shareholders in Putney Bridge not entitled to vote in respect of their shares. East Surrey. Twenty-five persons on the Putney list of voters claimed in respect of " freehold shares in Fulham Bridge." The statute 12 Greo. I. c. 36, was passed for building a bridge from Fulham to Putney, and by section 1 commissioners were appointed, with powers for that purpose. Section 5 enabled bodies corporate and others to convey land to the commissioners for the purposes of the Act. Section 7 gave authority to incorporate the com- missioners, with power to buy, hold, and sell land. The commissioners were never incorporated. By section 10, a certain toll for permission to pass over tlio Ijridge was to be vested in the commissioners, who wore to apply it towards the expense of making and maintaining the bridge, and the purchase of the necessary ground. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 37' By section 16 the commissioners were autliorized to deepen the river. By section 17, all stones, bricks, and other materials used in making and maintaining the bridge, or for deepening the river, were to be deemed to belong to the commissioners. A subsecjuent Act (1 Greo. II. c. 18), for explaining and amending the above Act, empowered (section 1) the commissioners, or any nine or more of them, before incorporation and the corporation, when created, to contract with any persons for the building and maintenance of the bridge, and also to grant annuities in fee out of the tolls or profits thereof, but such annuities were to be deemed personal estate. By section 3, the commissioners, or any nine or more of them, and the corporation, when created, were authorized to convey or assign over in per- petuity the tolls and profits of the bridge to such persons as would undertake to build and maintain the same. Section 5. On compensation being made to the proprietors of the then existing horse-ferries, such ferries, and the ground and soil adjacent, were to be vested in the commissioners and corporation. The ferries were pui'chased. On 19th November, 1728, the commissioners entered into a contract with thirty persons, who had subscribed the necessary funds, that such thirty persons should build and maintain the bridge, and make the payments and pm-chases required by the Acts, and in pm'suance of such contract the bridge was built, and the required payments and pm'chases made. By indenture of bargain and sale of 11th Novem- ber, 1729, the commissioners granted and assigned to trustees the said bridge, and tolls, with all such ground and soil adjacent and belonging to the late or then present ferries, as had been, was, or should be vested in the said commissioners, and every other matter or thing which they were empowered to ^88(?38 38 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. assign and convey over by virtue of the said Acts, or either of them ; on trust to permit the said thirty persons, their heirs and assigns, to receive the said tolls, and have the sole management and direction thereof, and divide the net proceeds among them- selves, according to their respective rights and inte- rests therein — to hold as tenants in common. The claimants' interest in the bridge was identical •with that of the thirty proprietors, and had always been conveyed, transmitted, and dealt with as free- hold estate. The bridge was built partly on piles driven into the bed of the river, and at either end upon brick foundations, which stood respectively upon that part of the banks between high and low water, whence formerly the ferries used to ply from side to side, and partly upon land which formerly Avas ground and soil adjacent and belonging to the ferries. There were toll-houses at each end of the bridge, and they stood on the brick foundations above mentioned. Held, that the commissioners had no power to part with the land vested in them by the statutes, and that the shareholders, taking the conveyance of 1729 with a knowledge of the title under the Acts of parliament, acquired nothing more than could be lawfully conveyed, viz., the tolls, and, consequently, had no such equitable freehold estate as would entitle them to a county vote {a) : Tepper v. NichoUs, 18 0. B., N. S. 121 ; H. & P. 202 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 61 ; 13 W. E. 270; 11 Jm-., N. S. 18; 11 L. T., N. S. 509. {a) It is not to bo inferred from the above decision that tolls cannot in any case qualify for a vote; see j)cr Willes, J., in Wadmorc v. Dear, L. R. 7 C. P. 223, 224, 225. A description of certain ancient tolls in their relation to the franchise will be found in Elliott, on Qualifications and Registration, 2nd Ed., 38, 139, 40. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 39 Shareholders in Sheffield Music HaU, held not to possess, as such shareholders, an// freehold interest in land on which building stands, but merely a right to share the profits. West Eiding of Yorkshire. By a deed made on 2nd October, 1828, certain persons were entitled to undivided freehold shares in the Sheffield Music Hall, and it was admitted that the provisions of that deed were such as to quahfy them to be on the register of voters in respect of their shares. But by a deed, dated 13th June, 1864, the fee of the hall was vested in trustees, who were empowered by the deed to manage the hall, to receive the rents and pro- fits, declare a dividend, and divide the same among the proprietors according to their respective shares. Held, on the authority of Bennett v. Blain (15 C. B., N. S. 518, ante, pp. 31, 32), that the shareholders had, after the execution of the deed of 1864, no direct interest in the fi'eehold, but only a right to share the profits, and, consequently, that they were not entitled to the county franchise : Freeman v. Gains- ford {re Sheffield Music Hall), 18 C. B., N. S. 185 ; H. & P. 255; 34 L. J. C. P. 95; 11 Jui'., N. S. 116; 11 L. T., N. S. 675 ; 13 W. E. 343. Itent-charge (a), the grant ichereof contains no j^ower of distress, is, nevertheless, a '■'• freehold tenement^' within 8 Sen. VI. c. 7, a remedy by distress being supplied by 4 Geo. II. c. 28, s. 5. North Northumberland. Ten persons were on the list of voters in respect of qualifications described as " Freehold rent issuing out of freehold dwelling- houses," or "Freehold rent-charge {a) issuing out of freehold house." The several voters claimed to be entitled to vote by virtue of certain deeds, one of which was as follows : " This indenture made the 22nd of January, 1851, {a) See ante, note {b), oa p. 7. 40 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. between Robert Dodds, the elder, of &c., of the one part, and Robert Dodds, the younger, of &e., and Adam Dodds, of &c., sons of the said Robert Dodds, the elder, of the other part, Witnesseth, that, in con- sideration, &e., he the said Robert Dodds, the elder, doth hereby give and grant unto the said Robert Dodds, t]ie younger, and Adam Dodds, their heirs and assigns, one annual sum or yearly rent-charge of £4 4s., of sterling money, to be charged and charge- able upon, and yearly issuing and payable out of all those messuages, burgages, or tenements, situate, &c., to have, receive, take, and enjoy the said annual sum or yearly rent-charge of £4 4s., unto and by them, the said Robert Dodds, the younger, and Adam Dodds, their heirs and assigns for ever, in equal shares, as tenants in common." [Here followed the times of payment.] " In witness," &c. The grantors were proved to be seised in fee of the property charged, the value whereof was sufficient for the payment of the annual sums, and the several grantees had received the same. The revising barrister decided, that, without a power of distress, the grants were respectively insuffi- cient to give a vote, and that there was no power of distress ; and he, therefore, disallowed the votes. The court held, reversing the barrister's decision, that payment of the rent-charges was enforceable by distress under 4 Greo. II. c. 28, s. 5, and, therefore, that each of such rent-charges was a " freehold tene- ment " within 8 Hen. VI. c. 7, and consequently the grantees were entitled to vote in respect thereof (a) : Dodds V. Thompson. L. R. 1 C. P. 133; H. & P. 285 ; H. & R. 319 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 625 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 97: 14 W. R. 476. (ff) Before the abolition of real actions by 3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 27, a rent seek issuing out of freehold land was, it seems, a "freehold tenement" within 8 Hen. VI. c. 7, independently of 4 Geo. II. C. 28, s. 5. See the observations of the court in the above case. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 41 Trustee entitled to pai/ himself 40-s. a year out of the trust estate, jmrt of which only was in his actual occupation, held to have no poicer to make such annuity issue out of that part ivhich he occupiedy for the jmrpose of acquiring a vote ; but the 4:0s. must be apportioned beticeen suchj^art and the rest of the trust estate. North Eiding of Yorkshire. The appellant and five others were objected to on the freeholders' list for West Ay ton. The nature of the qualification and local descrip- tion thereof in each case stood thus : — " Cestui que trust in re- i "At West Ay ton, partly ceipt of rents and profits, occupied by Thomas Dar- and in possession or rell and others residing occupation of freehold at West Ayton." farms and lands." | By a deed of 1704, dame Sarah Hewley conveyed in fee to trustees for certain charitable purposes, certain lands known as the West Ayton Estate. By an order of the Charity Commissioners, dated 18th March, 1862, the legal estate in the said pro- perty was vested in the appellant and the five other persons, as trustees of the charity. One of the trusts was to pay £5 a year to each of the trustees, which payment was charged on the whole estate. The trustees retained in their own occupation a portion of the property, consisting of some wood- lands, and they let the remainder. If the £5 a year payable to each trustee was calculated proportionately to the whole property, the trustees had not 40.s. a year each out of the woodlands alone. Held, that, assuming each of the trustees could be said to be in possession of the woodlands as a cestui que trust, yet the £5 a year could not be confined to that part of the estate, but must be apportioned over the whole of it, and, therefore, he was not entitled to a county vote, inasmuch as he had not 40.s, a year out of the woodlands : Mills v. Cobb, L. E. 2 C. P. 42 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 95 ; H. & P. 357 ; 15 W. E. 224 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 469 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 75 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 1007. Proprietors of petes in OM/iam jmt'ish church have not, by virtue of 5 Geo. IV. c. 64, any freehold interest in the soil of the church entitling them to vote for the county. South Lancashire. B. claimed a vote as a free- holder, his alleged qualification being a " freehold pew." The pew was in the body of the church, or parochial chapel of ease, of Oldham, within the parish of Prestwich-cum-Oldham, which had been rebuilt under a local Act, 5 Greo. IV. c. 64. By that Act, after reciting [inter alia) that the church or parochial chapel of Oldham was decayed, and not sufficiently large for the accommodation of the inhabitants of the chapelry of Oldham, and that it was expedient that the said church should be taken down and a new and larger church erected in lieu thereof, it was enacted that certain persons, including the rector, curate, and churchwardens, for the time being, should be appointed trustees for carrying the Act into execution. The trustees were accordingly empowered by the Act to pull down the body of the then present church, to enlarge the site of it, and to rebuild it of larger dimensions in the same situation, and also to erect in the new church such pews, seats, &c., as they might think fit. The materials of the old church, and those which should be purchased for building the new one, were by the Act vested in the trustees, who were thereby empowered to bring actions, and prefer bills of indictment against persons for injimng the church or stealing the materials, the property therein respec- tively being laid in the trustees. The then present rector of the parish and his successors were by virtue of the Act to be rectors of COUJJTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 43 the clnirch when rebuilt, in like manner as of the old, and the new church was to all intents and purposes to he the parish church of Oldham. The Act required the trustees to allot pews and seats in the new building to the proprietors of pews or seats in the old, such new pews or seats to be held by such proprietors, their heirs, executors, adminis- trators, successors, and assigns, in the same and in as full and am]3le a manner as the pews or seats for which they were substituted had been held by them respectively. The trustees were also empowered by the Act to sell to inhabitants of the chapehy the fee simple and inheritance of such of the new pews or seats as were not otherwise appropriated under the Act, and it was provided that on the execution of a conveyance, pur- suant to the Act, of any pew or seat so sold, such pew or seat should be vested in the purchaser, his heirs and assigns for ever, and might thereafter be sold, conveyed, devised, or otherwise disposed of, by the proprietor for the time being, to any other persons, being inJiahitants of the chapelry, subject only to the payment of rent, and to the rules, regulations, rates, and impositions, to which the pew or seat, or the owner thereof, might become liable under the Act. A form of conveyance was enacted, in which the trustees grant to the purchaser, his heirs and assigns, the pew sold, and all their right, title, and interest, to and in the same, to hold the same to the purchaser, his heirs and assigns for ever. The pew in cjuestion had been sold and conveyed by the trustees to an inhabitant of the chapelry, of whom B., also an inhabitant of the chapelry, had purchased it. B. did not occupy the pew himself, but let sittings in it to inhabitants of the chapelry, who paid him more than 40.s. a year for their seats. Held, that B. had no freehold interest in the land covered by the pew, but merely a right, in the nature of an easement, to occupy the pew for Divine Service ; Hinde v. Chorlton, L. E. 2 C. P. 104 ; H. & P. 383 ; 44 DIGEST OF PARLIAMEjVTATIY REGISTRATION CASES. 36 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 12 Jui-., N. S. 1008 ; 15 W. E. 226 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 472. Annuity derived from land, hit forming no specif c charge itjwn it, insiifficient to qualify. South Northamptonshire. The respondent claimed a vote in respect of " interest arising from freehold houses." He was a member of a friendly society, and was, under one of its rules, entitled to, and in receipt of, the sum of 4s. per week (£10 8.s. per annum) as an annuity for life (if the funds of the society admitted) , such annuity "to he paid out of the property of the society." The society's funds, derived partly from rents of freehold tenements vested in trustees, and partly from the contributions and fines of its members, formed one general stock in the hands of the treasurer for the payment of expenses and allowances. The accounts of the society showed that the rents of the freeholds alone were sufficient to pay the- respondent's annuity of £10 8s. by the weekly in- stalments of 4s. each year. Held, that the word *' property " in the above- rule did not denote the real property of the society, as distinguished from the other sources of its income, and that, the annuity forming no specific charge on the land, the respondent had no direct interest in the latter entitling him to the franchise : Rohinson v.. Ainge, L. E. 4 C. P. 429 ; 1 H. & 0. 193 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 644. Holder for life of an " rtcrc," according to immemorial custom, in the town of Chipping Sodhury, has aiv equitable freehold estate, and is in actual and bond fide occupation, n-ifhin section 18 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, notu-ithstanding rights of after-grass and jjasturc granted to others. West Gtloucestershire. T. was on the list of voters for the parish of Chipping Sodbury, in respect COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 45 of freehold land, which he held under the following circumstances : — The bailiff and bailiff burgesses of the town of Chipping Sodbury, being entitled to a meadow divided into eighty-one allotments called " acres," had, by immemorial custom, as each " acre " became vacant, invested some one of the inhabitants with the possession thereof. The mode of investiture consisted in the delivery of a sod and a twig to the donee, accompanied by a form of words, the effect of which was, that the inhabitant should hold his " acre " for life, if he continued to reside in the town, chargeable with waste, and subject to the rules and orders, present and future, of the bailiff and bailiff bm-gesses respecting the meadow. The holder of each " acre " drained, manured, and mowed it. After the crop of grass had been removed by the several holders, the bailiff and bailiff burgesses, according to immemorial custom, granted the after- grass to such of the inhabitants as they thought fit, to the number of eighty-two, such grantees being thereby entitled to depasture each a cow on the meadow for five weeks, from 10th September. At the expiration of that period, the entire meadow was, by custom, thrown open by the bailiff and bailiff burgesses to all the inhabitants of Chipping Sod- bury, to depasture sheep and cattle therein till loth December. Each holder was separately rated in respect of his *' acre," and there had been no instance known of a person once elected as the holder of an " acre " being dispossessed, except by death or ceasing to reside. The clear annual value of each " acre " was more than £3, but less than £5. T. was, and had been for many years, the holder of an " acre " in conformity with the above men- tioned customs, and he was objected to on the ground that his interest in the land was not such as to entitle him to the franchise. Held, that T. had an ec^uitable freehold estate, 46 DIGEST OF PAKLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and was in actual bona fide occupation, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 18, and was, therefore, entitled to a county vote : Trenfiehl v. Lowe, L. E. 4 C. P. 454 ; 1 H. & C. 237 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 191 ; 17 W. E. 673 ; 20 L. T., N. S. 394. Emolujnents {exceeding 40.s. a year) annexed to a free- hold benefice, but not issuing out of land within the parish, do not give such benefice a qualifying value. Middlesex. The appellant claimed to be inserted in the list of voters in respect of a freehold benefice, known as St. Andrew, Bethnal Green, and situate in the parish of St. Matthew, Bethnal Grreen. He was the duly licensed incumbent of the church, and, as such, had the freehold thereof, and was en- titled, as incumbent, to certain profits and emolu- ments — viz. : 1. An annual sum of £150 from the Eccle- siastical Commissioners, paid out of funds which did not arise from the lands within the parish. 2.- An annual sum of £50 from the Governors of Queen Anne's Bounty, also paid out of funds which did not arise from lands within the parish. 3. Burial fees (esceeding 40.s. a year) for the interment in a cemetery, out of the parish, of persons dying within the district attached to the church. 4. Fees (exceeding 40s. a year) for marriages, baptisms, and churchings, performed within the church. The appellant was not in receipt of any income from pew rents. Held, that he was not entitled to the franchise : Eirton V. Dear, L. E. 5 0. P. 217 ; 1 H. & C. 349 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 36 ; 18 W. E. 144 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 532. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 47 Perpetual curate in possession of land of requisite value attached to his perpetual curacy is not the less qualified to vote in respect thereof because not a corjjoration sole. Cambridgeshire. Land of tlie clear annual value of 40.§. was, in 1856, duly conveyed in exchange under 55 Greo. III. c. 147, " to the use of C. and his successors, vicars of the vicarage of Holy Trinity, Cambridge, for the time being, for ever." The incumbency was only a perpetual curacy, and was not shown to have been augmented from Queen Anne's Bounty {a). The respondent, who had become, in 1866, the incumbent, as perpetual curate, claimed to be regis- tered as a county voter in respect of the above-men- tioned land. Held, that the claim was good, as, even if the respondent was not as perpetual curate a corpora- tion sole {a), he had at least an equitable freehold interest in the land conveyed : Wallis v. JBirks, L. E. 5 C. P. 222 ; 1 H. & C. 365 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 106; 18 W. E. 734; 22 L. T., N. S. 268. (a) By 1 Geo. I. stat. 2, c. 10, s. 4, it is enacted that "all such churches, curacies, or chapels, which shall at any time hereafter be augmented by the Governors of the Bounty of Queen Anne for the augTnentation of the maintenance of the poor clergy shall be, and hereby are declared and established to be, from the time of such augmentations, perpetual cures, and benefices ; and the minis- ters duly nominated and licensed thereunto, and their successors respectively, shall be, and be esteemed in law, bodies politic and corporate, and shall have perpettial succession by such name or names as in the grant of such augmentation shall be mentioned, and shall have a legal capacity, and are hereby enabled to take in perpetuity to them and their successors all such lands, &c., as shall be granted unto or purchased for them respectively by the said governors." 48 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. Proimctors of pews in St. MarlvS Church, Tipper Duke Street, Liverpool, have not, hy virtue either of 56 Geo. III. c. 65 {local and personal), or 2 ^ 3 Vict. e. 33 {private), any freehold interest in the soil of the church entitling them to votes for the county. Soi'th-West Lancashire. H. claimed to be re- gistered in respect of " freehold pews," which he held in St. Mark's Chui'ch, Duke Street, Liverpool, and which were of the clear annual value of £5 each. A deed was produced bearing date 29th April, 1863, made between one Highfield and E,., 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 E,. 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 Yict. 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 Greo. 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 COUNTY FRAXCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 49 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 o'^Tiers 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 heu's and assigns for ever. Held, that R. did not acquire, under either of -these statutes, any freehold interest in the land on which the chiu-ch 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- jsions, and that, consequently, he was not entitled to a county vote : Bruwfjtf v. Roberts, L. R. 5 C. P- 224 ; 1 "H. & C. 387 ; "39 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 18 W. E. 678; 22L. T., N. S. 301. S. IE 50 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Proprietors of pews in St. George's CJiapel, Stone/louse^ Jiave not, by virtue of 27 Geo. III. c. 17, any freehold interest in the soil of the chapel entitling them to votes for the county. South Devon, C. claimed to be registered in re- spect of a " freehold pew," of the clear annual value of 40.s^ 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. Greorge's, East Stonehouse, was decayed, 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 trus- tees 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. E. 5 C. P. 224, ante, pp. 48, 49, and Hinde v. Chorlton^ L. E. 2 C. P. 104, ante, pp. 42, 43, that C. was not entitled to a county vote : Greenway v. Hochin, L. E. 5 C. P. 235; 1 H. & C. 403 ; 39 L. J. 0. P. 103 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 304. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 51 Periodical payments to huUding society in respect of principal, not a charge reducing annual value of freehold as against mortgagor in p)ossession. 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 secm-e " the subscriptions, payments, redemption moneys, and fines in relation to the sum of £300," by monthly instalments of £3 9s. (£-11 8.S. 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 l.s. The annual value of the tenements was £31 4s. The annual payments of £41 Ss. were made gene- rally in reduction of the sum borrowed, and in discharge of the appellant's payments and subscriptions accord- ing to the rules of the society ; but if such annual payments were appropriated, two-thii'ds (£27 12s.) would be in discharge of principal, and the remaining third (£13 IGs.) in pajTuent 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, e2 52 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. having an equitable interest of the value of 40s. a year, was entitled to the franchise : Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. 33. 18, ante, p. 10, and Beamish v. Stolxc, II C. B. 29, ante, pp. 13 — 15, considered; Mobinson v. Dunk- ley, 15 C. B., N. S. 478, ante, pp. 30, 31, followed; RoUeston v. Cope, L. E. 6 C. P. 292 ; 1 H. & C. 488 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 160 ; 19 W. E. 927 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 390 {a). Amount of expense voluntarily incurred hy landlord in improving his property, hut not necessary to ohtain the rent essential to qualify, not a charge to he deducted in ascertaining net annual value. West Eiding (S. Division) of Yorkshire. Tenants in common in fee of houses and lands voluntarily 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 be deducted in ascertain- ing the net annual value of the property, which, without such deduction, was sufficient to qualify, would have left less than 40s. 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 be made : Buckley v. Wriqley, L. E. 7 C. P. 185 ; 1 H. & C. 661 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 835. {(() BoviLL, C. J., ill delivering liis juclgment 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 purcliasi^-money into account, and deducting' the projter annual sums, iM(l(j)('iKkntly of the payments on account of the principal, tlio claimant's interest in the property is of the value of 40.V. by the year. If liis interest in the property be found to be of that value, he will be entitled to the franchise, otherwise his claim to be i)laced on the list of voters must be disallowed.' ' COLNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 53 TJie 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 Tcpper v. Nicholls, ante, pp. 36 — 38. Middlesex and East Surrey. Twenty-three persons claimed in the parish of Fiilham, and thii-ty- six in that of Putney, in respect of " freehold shares in Pntney Bridge." Since the decision in Tepper v. Nicholls, ante, pp. 36—38, the Thames Navigation Act, 1870 (33 & 34 Yict. c. 149), had passed. By that Act (section 10, suh-section 6), the bridge and lands belonging thereto, as well as the tolls, icere rested in tlie 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 ichich 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 Tep2)er v. Nicholls, and, mutatis mutandis, are to be taken as forming part of this case. Held, that it having been rightly decided in Tejiper 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 Navigation Act, 1870, section 10, sub-section 6 : Wadmore v. Dear, Wadmorc 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-laic of 1836, lias 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 : — 54 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Eacli member of tlie town council had two acres for liis 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 tliat such acre should be delivered to him " as tenant thereof to the council, and that he do pay 5s. entrance money, and 5s. per annum as and for rent, until further notice." Held, that the interest of the bm^gess in the land to which he had been so admitted was determinable at the will of the council, and therefore did not COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 55 :a,mount to a freeliold estate for life, so as to entitle liim to a county vote : Feniie v. Scott, L. R. 7 C. P. 202 ; 1 H. & C. 718 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 20 ; 20 W. E. 236; 25 L. T., N. S. 836. Clergyman having a horongh vote as occupier of his parsonage house mag, notwithstanding section 24 of Reform Act, 1832, have also a vote for the county in resp)ect of his peic 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 tlie 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, imder 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 chm'ch. The sum thus received by the respondent had always exceeded £100 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 occupation 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. Alkery 66 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. L. E. 8 C. P. 265 ; 2 H. & C. 36 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 26 - 21 W. E. 72 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 423. Might to receive moneij payments out of realty profits^ such j^ayments being of undefined amount, and con- tingent on a sur2)Ius,is neither an equitable interest in land, or in any rent issuing thereout. North Durham. The younger brethren of the • Hospital of King James, Gateshead, claimed votes in respect of " freehold land, freehold coal mines, free- hold rent-charges (a) or ground rent." The hospital, which was incorporated, consisted, under a re-foundation charter of 1610, of a master and three " Ancient Brethi-en," in whom lands were vested by such charter. The bishop was empowered by an Act of parlia- ment (51 Greo. 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 £60 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." 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- [a] See cnitc, note {fi) ou p. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 57 " 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, or a rent-charge («) thereon, and, therefore, were not entitled to be registered : Shnei/ v. 3IarshalI, L. E. 8 C. P. 269 ; 2 H. & C. 1 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 21 W. E. 123 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 581. Grant of rent-charge {a) to three j^er sons, their heirs and assigns, to the use of same three j^ersons, 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 2G 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 {ci) 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 (r/) of £9, to be payable by equal half-yearly pa^'ments 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. 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, (rt) See ante, note (i) on p. 7. tJO "DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. upon the autliority of Ilurray v. Thorniley, 2 C. B. 217, ante, p. 7, aiid Ilaijdoi v. Tiverton, 4 C. B, 1, ante, pp. 7, 8, that the grantees had not been in the " actual possession " of the rent-charge («) for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July, as required by 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26, and were, consequently, not entitled to be registered in 1872 : Webster v. Ashton-undcr-Lyne (Ornie's case), L. R. 8 C. P. 281; 2 H. & C. 60; 42 L. J. 0. P. 38; 21 W. E. 171 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 652 {h). 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 14.s., 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 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. {a) See ante, note {h) on p. 7. [b) See remarks on the above case in Williams on Settlements, pp. 5, 6. COrjv^TY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 59 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. lY. c. 45, s. 26, immediately on the execution of the deed, and was, therefore, entitled to be regis- tered in the year 1872 : Reelis v. Mdn, 18 C. B., N. S. 90, ante, pp. 35, 36, followed. Scmhie, 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. 8emhle, that section 66 of 6 Yict. c. 18, makes the judgment final only in the case in which it is given {h) : Webster v. Ashton-under-L)/ne (Hadfield's case), L. R. 8 C. P. 306 ; 2 H. & C. 89 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 146 ; 21 W. R. 637; 28 L. T., N. S. 901. The fact of trustees having an absolute pou-er of sale over a rent-charge (a) does not preclude cestui que trust from having a freehold interest therein, if, in the event of sale, trustees are 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 («), 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 (r/) of £120 (described in the deed as trustees), and thirty- four- persons (described therein as beneficiaries), after re- citing an agreement by the trustees and each of the beneficiaries for the sale to him of the beneficial interest in one fifty- fourth share of the said rent at the price of £52 5«., 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 ((?) See ante, note [h) on p. 7. \h) See Roberts v. Terciml, 18 C. B., N. S. 36. 60 DIGEST OF PAIU.TAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. remedies for enforcing payment tliereof, &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-trustoes 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. Ileld, 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: A-s/txorth v. Hopper y L. E. 1 C. P. D. 178 ; 2 n. & C. 283 ; 45 L. J. C. P. D. 99 ; 24 W. E. 187 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 667. Tivo distinct rent-charges [a] may he joined together to mahe up requisite value. North -East Lancashire. The appellant was on the register of voters in respect of freehold rent- charges [a) . 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, 40.s., in annual value. Held, that the appellant was the owner of " free tenement " of the required value, within 8 Hen. YI. c. 7, and was, therefore, entitled to the franchise : Wood V. Hopijer, L. E. 1 C. P. D. 192 ; 2 H. & C. (a) See ante, note {b) on p. 7. COLNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 61 311 ; 45 L. J. C. p. D. 108 ; 21 W. R. 187 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 531. Rent-charge {a) of mfficient value may qualify, although there he no present 2)ower of distress ami table. 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 15th January, 1875, C. granted to the appellant (in fee) a yearly freehold rent- charge {ri) of £2 10-9., charged upon the said land, and the indentm'e 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 40.>>\ by the year," within 8 Hen. VI. c. 7, notwithstanding that the remedy by distress was not available before the determination of the leases : JDau-so)i v. Robins, L. R. 2 P. C. D. 38 ; 2H. &C. 317; 46 L. J. C. P. D. 62 ; 25W.E.212; 35 L. T., N. S. 599. Jjcsseefor lives of part of icaste of a manor, over which rights of common of ptasture hare been immemori- ally exercised by persons, tvho by their conduct are 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 (a) See ante, note [b) on p. 7. 62 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. waste of the manor of Newport, but which had, in 18G], 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 previoas 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 represen- tatives 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 the respondent took place in 1841, 1852, and 1855, respectively. The resjDondent 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 : PhUUjys v. Salmon, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 97 ; 2 H. & C. 339 ; 47 L. J. C. P. D. 53 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 579. COUNTY FRAXCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 63 WJiere a freeJioIder {alreachj on rcgiste)') is objected to, revising barrister has no po/cer to entertain any objection other than that stated in the notice of objection. Local description of qualijication in fourth column may he 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 fi'eehold 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. The court held — 1. That the barrister ought not to have enter- tained any other objection than the one stated in the notice (28 Yict. 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 Yict. 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. E. 4 0. P. D. 73 ; 2 H. & C. 421 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 84 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 198. <34 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Cestuis que trustent in receipt of rents and profits of land {devised on trust for sale for the benefit of themselves and others, hut remaining unsold), do not, if precluded from electing to \eep the land unconverted, possess an equitable freehold estate therein, inasmuch as it is within the poioer, and is the duty, of the trustees 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 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, but 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- COUKTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 65 tor's cMldren, 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. c. 102, s. 5 : Spencer v. Harrison, L. R. 5 0. P. D. 97 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 61 ; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 188 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 676. The tcorcls " land occupied together with a house, 8fc.,'* in section 24 of Reform Act, 1832, refer not merely to contemporaneous occupation of the quali- fying i^remises, but also to a user of them for a common 2)ur2)0se. North Northamptonshire. The respondent was on the parish of Peterborough list of voters in re- spect of his ownership of land. He had since May, 1877, been the owner in fee simple of a piece of freehold land in Padholm-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 S. F 66 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. hj 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. Smit/t, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 150 ; 50 L. J. C. P. D. 117, 118 ; 43 L. T., N. S. 438, 440. A rcnt-charcjeici) issuing out of lands situate in more coitnties than one must, for the imrposes of the franchise, he apxiortioned rateahly 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- diet on, and was duly objected to. The nature and description of his alleged quali- fication appeared on the list as follows : — Freehold rent-charge on freehold lands. Middleton. G. L. Watson, Esq. (a) See ante, note {b) on p. 7. COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. 67 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. 6d. {b). The re"\dsing barrister allowed the respondent's claim, being of opinion that, o-wing to the powers of dis- tress 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 North- ampton. («) See ante, note (b) on p. 7. (b) It seems to have been assumed tliroughout this case that a life rent-charge is iacluded 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 pui-poses of the franchise, be of the clear yearly value of £5. See Dndtt v. Christchurch, ]}ost, pp. 73, 74:. f2 68 DICxEST OF rARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court, reversing the decision, held, in accord- ance with the principle of apportionment laid down in Barrow v. Buckmaster (12 C. B. 664, ante, p. 18), and MiHs v. Cobb (L. E. 2 C. P. 95, ante, p. 41) (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, Watiion, Colt. Eeg. 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-Jiouse in the same borough, was held not entitled to the county fran- chise in respect of the freehold, although revising barrister for the horotigh had, under 41 (^ 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 was 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 W'as 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. The facts of the respondent's occupation of the shop, and of its being of sufficient value to cj^ualify 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- liouse and the shop. In revising the borough list of parliamentary voters («) See also West v. Rohson, 3 C. B., N. S. 422. \b) See ante, note {b) on p. 7. COUNTY FRANCHISE— FKEEHOLBS. 69 on a day preceding the county revision, the barrister had, in compliance 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 quah- 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 respondent, 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 ■\\ithin 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. 2G, 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, 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 : Chilcofi V. Bidlen, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 282 ; 46 L. T., N. S. 63. 70 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where a rent-charge {a) teas {/ranted hy deed, tcliich ope- rated at common laic, and was executed before com- mencement of the six calendar months next previous to ^Ist Juhj in the year of registration, the first pay- ment {((UJiough due in advance) not being in fact made until after commencement of such jjcriod : held, that grantee was not in " actual possession " {icithin 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 {ci). By a deed (operating at common law), dated 1st December, 18bl, the respondent was entitled to a yearly rent-charge {(i) 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 (r/) for the period required by 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, s. 26 (jj). The revising barrister having allowed the vote, — The court, on the authority of Murray v. Thorni- Icy, 2 C. B. 217, ante, p. 7, reversed the decision : Druitt V. Lane (not reported, except in relation to a preliminary objection to the hearing of the appeal, see 2^ost, " Practice "). («) See ante, note {b) on p. 7. (h) It was also objected that the respondent was seised of an estate for life of a rent-charge which was under the value of £5 per annum, and incapable of "actual occupation," and that he came within the disability created by section 18 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 ^amended as to value by section 5 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102). This point was not argued on the appeal, and the court gave no decision upon it. See Druid v. Christchurch, post, pp. 73, 74. COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 71 Where a married icoman seised of freehold houses to her separate use conveyed the same by deed dated 12th January, 1882, to her husband in fee simple, it was held that such conveyance did not give the latter a title to the property, so as to qualify him for the 2)arliamentary franchise in respect of it. Anglesey. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of two freehold houses and lands in the town of Llanerchymedd. By a will dated the 30th of December, 1879, one John Hughes gave and devised unto his daughter, Catherine, and her heirs, all and singular his two freehold messuages and dwelling-houses situate, &c., in the town of Llaner- chymedd, and declared that the said legacy and devise should be for her sole and separate use, and should be free from the debts, control, and engage- ments, of any husband whom she might marry. The testator died in July, 1880. His daughter, Catherine, in October, 1880, married one Alexander McKillop (the appellant). By an indenture dated the 12th of January, 1882, and made between Catherine McKillop (the testa- tor's daughter) of the one part, and the said Alex- ander McKillop of the other part, after reciting the death of the testator and his devise of the said free- hold messuages and dwelling-houses to his daughter, Catherine, the said Catherine McKillop as beneficial owner conveyed unto the said Alexander McKillop, her husband, all those two messuages, dwelling- houses, gardens, frontage, buildings, and premises, situate, &e., in the town of Llanerchymedd, to hold unto and to the use of the said Alexander McKillop in fee simple. The appellant was objected to on the ground that he had no estate or interest under the said will and indenture or either of them in respect whereof his vote could be allowed. The revising barrister held the objection valid, and 72 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. expunged the name of the appellant from the list of voters. The point of law reserved by the barrister for the decision of the court was whether the appellant had under the said indenture any estate or interest qualifying him to vote in respect of the freehold houses and lands expressed to be conveyed to him as above stated. The court were clearly of opinion that he had not, and accordingly affirmed the revising barrister's deci- sion {a) : McKiUop v. Griffith. (Not reported.) (ff) The court doubtless regarded the case as being concluded by the common law principle that, husband and wife being one, a married woman cannot convey to her husband. The case underwent Teiy little argument, and the attention of the court was not fully directed to recent cases in equity relating to a wife's jus dis]jonendl over real estate owned by her to her separate use. A devise by a married woman of her separate real estate to her husband was held in Taylor v. Meads, 34 L. J. Ch. 203, to be a good devise; and in Adams v. Gamble, 12 Ir. Ch. E,ep. 102, a con- veyance by a married woman of her separate real estate to her husband by a deed (not acknowledged) was held valid. The result of the equity cases on this subject is stated by Lord Hatheeley, L.C., in the following terms: " It cannot, I apprehend, be now disputed that when a married woman is the owTier of real estate to her separate use, she is to all intents and purposes in the position of a, feme sole, so as to be able to dispose of that estate by will or deed : " L. R. 7 Ch. Ap. on p. 69. This equitable doctrine is thus simmiarized in Macqueen's Hus- band and Wife : "Up to a recent period this point" (whether a married woman could convey her separate real estate otherwise than by deed acknowledged) ' ' still remained in dovibt, since it was held by many judges that a married woman could not dispose of real estate settled by will to her separate use without an express I)ower of appointment or by act inter vivos, otherwise than by deed duly executed in confonnity with the provisions of the Fines and Recoveries Act, so as to disinherit or bind her heir. It has now, however, been expressly decided by Lord Chancellor Westbitry, in the leading case of Tai/lor v. Meads, that a married woman having real property settled to her separate use in fee, and not restrained from alienation, has, as incident to her separate estate, and with- out any express power, a complete right of alienation by instru- ment inter vivos (not acknowledged under the Fines and Recoveries Act) or by will: " Macqueen's Husband and "Wife, 2nd Ed., on pp. 330, 331. Again, in the same work it is laid down that " The wife being in equity considered a feme sole "with reference to her COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 73 A freehold roit-charge (a) for life of less than £5 annual value was held insufficient to confer county vote, for, being a tenement incapable of " actual and bona fide occupations^ it is not comprised vnthin the exceptions specif ed in section 18 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 [amended as to value by section 5 o/oO 4* 31 Vict. c. 102). South Hants. A. "W. L. and E. L. L. claimed in respect of freehold rent-charges [a) . The claimants were each entitled under two similar deeds, dated the 1st of December, 1881, respectively to the yearly rent-charge (a) of £2 charged upon a freehold mes- suage in Christchurch, to hold the said rent- charge (a) unto the grantee and his assigns during the life of the grantor. It was objected that the claimants were seised of an estate for life of rent- charges (a) under the yearly value of £5 ; that such rent-charges (a) were incapable of actual and bond fide occupation ; and that the claimants, therefore, came within the disability created by 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 18. The revising barrister was of opinion that the right to the rent-charge {a) , and the payment thereof before the last day of January constituted an occu- pation of the rent-charge («) sufficient to entitle the claimants to the franchise within sections 18 and 26 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and he accordingly decided to separate property, she may, of course, make a present of it to her husband; although at laV there is, in general, no such thing- known as a donatio biter virum et uxorcm ; " Macqueen's Husband and Wife, 2nd Ed., on p. 331. If the equitable docti-ine stated above be applicable to the facts in McK'illop V. Griffith, the appellant, it would seem, took imder the deed of the 12th of January, 1882, an equitable estate in the property expressed to be conveyed to him bj^ such deed ; and an equitable freehold estate suffices, as is -well known, to confer the parliamentary franchise. It will be observed that the date of the deed was subsequent to the commencement of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, 1881 ; that Act was referi'ed to by counsel for the appellant, but the court held that it did not apply. (a) See ante, note (5) on p. 7. 74 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. retain the names on tlie list of voters. The court re- versed the decision, holding that the rent-charges (a) in question being each of less than the clear yearly value of £5, and incapable of actual occupation, could not confer the county franchise. Druitt v. Christchuych, L. E. 12 Q. B. D. 365 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 328; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 177; 32 W. E. 371. Grant of rent-charge {a) hy A. to 7?., O. and D. and their heirs, to the use of the said A., B., C. and D., their heirs and assigns for ever, held to operate under the Statute of Uses in relation to B., C. and D., as well as in relation to A., so that B., C. and D. were in the '"'' actual possession " of the rent-charge immediately on the execution of the deed. South-East Lancashire. The appellant was on the list of voters (revised in 1883) in respect of "one equal fourth share of freehold rent-charges (^)." Of the said rent-charges [a) (thi'ee in number) , two for £11 6.S. and £7 7s. Id. were created in 1865, and one for £22 in 1875. By indenture executed upon, and dated, 11th January, 1883, one J. L. (the owner of the rent-charges {a) in question) conveyed the same to his thi'ee sons, A. L. (the appellant), E. L. and F. W. L., and their heirs, to the use of the said J. L., A. L., E. L. and F. W. L., their heirs and assigns for ever, in equal one-fourth shares as tenants in common. The appellant not having received his share of the rent-charges (rf), or any portion thereof, before the last day of July, 1883, it was objected that he had not been in the "actual possession" of his share, or " in receipt of the rents and profits " thereof, for the qualifying period, under section 26 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. The revising barrister was of opinion that the deed operated as a reservation by the grantor of one-fourth of the rent-charges {a) for himself, and as a gift of the remaining three-fourths to his three sons in equal one-fourth shares as tenants in com- (a) See ante, note (J) on p. 7. COL^'TY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 75 mon, and that as tliere was no third party interven- ing between them and the grantor, the appellant took his one-fourth share by force of the common law, and the Statute of Uses did not apply, and he, therefore, disallowed the vote. The com't (reversing the decision) held, that, as J. L. (not being a grantee to uses) took under the Statute of Uses, the appellant took in the same way, and consequently was, in accordance with the doctrine in Heelis v. Blain {ante, pp. 35, 36), in "actual posses- sion" of his share of the rent-charges (r/) immediately on the execution of the deed, although he had not in fact received any portion of the rents : Loiccock v. Broughton, L E. 12 Q. B. D. 369 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 335 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 144 ; 32 W. E. 247. ShareJiolders in the Stock Exchange {an unincovporated company) have no such equitable interest in the land on ichich that institution and its appurtenances are built as to qualify them for a county vote as freeholders, their interest being only in the profits of the concern. Middlesex (Horn'sey Division). Objection was duly made to the retention of the appellant's name in the list of ownership voters, wherein the entry was as follows : — Watson, Charles William. 2, Crown- court, Threadneedle- street. Share in free- hold tene- ments. Stock Ex- change. The appellant was one of 1,040 proprietors in the undertaking called the Stock Exchange, situate in the parish of St. Bartholomew, in the City of London. The objects of the said undertaking as defined in an indenture of 31st December, 1875, were the maintenance of the Stock Exchange building be- («) See ante, note {b) on p. 7. 76 DIGEST OF PARLIAMEXTARY REGISTRATION CASES. longing to the said proprietors, witli its appurten- ances, and the erection and maintenance of any other buildings in the City of London, and providing the same with suitable furnitui'e, fittings, and accommo- dation, and the employing of the said buildings already erected, or to be erected, for the transacting of buying and selling English and foreign stocks and shares in public and other companies, with, under, and subject to the powers and regulations of the said deed, and the rules and regulations to be made pursuant thereto. The said undertaking was first constituted under the provisions of a deed of settlement dated 27th March, 1802, a copy of which was annexed to the special case. By the indenture of 31st December, 1875, which was made under power reserved in the deed of 1802, between the trustees and managers at the date of the said indenture of December 31st, 1875, and the then proprietors (including the predecessor in title of the appellant), the said deed of the 27th March, 1802, was annulled, except as appears by the said deed of 31st December, 1875, a copy of which was also an- nexed to the case. Except so far as the said deed of 1802 may sub- sist and be in force, the Stock Exchange is governed and regulated by the said deed of 1875. From the recitals of the indenture of 1802 it ap- peared that certain persons, parties to the deed, had associated themselves together for the purpose of pro- viding a Stock Exchange in London, and that sums of money had been subscribed and land purchased with part of such money for the purpose. The deed then procoed(^d to vest the lands in certain of such parties as trustees upon the trusts tliereinafter de- clared. It was declared that the lands so purchased and the remainder of tlio moneys subscribed should be considered the capital or stock of the undertaking, and should bo divided into 400 shares of £50, and that the parties to the deed should be the proprietors COUNTY FRANCHISE — FREEHOLDS. i i thereof proportionally to the amount of the sums of money set opposite to their respective names in the schedule. It was fui"ther provided that the funds of the undertaking should he vested in the trustees. Provision was made for the management of the undertaking partly by the trustees, and partly by a committee for general purposes elected at an annual meeting of proprietors and subscribers, for the invest- ment of funds received from time to time, for the declaration of annual dividends, for the admission of subscribers to the Stock Exchange, and the fixing the annual rate of subscription at which they should be admitted to attend and transact business there, and for other matters. These provisions, however, were superseded by the deed of 1875. By the indenture of 31st December, 1875, in pur- suance of the powers reserved for that purpose in the deed of 1802, fresh trusts were declared ^ith respect to the property then vested in the trustees of that deed. It was provided that the hereditaments and premises, and other property of the undertaking, should be vested in certain trustees and managers fi'eed from the trusts of the former deed, except so far as expressly reserved or confirmed, upon the trusts and subject to the covenants, agreements, and declarations thereinafter contained, and it was thereby covenanted and agreed and declared between the parties thereto as followed. The principal covenants and provisions of the deed were, in substance, these: It was provided that "proprietors" should mean the persons for the time being registered as shareholders in the undertaking ; that " members" should mean persons from time to time entitled to attend, and in their own right to transact business on the Stock Exchange in accordance witli the deed ; that the capital or stock of the undertaking should consist of the hereditaments and premises described in the first schedule, and all other the property, real and per- sonal, vested in the trustees and managers in trust for the purposes of the undertaking, and that the 78 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. same should be deemed to be of the nominal value of £240,000, divided into 20,000 shares, on each of which the sum of £12 was credited and deemed to be paid up, and every share should be distinguished by a denoting number. Provision was made for the exchange of the existing shares of the proprietors for the new shares. A share register was to be kept and certificates issued of the shares, and calls, if necessary, might be made on such shares. Every share in the undertaking was to be transmissible as j)ersonal estate. The shares were made transferable by transfer, in writing, in the form determined by the trustees and managers, and a register of transfers was to be kept. No transfer, however, could be made to any person not at the date thereof a member of the Stock Exchange, or to any person not ap- proved by the trustees and managers. Shares of proprietors ceasing to be members of the Stock Ex- change, dying, or becoming bankrupt or lunatic, were to be transferred to some other person, subject to the conditions of the deed, within twelve months, and, if not so transferred, the trustees and managers might purchase or sell the same, subject to the con- ditions of the deed, and, if they purchased, might pay for the shares out of the funds of the under- taking. It was provided that the trustees and managers should have the management of the pro- perty, moneys, funds, and securities, and affairs of the undertaking, and might for that purpose do all acts not specially reserved to a general meeting or the committee for general purposes. They were to appoint and remove secretaries, clerks, door-keepers, porters, and other officers and servants, and fix their salaries and wages, and pay tlio same out of the funds of the undertaking. They were also em- powered to pay pensions to such officers and servants. They were to pay out of the funds of the under- taking all rents, rates and taxes, and other outgoings and expenses. They were empowered to purchase or take on lease any freehold or leasehold heredita- COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS, 79 ments for the purposes of the undertaking. They might, on behalf of the undertaking, iinder the authority of a special resolution, borrow money on mortgage of any part of the property of the under- taking. They were to settle the entrance fee or fees, if any, and annual subscription at which mem- bers and theu' clerks should be admitted to attend and transact business at the Stock Exchange. They were to fix the charges to be made for the use of desks, sittings, drawers, and other exceptional ac- commodation to be permitted to members, and for the use of boxes and safes in the strong rooms of the Stock Exchange, It was further provided, that all moneys belonging to the undertaking, and not required for immediate use, should be invested in such securities, or otherwise employed as the trustees and managers should from time to time determine. No person, whether a proprietor or not, other than such persons as should have been admitted members by the committee for general purposes, and theii' clerks, was to be permitted to enter or frequent the Stock Exchange. Provision was made for the holding of ordinary and extraordinary general meetings of the proprietors. It was provided that a general meeting might from time to time resolve that any part of the profits of the year, not exceeding 10 per cent., should be appropriated to the reserve fund, which was to be applicable to repairs and maintenance of the buildings belonging to the undertaking ; that all dividends on shares should be declared by a general meeting, and should be paid only out of the net profits of the undertaking ; that the net profits of the undertaking should be the sum declared to be such by the trus- tees and managers; and that no larger dividend should be declared than might be recommended by the trustees and managers, but that the general meeting might, if it thought fit, declare a smaller dividend. A committee for general purposes was to be annually elected by the members of the Stock Exchange, which committee was to admit such per- 80 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. sons, wlietlier proprietors or not, as tliey tliought proper, to be memlbers of, and to attend and frequent, the Stock Exchange for the transacting therein the business of a stock broker or jobber, upon payment of the annual subscription fixed by the trustees and managers for such admission ; and such committee was to regulate the transaction of business on the Stock Exchange, and to make rules and regulations in relation thereto. They had also power to expel or suspend members. Power was reserved to the proprietors by special resolution to be passed by a majority of two-thii'ds of the proprietors, to repeal or alter the trusts of the deed, and make new regu- lations for the management of the affairs of the undertaking or the trusts thereof. The land upon which the Stock Exchange and its appurtenances are built is freehold. The income of the Stock Exchange is made up almost entirely of fees paid for admissions to the Stock Exchange, and charges for the use of desks, sittings, drawers, and other exceptional occupation, and for the use of boxes and safes in the strong rooms ; and, as to about one-fiftieth part of the said income, of divi- dends or interest on investments in Government and other securities. The gross annual value of the land and buildings was more than sufficient to yield to each proprietor the clear annual sum of 40.s. over and above all charges. The undertaking of the Stock Exchange has never been registered as a com- pany under the Companies Acts, or at all, nor has it been incorporated. The names of other persons whose names appeared in a schedule to the ease were objected to under similar circumstances to those in the appel- lant's case. It was objected to the retention of the appellant's name on the register, inter alia, that the share or interest of any proprietor of tlie Stock Exchange is not an interest in real estate, or, at any rate, not such an interest as to entitle him to the franchise. The revising barrister so decided, and expunged the COUNTY FRANCHISE FREEHOLDS. 81 names of the appellant and the other persons whose names were included in the schedule. The court, affirming the decision, held, that the shareholders intended, as they legally might, to vest the freeholds in the trustees free from any equitable interest in the individual members in the land itself, and to give to such members an interest (of the nature of personalty) in the profits of the under- taking {a) : Watson v. Black, L. E. 16 Q. B. D. 270 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 418 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. -M ; 54 L. T., N. S. 17; 34 W. R. 274. {a) FrisbtjY. Black (.55 L. J. Q. B. D. 33, note) is substantially the same as TJ^atson v. Black, and is governed by the ^me decision. S. 82 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. COUNTY FEANCHISE— OTHER TENURES THAN FREEHOLD. Copyliold Jiouse in borough, of more than £10 ammal value, let out to different tenants in distinct tene- ments, held not to give a vote for count jj, although yearly value of each tenement iras insufficient for borough vote. North Durham. A. was on the list of voters in respect of his ownership of a copjhold house, described in- the list as " copyhold house, in tene- ments." The house in question was situate within the parliamentary borough of Sunderland, and was of the clear yearly value of £10. It consisted of two rooms, which A. let out separately, and as distinct tenements, to different tenants. But neither of such tenements was of sufficient vakie to give its occupier a vote for the borough. Held that, as the two tenements into which the house was divided were not separate houses in the sense of their being under separate roofs, but formed parts of a house, Avhich, if occupied by A., would have conferred on him a vote for the borough, A. was disqualified by section 25 of 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, for the county franchise in respect of such house : Proctor V. Annison, 7 C. B., N. S. 48 ; K. & G. 297 ; 29 L. J. 0. P. 90 ; G Jur., N. S. 656 ; 8 W. R. 140 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 187. Customary tenure in Staithcs, in N. R. of Yorkshire, held to qualify under section 19 of Reform Act, 1832. North Riding of Yorkshire. The houses in the village of Staithcs, in the manor of Seaton, were held under a cuslomary tenure, which had there obtained for a long period without alteration ; and there was COUNTY FRANCHISE TENURES NOT FREEHOLD. 83 no evidence of any other tenure having ever existed there. The principal incidents connected with such tenure were as follows : — The houses were occupied by tenants on the court- roll of the manor. The rent of each house was much smaller than its annual letting value, and had always continued the same. Each tenant on paying his rent received an acquittance from the agent of the Marquis of Normanby, who was lord of the manor. One instance only had been known of a notice to quit having been served on behalf of the Marquis on one of the tenants, and then the tenant did not quit. No action of ejectment had ever been brought against any one of them. Each tenant repaired, and, when necessary, rebuilt, the house he held, and was rated and assessed as the owner thereof. Persons desirous of being admitted as tenants applied for that purpose at the manor courts. These courts were held under the presidency of the steward of the manor and in the presence of the Marquis's land agent. The jury were chosen from the freeholders, and the tenants of houses, within the manor. The list of suitors having been called over, the jury sworn, and other matters disposed of, the applications for admission as tenants were heard. The applicant was presented by the bailiff of the manor to the steward, who was at the same time informed in what capacity the applicant sought admission, e.g., whether as purchaser, devisee, heir- at-law, or as the case might be. The steward then inquired of the land agent, and generally of the foreman of the jury as well, whether there was any objection to the applicant being- admitted. In most cases there was no objection, but occasion- ally a discussion arose, in which all the circumstances of the case (as well moral as legal) were gone into, G 2 84 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and then tlie steward decided, granting or refusing tlie application according to his judgment. If the applicant was a purchaser, his application was almost always granted ; so, also, if he claimed under the will of a deceased tenant ; but there were many instances of a devisee having been rejected by the steward, and another person admitted instead, and this, although the devise was admitted to have been sufficient in point of form, and free from fraud. The candidate's application having been granted, his name was inserted in its alphabetical place among the names of the other tenants. He then took the oath of fealt}^, and paid a fee of 1 s. 6(1. to the steward ; no fee was paid to the lord of the manor. A change of tenancy often took place between the holdings of the courts. In such cases the claim to be admitted as tenant was made to the land agent, who usually required a letter of recommendation from the foreman of the jury of the manor court last held. If the land agent assented, as he usually did, to the application, he sent a letter to that effect to the steward, who upon receipt thereof indorsed the incoming tenant's name on the cou-rt-roll ; and at the next manor court the name was entered in its proper alphabetical place in the court-roll {(i). For every admittance out of court the incoming tenant paid the steward a fee of 5s., but no fine was paid to the lord of the manor. Subject to the above conditions, a purchaser, pledgee, devisee, or heir-at-law, as the case might be, was admitted tenant on the court-roll, and entered upon possession. (a) The case, although stating that an oatli of fealty was taken by the in(«minfi: tenant, when admitted in the usual way, in court, contains no incntion of such oath havin<^ bi'on taken when the admittanee took place out of ivKvt. As there could have been no reason for the existence of such a distinction, the omission is pi'obahly the result of inadvertence. COUNTY FRANCHISE — TENVRES NOT FREEHOLD. 85 In selling or pledging no deeds or documents of any kind were used, nor was there any copy of the court-roll furnished to the incoming tenant. When a tenant wished to sell, permission to do so was obtained from the Marquis's land agent, to whom an undertaking was sometimes given to pay over part of the purchase-money to meet arrears of rent due from the outgoinrr tenant. The hand-bills of the sale of a house were usually headed " By permission of the Most Noble the Marquis of Normanby," and the house was therein described as " the property of the outgoing tenant." Held, witliout deciding under what particular tenure the tenants in Staithes held their respective houses, that, having a permanent interest therein, they were entitled to the franchise, as being seised of "lands or tenements of copyhold or any other tenure " than " freehold," within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 19 ; Garbutt v. Trevor, 15 0. B., N. S. 550 ; H. & P. 69 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 73 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 131 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 535 ; 12 W. E. 471. 86 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. COUNTY FRANCHISE— TERMS. Lessee for a term of sixty years of /loiises in'fhin a parliamentary borough, not excluded from county franchise by reason of one of the houses being such as to give a borough vote. North Warwic;kshire. A. was on the list of voters in respect of " lease of Louses and buildings for years." He was lessee of a term over sixty years. The lease comprised several houses at Aston, in the borough of Birmingham. One of the houses was worth more than £10 a year; the remainder were individually worth less, but collectively more than that sum annually. Each house Avas occupied by a distinct tenant, and in no case was any land occupied jointly with a house. Held, that A.'s interest under the lease was divisible, and that, notwithstanding one of the houses comprised in the lease was of sufficient value to give a vote for the borough, he was not disqualified by 2 Will. lY. 0. 45, s. 25, for a county vote in respect of the residue : Webb v. Aston, 7 Scott, N. R. 545 ; 5 M. & G-. 14 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 57 ; 7 Jur. 1090. Assignee's equitable life interest in a term over sixty years does not qualify him for the franchise. "West Ridikg (S. Division) of Yorkshire. A claimant was on the list of voters at the revision of 1805 in respect of "one-sixth share of fourteen leasehold cottages, hold for a term of 999 years." The claimant's father by liis will gave to trustees all liis real and personal estate upon trust, as to one undivided sixth share, to pay the rents and annual COUNTY FRANCHISE — TERMS. 87 \ produce thereof to the claimant for life, with re- mainder to his children. The testator was possessed for a term of 999 years of certain leasehold cottages, and it was in respect of one sixth share of the same that the claimant claimed to vote, the annual value of such share being more than £10 per annum. Held, that as the claimant's equitable {a) interest in the unexpired residue of the term was subject to be defeated by his death he was not entitled to vote under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20, and 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 74: Ga/iisford v. Freeman, L. E. 1 0. P. 129 ; H. & P. c529 ; H. & E. 352 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 192 ; 35 L. J. €. P. 92 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 595 ; 14 W. E. 203. Lcasel/olders, whose names were properly on the register of county voters in 1867, in respect of dicelling- houses of less than £10 yearly tahie in parlia- mentary boroughs, deprived of such qualification by 2 Will. IV. c. 45, 5. 25, and ZO c^' 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 59. South-East Lan'cashire. B. was on the list of voters in respect of two leasehold houses (term, over sixty years), situate in the borough of Manchester. At the time of the passing of the Eepresentation of {a) It is doubtful whether a leaseholder's legal interest, if only for life, in the uuespu-cd residue of a term over sixty years would give a qualification any more than a life interest in equity, not- withstanding that, in contemplation of law, a chattel interest is less than an estate for life ; see per Byles, J., L. R. 1 C. P. 132. No question was raised as to whether a mere equitable interest in a term for years (indej)endently of its being- for life only) would suffice to qualify. The omission from section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 4o, of the words "at law or in equity," with reference to lease- holds, those words having been used in section 19 in relation to copyholds, is suggestive of a doubt on this j)oint ; but in I'ance's case, Alcock, R. C. E. 269, it was held, on the construction of the Irish Reform Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 88), which, in so far as this point is concerned, corresponds with section 20 of the Enghsh Act, that a cestui que trust under an assignment of a lease for a term over sixty years was entitled to vote in respect of his interest in such term. 88 DIGEST OF PAllLIAMElNTARy REGISTRATION CASES- the People Act, 18G7, he was rightly on the register of parliamentary voters for the then southern (a) division of Lancashire in respect of the property in question, neither house Leing of the yearly value of £10. It was objected at the Revision Court (held in 1868) that B. was disqualified for the county franchise by section 25 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, each house having become sufficient, under section 3 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, to confer on the tenant or occupier thereof a vote for the borough. The barrister allowed the objection, and expunged B.'s name from the list. It was contended, on appeal, that, as B. had acquired the county franchise in respect of the houses in question before the passing of the last-mentioned statute, such franchise was reserved to him by section 56, the alleged disqualification applying (it was argued) only to claims made subsequently to 1867. But the court held, affirming the revising barris- ter's decision, that B. was deprived of his county qualification by the joint operation of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 25, and 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 59 : C/iori- ton V. Johnson (Bunting's case), L. R. 4 C. P. 426 ;. 1 H. & C. 49 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 37; 17 W. E. 141 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 560. A rigJd by contract to have a ninety-nine years' lease granted at a future time, and on the ijerformance of various conditions, docs not confer a vote under 30 ^ 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 5, although intended lessee be let into possession 2)ending fulfilment of conditions. North Durham. A. claimed a vote in 1868 in respect of a " leasehold house." By memorandum of agreement of 1st May, 1863, (a) This division of the county was sub-di-\-ided by 30 & 31 Vict- c. 102, s. 23, Schedule D., into south -eastern and south-western. COUNTY FRANCHISE — TERMS. 89 "between the owners in fee of land, the trustees of a building society, and one C, after reciting that the land had been laid out as the sites for workmen's dwelling-houses, and that it was intended that such dwelling-houses should be built by means of the monthly contributions of one hundred workmen, to be selected by the trustees of the society, and that until such contributions were fully paid up, C. should advance, for the completion of the buildings, a sum not exceeding £7,000, to be repaid with interest out of the contributions, and that leases for ninety- nine years of the building sites should be granted to such workmen, when C, xcith the consent in icriting of the trustees, should require, — It was agreed that, in the meantime, and until such leases should be granted, the land and buildings thereon should be a security to 0. for money ad- vanced, with interest. By memorandum of agreement of 18th June, 1864, between the trustees and A., the former agreed that the latter should have a lease of one of the sites in question and dwelling-house thereon for a term of ninety-nine years, subject to a ground rent, for the sum of £74, payable by instalments. And it was agreed that A. should have immediate possession, and that within three months after the purchase-money and interest had been paid, and the rules of the society duly satisfied, and provided that A. should have observed and performed all the con- ditions contained in the agreement, and also all the rules and regulations of the society for the time being on his part to be performed, the trustees should give him a proper conveyance of the premises, sub- ject to the ground rent. A. had been let into possession ; he had duly paid such instalments as had become due, and had observed all the rules and regulations of the society, but no lease had been granted to him, nor had C, who had not been repaid in full, required, or the trustees consented, that one should be granted. 90 DIGEST OF TARLIAMENTARY REGLSTRATiON CASES. Held, that A. was not the lessee of a term origin- ally created for not less than sixty years -within section 5 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and therefore not entitled to be registered (a) : Trotter v. lFatiO)i, L. E,. 4 C. P. 434 ; 1 H. & C. 21 G ; 38 L. J. C. P. 100 : 17 W. B. 330 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 785. Cestui que use of a chattel rent-charge^ annual value £5, and orUjinalhj created for more than sixty years, lias no vote in respect thereof. South-East Lancashire. By 30 & 31 Viet, c. 102, s. 5, a county vote is conferred upon every man who is entitled, either as lessee or assignee, to any lands or tenements of freehold, or of any other tenure whatever, for the unexjDired residue, whatever it may be, of any term originally created for a period of not less than sixty years (whether determinable on a life or lives or not), of the clear yearly value of not less than £5. S. claimed to be inserted in the register of voters for the township of Denton in respect of his interest under a deed of settlement, dated 5th January, 1837; such interest, as described in his notice of claim, was, (a) The words of section 5 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, witli regard to terms over sixty years, are (except as to the reduction of value) identical yn.i\\ those of section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 ; conse- quently it is still open to argument (see the note to Gainsford \. I'rccDian, on p. 87) "whether an equitable leasehold can give a qualification. A distinction "was taken in Trotter v. Watson between an equitable interest in an ascertained legal term of the required length and value and an equitable right to the grant of a lease. Keati^jg, J., in his judgment, held, on the avithority of Vance's case, cited in the note above referred to, that the former would suffice, but expressed a doubt whether the latter would. It may be that a right to the grant of a lease on the payment of money simply woizld be an equitable term and within the Act ; but, if so, the circumstances must show a simple debt on one side and a lien for the money on the other. Montague Ssiith, J., distinguished the right to a lease existing under such cii'cum- stances from one which is dependent on future conditions, which may or may not be performed. COUNTY FRANCHISE TERMS. 91 *' Annuity or rent-cliarge arising out of lands and buildings, held for a term over sixty years, deter- minable on lives." L., the settlor, being seised in fee of certain lands and hereditaments in Denton, conveyed them, after certain prior limitations since determined, to trustees for one hundred years, if S. (the claimant) and certain other persons named in the deed should so long live, to the use {inter alia), that S., his executors and administrators, should, dming the said term of one hundred years, receive out of the rents and profits one annuity or yearly rent-charge of £10. Held, that the words " lessee or assignee," in section 5 of 30 & -31 Vict. e. 102, should be construed by reference to section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that being so construed, they mean the lessee, or assignee of the lease, of tenements capable of occupa- tion ; that S. was not entitled, either as lessee or assignee, to any such tenement, and therefore was not entitled to be registered : Warhioion v. Denton, L. E. 6 C. P. 267 ; 1 H. & C. 432 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 19 W. E. 210 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 729. Siih-lessee of term over sixty years is a lessee nithin 30 tt 31 Vict. e. 102, s. 5. South-East Lancashire. S. claimed in respect of " leasehold houses," term over sixty years. He was sub-lessee for a period of not less than sixty years of, and was in actual occupation of, {a) a [a] It is remarkable that tlie proviso to section 20 of the Reform Act, 1832, whereby sub-lessees were prohibited from voting, unless they were in actual occupation, is not repeated in section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. However, in the event of a claim imder that section by a sub-lessee not in occupation, it may, perhaps, be held that, by vii-tue of sections (56 and 59 of the Act of 1867, the proviso to section 20 of the Act of 1832 should be read into section 5 of the later Act ; see per "Willes and Beett, JJ., 1 H. & C. 716, 717; and per Beett, J., L. R. 7 C. P. 201. Should the contrary be held, the following anomaly will ensue — 92 DIGEST OF I'ARLI AMENTA KY IIEGISTRATION CASES. house, the clear yearly value of which was £o, but under £10, over and above all rents and charges. Held, that S. was a "lessee" within section 5 of fiO & 31 Vict. 0. 102, and therefore entitled to the franchise: Chorlton v. Strefford, L. II. 7 C. P. 198; 1 H. & C. 712 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 37 ; 20 W. E. 236 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 810. that, -vs'licrcas a sub-lessee of a term over twenty years is, by virtue of the above-mentioned proviso, incapable of voting as such unless in actual occupation, a sub -lessee of a term originally created for not less than sixty years will be under no such restriction. ( 93 ) COUNTY FRANCHISE— OCCUPATION (£50 RENTAL) («). Different renU paiiahh to different landlords cannot he joined so as to quality under Chandos Clause. South Lancashire, The respondent claimed a vote in respect of the " occupation of lands and huildings at a rental of £50 and upwards." He occupied the above-mentioned premises as tenant under two different landlords, and was hand fide liable to two distinct yearly rents, one to each landlord, in respect of the premises so occupied by him. Each of such yearly rents was less than, but together they exceeded, £50. Held, that the respondent was not " bona fide liable to a yearly rent of not less than £50," within the meaning of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20, and was, there- fore, not entitled to be registered : Gadsby v. Bar rate, 7 M. & G. 21 ; 8 Scott, N. R. 799 ; 1 Lutw. 142 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 51 ; 8 Jur. 1031 ; B. & Arn. 283. On change of qualification, voter must send in a fresh claim, notu-ithstanding that the description {in the register) of old qualification may be equally applic- able to neic. South Northamptonshire. A voter was described on the register (revised in 1847) as follows : — David Attfield I ColdAshby. I Occupier of land I Own occupation. I I above £50. | Attfield had occupied a farm (of sufficient rental) in the parish of Cold Ashby, as tenant to L., for (a) This franchise, enacted by the Chandos Clause of the Reform Act, 1832, was practically superseded by the £12 rateable occupa- tion franchise enacted by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, 8. 6. The £12 rateable occux^ation franchise is now super- seded by the £10 (annual value) occupation franchise enacted by s. 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. That Act repeals the Chandos Clause, but saves the rights of persons on the register at the date of the passing of the Act (6th December, 1884). Tor the new proAasions relating to the registration of £50 rental voters, see s. 11 of the Registration Act, 1885, and the second schedule thereto. 94 DIGEST OF PARLTAMKXTAllY REGISTRATION CASES. several years up to Ladj'-day, 1847, wlien lie left it. At Michaelmas, lS4(i, he took another farm of AV. (likewise of sufficient rental) situate in the same parish, and continued to hold it up to October, 1847. lie had not made any new claim. Held, tliat Attfield, not having retained the mmc qualification, sliould have sent in a new claim under section 4 of G Vict. c. 18, and that, as he had not done so, his name must be expunged from the register : Burto)i v. Oenj, 5 C. B. 7 ; 2 Lutw. 4 ; 17 L. J. C. r. GG ; 11 Jm-. 948 ; 10 L. T. 135. TJic committee of a Jnnatk-'s estate under letters 2^(itcnty in actual possessio)i of jyart of such estate, and rendering accounts to the court of chancenj which were alloiced, wherein he described himself as tenant^ and debited himself with rent, held not to occupy as tenant. South Northamptonshire. The respondent was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of house and land. His vote was objected to on the ground that he did not occupy as tenant. He was appointed committee of a lunatic's estate under letters patent (21st June, 1 Yict.) whereby were granted to him the custody, regulation, occupa- tion, disf)Osition, and receipt, of all lands, tenements, houses, &.C., belonging to the lunatic, vnXh. the rents and profits thereof, during the pleasure of the cro^\Ti, and the continuance of the lunacy. After this grant, some of the tenants of the lunatic quitted their farms, and the respondent entered upon the occupation of them, together with a house ; re- ceived the produce to his own use and benefit ; and in his annual accounts allowed by the coiu-t of chan- cery described himself as tenant, debiting himself with the rent. Held, that the respondent acquired no estate in the property under the letters patent, but merely the COUN'TY FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION (£50 RENTAL). 95 custody thereof, tliat he could not make himself a tenant by entering his name as such in the accounts, nor become one by the court of chancery allowing them, and consequently that he did not occupy as tenant, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20 : Burton v. Langham, 5 C. B. 92 ; 2 Lutw. 78; 17 L. J. C. V. 253; 12 Jut. 631. Rents of joint and single tenancies respectively cannot be joined to make ap amount of rental necessary to qualify under section 20 of lieforni Act, 1832, or section 73 of Registration Act, 1843, although both holdings are under same landlord. East Kent. R. was on the list of voters as an occupier of " house and land." lie had for several years occupied, as sole tenant, a house with land, for which he was bond fide liable to an annual rent of £40. He had also occupied for several years, as joint-tenant with another, under the same landlord, other lands, for which he and his co-tenant were bond fide jointly liable to an annual rent of £64. The hiring of the two properties took place at different periods. Held, that H.'s separate rent and his share of the joint rent could not be added together, so as to give him a qualification under either 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20, or 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 73 : Smith v. Foreman, 18 C. B., N. S. 144 ; H. & P. 231 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 93 ; 13 W. E. 291 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 42; 11 L. T., N. S. 673. 96 DIGEST OF PA^lLTAME^'TARY REGISTRATTOX CASES. COUNTY FEANCHISE— OCCUPATION (£12 RATEABLE VALUE) {a). Rateable value, in order to qaalif)/, may he made up of aggregate rateable value of lands oceupied at the same time under different landlords ; and it is no objection that such lands are separately rated. Bedfordshire. J. was olDJected to on the list of £12 occupiers for the parish of Sandy. He had during the qualifying period occupied, as tenant, lands and tenements within the parish under four separate and distinct landlords, and had, during the time of such respective occupations, been sepa- rately rated in respect of each of them. The rateable value of each piece of land was less than £12. The rateable value of the several portions taken together exceeded that simi. Held, that section 6, sub-sects. 2 and 3, of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, had been sufficiently complied with, and, therefore, that J. was entitled to be on the register: Iluckle v. Piper, L. E. 7 C. P. 193; 1 H. & C. 680 .; 41 L. J. C. P. 42 ; 20 W. R. 235 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 809. Rate-hook not conclusive evidence of " rateable value " under Representation of People Act, 1867, sec- tion 6, suh-sect. 2. Bedfordshire. H. claimed to be inserted in the list of voters in respect of his occupation of lands and tenements of the rateable value of £12, He occupied the premises in question at an annual rent of £14, which was proved to be a fair rent. The gross estimated rental was stated in the rate-book to be £14 9.s'., and the rateable value £11 125. (jcL [a) This franchise (enacted by s. G of the Representation of the reoi)le Act, 1867) is superseded by the occupation qualification enacted by s. 5 of the Eeprescntation of the People Act, 1884. COUNTY FRANCHISE — OCCUrATION (£12 VALUe). 97 The revising barrister being of opinion, on the evidence before him, that the property was of the real rateable value of £12, allowed the claim. The court, aflfirming the decision, held, that the words "rateable value" in 30 & 31 Yiot. c. 102, s. 6, sub-sect. 2, meant the real rateable value, and not that which appeared in the rate-book : Coohe v. Butkr, L. E. 8 C. P. 256 ; 2 H. & C. 22 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 21 W. E. 73 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 548. The u'orcls " hind occupied together icith a house, <^t.," in section 25 of Reform Act, 1832, refer not merely to contemporaneous occiqxition of the quali- fi/ing prejnises under same knidlord, but also to a nser of them for a common j^urpose. North Northamptonshire. The respondent was on the list of £12 occupiers for the parish of Peter- borough in respect of his occuj^ation of land. He had since 1869 occupied, as tenant to F., a close of land in Flag fen in the borough of Peter- borough, the rateable value of such land being £12 or upwards. He subsequently became the occupier, also as tenant to F., of a house in the borough of Peterborough, and he enjoyed the borough parlia- mentary franchise in respect of it. The house and land were more than a mile apart from one another ; each was held at a separate rent, and a separate notice to cj[uit was requisite in respect of each property. It was objected at the revision court that the respondent was not entitled to his county vote, on the ground that he occupied the land "together with " the house, within the meaning of section 25 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that such 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 25 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, have a more S. H 98 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. extensive meaning tlian contemporaneous occupation under the same landlord, and point to a user of the qualifying premises together 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 franchise : Sanders v. Searsoii, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 135; 50 L. J. C. P. D. 117; 43 L. T., N. S. 438. ( 99 ) BOEOTJGH FRANCHISE-OCCUPATIOX. 'Coivhouse suhstdntiaUijhuilt, and convenienth/ placed for occupation of vofer^s land, a huilding loithin section 27 of Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Wexlock. The qualification of a A^oter was stated in the list to be " building and land." The building was a cowhouse or stable, sub- stantially built of stone, with a tiled roof, and having a door with lock and key. It was suitable for the purpose for which it was erected and used, and conveniently placed for the occupation of the voter's land. Held, that the building was within the meaning of the words " other building " in 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27: {a) Whitmore v. Bedford, 5 M. & G. 9 ; 7 Scott, N. R. 489 ; 1 Lutw. 10 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 55 ; 7 Jur. 1064. Servant occupying house rent free, in piart remuneration for his services, idthout being required to live there for the purpose of performing his duties, or for their more readij ^performance, held to occupy as tenant. BoRoroH OF Chatham. B. was objected to at the revision of 1843, on the ground that he had not occupied as owner or tenant. {a) rede V. Downcs and Pccle v. inUiams (o JI. & G. 13) were •decided on the same day as the above case, -without argumeut, the facts being admittedly iindistinguishable from those in the prin- cipal case. h2 100 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. He was the master ropemaker in Chatham Dock- yard, and, as such, had occupied a house therein (value £40 per annum) from July, 1835, to Septem- ber, 1842, when he removed to, and rented at £50 per annum, another house, a mile from the dockyard, with regard to which house no question was raised. The house in the dockyard belonged to the Lords Commissioners of the Admiralty, who allowed B. to reside therein rent free, in part remuneration for his services. He had the exclusive occupation of the house, no part of which was used for the public service, the office at which B. performed his public duties being away from it. If he had not been allowed the house, he would have had an addition to his salary, and since his removal in 1842 he had, in fact, received one guinea per week under the name of lodging money. The revising barrister disallowed the objection, deciding that B. occupied as tenant. The court affirmed the decision, there being " nothing in the facts stated to show that the claimant was required to occupy the house for the performance of his services, or did occupy it in order to their performance, or that it was condiicive to that purpose more than any house which he might have paid for in any other way than by his services " : HugJies v. Chat ham (Burton's case), 7 Scott, N. R. 581 ; 6 M. & G. 54 ; 1 Lutw. 51 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 44; 7 Jur. 1136; B. & Ai'n. 61 {a). {i() The three following' cases, substantially resembling Burton's case, were decided in accordance with the judgmpnt therein : — Parker's case. Brook's case, Smith's case, 7 Scott, N. E. 581, 601,. G02, G0;5, (508 ; 5 M. & G. 54, 73, 74, 75, 80, 81 ; 1 Lutw. 51, 52, 53, 54, G8, 72; 7 Jur. 1136, 1138; 13 L. J. C. P. 44, 46, 47;. B. & Arn. CI, ) ante, p. 103. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 113 It liad a tarpauling for its roof, supported by six posts put into the ground, and one of its sides was boarded up and nailed to the posts. The shed was used for purposes connected with the occupation of the wharf. The voter kept in it his barrows, shovels, and coal baskets ; and a man, who rented of him part of the wharf for making hoops, was allowed to put hoops and poles into the shed, paying wharfage for the use of it. The revising barrister having decided that the shed was a "building," within section 27 (a) of the Eeform Act, 1832, The court held, that the decision must be affirmed, as there was no statement in the case inconsistent with the possibility of the shed being a "building" within that section : Watson v. Cotton, 5 C. B. 51 ; 2 Lutw. 53 ; 17 L. J. C. P. G8 ; 11 Jur. 1106 {b). Coadt-housc and stable, under one roof, having no internal communication, except by means of tuv (/rated windoics, held a building, within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Newport. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a coach-house and stable. Neither the coach-house without the stable, or the stable without the coach-house, was of the clear annual value of £10, but both together were of that value. The two places adjoined each other, and were under the same roof, one large room extending over both. There were two grated windows in the wall dividing the coach-house from the stable, looking from one into the other ; but there was no internal [a) Repealed, save as appears in note {h) ante, p. 103. {b) The court, adverting to the above case in tbeii' judgment in Towell V. Boraston, 18 C. B., N. S. 181, reject as unsound the inferences drawn from it by the learned reporter in 2 Lutw. 58, note. 114 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. communication by wliicli a person could pass from one into the other. The door of the coach-house was under a covered gateway leading from the street into a yard, in which, round the corner of the gateway, was the door of the stable. There were gates at the entrance of the gateway from the street, which gates, when closed, shut in both the coach-house and the stable. These gates, and the gateway and yard, were used in common by the appellant and the occupiers of other premises situate under the gateway and within the yard. In order to get from the coach-house to the stable, it was necessary to pass along the common gateway and yard. Held, that the coach-house and stable together con- stituted a building, within section 27 (a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, although there was no internal communication between them for passing from one to the other, and, consequently, that the appellant was entitled to the franchise : JoUife v. Rice, 6 C. B. 1 ; 2 Lutw. 90 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 12 L. T. 244 ; 13 Jur. 39. The court icere equaUy divided as to ichet/ier the occupa- tion of a house and land in Far Forest, £eu-dtc//y gave a rote for the borough of Beiodlcy. Borough of Bewdley. Gt. claimed to be regis- tered in respect of a house and land in Far Forest in the parish of Ribbesford. Before the passing of the Boundary Act, 1832 (2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 64), Far Forest was part of the borough. By section 35, and sched. 0, of that Act, the parish of Ribbesford was included within the borough, but Far Forest was so detached from the main body of the parish as to break the continuity of the borough boundary, and consequently ceased, by virtue of section 37 if), to be included within it, («) Repealed, save as appears in note (/>) ante, p. 103. \b) The thirty-seventh section of 2 Will. IV. c. 64, enacts, that, notwithstanding' the generality of any description contained in BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 115 unless, before the passing of the Act, it had formed part of the borough ^\for the purpose of the election of a member to serve in piarliament.''^ B J a charter of James the First the right of elect- ing members to serve in parliament for the borough, was vested in the bailiff and burgesses, who were not required to reside within the borough ; the burgesses were themselves elected by the bailiff and capital burgesses, the latter being required to reside therein. The revising barrister decided that Far Forest had not, before the passing of the Boundary Act, 1832, formed part of the borough " for the purpose of the election of a member " for the borough, and therefore disallowed the claim. Held, per Wilde, C. J., and Maule, J., that, inasmuch as before the passing of 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 64, a residence in Far Forest would have formed part of the qualification of a capital burgess to elect the common burgesses who were to elect the member. Far Forest was part of the borough " for the pur- pose of the election of a member to serve in parlia- ment," mthin section 37 of the Act, and consequently, that Gr. was entitled to be on the register. Per Cresswell and Williams, JJ., that the connection of Far Forest with parliamentary elec- tions was too remote to satisfy the saving clause of section 37 ; that that clause was intended merely to preserve personal rights reserved by section 33 of 2 Will. I v. c. 45, and consequently, that Gr. was not entitled: Palmer v. Alien, 6 0. B. 51; 2 Lutw. 126; 18 L. J. C. P. 265 ; 13 Jur. 708 ; 13 L. T. 323 («). soiled. (of that Act), "no city, borougli, or place, the contents whereof are specified in such schedule, shall include any part of any parish, &c., which is detached from the main body of such, parish, &c., if by reason of including such detached part, the boundary hereby established of such city, borough, or place, would not be continuous, unless such detached part shall, before the passmg of this Act, have formed part of such city, borough, or place, for the purpose of the election of members to serve in par- liament.' ' (a) It is remarkable that the definition of the parliamentary i2 116 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. One who occupies a house as tenant under a lease from the owner, uill not cease to occupy as svch hy reason of his entering into a parol agreement uith owner, whereby the latter hecomes a lodger in respect of a portion of the premises demised hyhim. Borough of Newport. A. was on tlie list o£ voters (revised in 1849) in respect of his occupation of a " house." He had occupied the house in question as yearly tenant for about three years to 2nd March, 1849, when the owner, by a duly-executed lease, demised the premises to him for a period of seven years at an annual rent of £22. In the following month the owner entered into a parol agreement with A. to lodge in the house, and accordingly became the occupier of a shop and two rooms therein at a yearly rent of £12, A. continuing to occupy, and residing in, the residue of the house, consisting of three rooms and a kitchen. The only entrance to the house was through the shop occupied by the owner, each party keeping a key of the street door, and having equal access to their respective apartments. There was only one staircase in the house, and that was used by both parties in common. The revising barrister held, that the admission of the owner, under the circumstances stated, to the occupation of the premises did not set aside the indenture of lease, and that, consequently, the owner resided on the premises as a lodger, and that area of the borough of Bewdley, enacted by the Bovmdary Act of 1832, was re-enacted by the Eoundaiy Act of 1868, without any alteration, except tliat, under the last-mentioned statute, such definition included the hanilet of Upper Mittou, which was within the parish of the forci^'n of Kiddcraiinster : consequently, the question whether Far Forest (in the parish of Ribbesford) was, or was not, within tlie ])arh,'niientiny borough of Bcwdlcy remained open to arguiiu'iit until tlio Kcdistribution of Seats Act, 1885, wliich disfranchised Bewdley as a parliamentary borough. EOKOVGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 117 A. was tlie occupier as tenant, and therefore entitled to vote. The coiu-t affirmed the decision: WJiite v. Prbig. [This case is not reported, except in relation to a point of practice on appeal ; see ^;os^, " Practice."] A row of coiifii/Kous huUcUngs may constitute a " hiiikl- ing^'' within section 21 {a) of Reform Act, 1832, although there he neither internal communication hctu-een them, or continuity of roof. Borough of Harwich. The respondent was objected to on the list of occupiers, in the third column whereof his qualification was described as *' workshop, stable, and garden." The ground of objection was, that the stable and workshop were not so situated with respect to each other, that they could be united, so as to form a qualification, or part of a qualification. The premises consisted of a two-stalled stable, with hay-loft over it, built of brick ; annexed to which, but of a lower elevation, was another brick building, to which again was annexed an irregular wooden building, divided into three compartments, the whole being in the respondent's exclusive occupation under one landlord, and used by the respondent for the pm'pose of his business as a wheelwright. Each of the two brick buildings, and each compartment of the wooden building, opened into the same yard (also in the respondent's exclusive occupation) ; but there was no internal communication between any of these buildings. Held, affirming the revising barrister's decision, that the premises constituted a " building," within section 27 [a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 : PouimllY. Dawson, 11 C. B. 9; 2 Lutw. 177; 21 L. J. C. P. 14; 16 Jur. 549. [ft) Repealed, save as appears in note {h) ante, p. 103. 118 DIGEST OF PARL1AME^^TARY REGISTRATION CASES. TJie words ^^ occupied therewith^^ in section 27 {a) of Bcform Act, 1832, do not refer to local contig^dtij. They mean that the house and land must he occu- jried at same time. Borough of Tewkesbury. B. occupied as ten- ant a house and garden, which were both taken by him of the same landlord, at the same time, and at one entire rent. Between the house and the garden there was some waste land and a row of buildings, and to get to the garden, B. had to go out of his front door and along the street for some yards. The clear annual value of the house alone was less than £10 ; that of the house and garden together, more than £20. B.'s vote for the borough having been objected to on the ground that the garden was separate from the house, and therefore, not within the meaning of the words " occupied therewith " in section 27 {a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, the revising barrister overruled the objection, and retained the name. The court held that he was right : Collins v. Thomas, 12 C. B. 639 ; 2 Lutw. 219 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 20 L. T. 97 ; 17 Jm*. 25. Compulsory residence in a particular house for the dis^ charge of official duties, inconsistent with occiqxition as tenant (b). Borough of Bury St. Edmunds. C. claimed to be registered in 1856 in respect of his occupation of a house, which, together with the Guildhall, formed part of certain charity trust estates belonging to certain trustees or feoffees. 0. was, and had been by annual appointment since 1846, the keeper of the Guildhall. The house in question, which had been built many years, and was intended for the residence of the hall-keeper, communicated with the back of the Guildhall by means of a yard, so that the hall-keeper (a) Repealed, save as appears in note {b) ante, p. 103. (i) See now 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 119 could from the inside secure the front door of the Guildhall, opening to the street. C. occupied the house in question in part re- muneration for his services as hall-keeper. He had the exclusive control over it, and paid the rates and taxes. In the minute book of the resolutions come to by the trustees at their annual meetings, there was generally the following entry : " Mr. J, W. Clarke was elected hall-keeper for the year ensuing." But in 1854 and 1855 the minute was entered thus: *'Mr. J. W. Clarke is elected hall-keeper for the ensuing year, and that the said J. W. Clarke be continued as tenant of the house in which he lives, he paying the rates, taxes, and outgoings." In January, 1866, the entry was, "Mr. J. W. Clarke is elected hall-keeper for the ensuing year." The revising barrister being of opinion that C.'s occupation of the house was necessary for the due discharge of his duties as hall-keeper, and that he was required to occupy it, disallowed the claim. The court, upon that finding, held, that C.'s occupation was that of a servant, and not a tenant, and, therefore, that the claim was rightly disallowed : Clarl:e v. JBiir// Si. Edmunds, 1 C. B., N. S. 23 ; K & a. 90; 26 L. J. C. P. 12; 28 L. T. 102; 5 W. E. 21 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 645. The brethren of Earl Leicester''s Hospital held not to occvpii their dicellings as owners or tenants, but merehj as members of a corporation. Borough of Warwick. B. was on the list of voters for the parish of St. Mary in respect of his occupation of " part of Earl Leicester's Hospital," which he occupied as one of the brethren of that institution. The hospital, a charitable foundation, was incor- porated by Act of Parliament, and empowered to hold land ; and it consisted of a master and twelve . 120 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. brethren, wliG were governed by certain rules and statutory provisions. The brethren were appointed by the heir of the founder, and held their appointments for life, subject to deprivation for any of the causes specified in the rules. The income of the corporation was derived from land, and two of the brethren annually received the rents, out of which they made all payments for repairs and taxes, coals and candles, and for the general purposes of the hospital. Each of the brethren occupied exclusively two rooms, a sitting-room and a bed-room, a cellar, and a piece of garden, which together were of the clear annual value of £10, and in respect of which the occupier's name appeared in the rate-book. These premises were within the walls of the hospital, beyond which the brethren were not per- mitted to go after 9 p.m., when the outer gates of the hospital were locked by the porter for the night. Held, that B. occupied neither as owner or tenant, but merely as a member of the corporation, and was, therefore, not entitled to a borough vote under 2 Will. lY. c. 45, s. 27 : Ileafh v. IIa>/nes, 3 C. B., N. S. 389 ; K. & G. 99 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 50 ; 4 Jm-., N. S. 664 ; 6 W. R. 52 ; 30 L. T. 134. Where sole lessee ofp7'emises took into parfnershi}) three others, who, jointly icith such lessee, occupied the premises for the partnership concern, the three persons so admitted were held to occupy as tenants. Borough of Haverfordwest. Three persons claimed in 1858 to be inserted in the list of £10 occupiers. The nature of their qualifications was described as " one undivided fourth part of liouse and mills." The claimants' father was, and had been since 1836, lessee of a liouse and mill for ninety-nine years, terminable on lives, at a yearly rent of £350. BOROUGH ^RA^X'HISE — OCCUPATIOX. 121 In 1842 he took his three sons (the claimants) into partnership in the business of paper making. The four partners built another mill at their joint expense, and carried on one business at the two mills. The accounts were balanced each year, and the profits, after deducting expenses, were divided equally amongst the foiu\ They all lived together in the house, and were all rated in respect of it. The rent, rates, and household expenses, were paid out of the partnership funds, but the rent was actually paid by the father, who was alone recognized as the tenant by the landlord, though the latter knew of the existence of the j)artnership. Held, affirming the decision of the revising barrister, that the claimants occupied as tenants (per Williams, J., at least as tenants at will to their father) within section 27 of 2 Will. IV, c. 45 : Rogers v. Harveij, 5 C. B., N. S. 3 ; K. & G. 169 ; 28 L. J. 0. P. 17 ; 32 L. T. 106 ; 7 W. E. 17 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 199 {a). The MiUtarii Knights of Windsor held not to occupy their diccUings cither as owners or tenants, bat as mere objects of charity. Borough of New Windsor. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of a " house," which he had occupied since 1840 as one of the military knights of Windsor. These " knights " are an ancient institution of royal foundation, designed for the support of thii-teen gentlemen " brought to necessity," who have been employed in the military service of the realm. They (a) See, as to joint occupiers as tenants at wUl, Mer/ler v. Metcalfe, 5 It. C. L. E. 54 ; and Reg. v. Mayor of Belfast, 8 tr. R. C. L. Q. B. 423. 122 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. are appointed by the crown, and installed by the dean and canons of Windsor, in whom is vested the legal estate in the houses occupied by the "knights." A newly-elected " knight " is described in his appointment as " a fit object of our royal charity,'^ and holds his place as military knight " during his good and statutable deportment therein." The "knights" are governed by the statutes of the foundation, and the orders of chapter, and are subject to the following regulations and restrictions: They cannot let the houses assigned to them without the sanction of the dean and canons ; nor can they receive guests into their rooms at will. They are forbidden to sleep out at night without leave. They are required to attend daily worship and certain mortuary services, to dine in a common hall, and to wear a livery, which is supplied to them out of the chapter revenues. Any " knight " acquiring £20 a year becomes thereby disqualified for retaining his place as a member of the institution. There are forfeitures and fines for disobeying the rules. The "knights" are severally paid a fixed sum daily, and receive a quarterly dole. If a " knight" be guilty of a notable crime, or of disobedience after two warnings, he is expelled. The houses allotted to the "knights" are repaired by the crown. Held, that the appellant occupied his house as a mere object of charity, and not as owner or tenant, and therefore was not entitled to the borough franchise under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (a) : Ilcartlcij v. Banks, r> C. 13., N. S. 40 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 144 ; K. & G. 219 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 492 ; 7 W. R. 342 ; 33 L. T. 203. {a) Kepealcd, save as appears in note {h), ante p. 103. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 123 Occiqnjinrj tenant of huikUngs and land lured of " the same landlord " doe^ not lose the borough qualifi- cation acquired by him in respect of sicch pronises, under the Reform Act, 1832, by reason of his landlord's sale of the buildings during qualifying year, provided tenant continues to hold them under original taking. Borough of Ashburton. The appellant {Smer- don V. Tucker) (a) had occupied as tenant from 31st July, 1858, to 31st July, (b) 1859, (the qualifying year) , certain buildings and land within the borough, of the annual value of £40. He was objected to on the ground that he did not hold the premises in question under the same landlord. On the 31st July, 1858, A. was owner in fee and landlord of all the premises, but on 16th July, 1859, he sold the buildings to T. By a deed of that date A. conveyed to T. all the buildings occupied by the appellant, to hold during the joint lives of the said A. and T. The transaction was a bond fide sale for adequate value. The consideration was really paid, but no notice of the conveyance was given to the appellant (c) , who did not know of it, until it was disclosed in the revision court. There was no building on the land retained by A., and the buildings which he sold to T. were not, with- out such land, of the annual value of £10. Held, that as the appellant took both the land and the buildings from the same landlord, and continued to hold under that taking, he was entitled to be on (a) The facts of Smcrdon v. Tucher are given here, but the three cases were the same in all points material to the decision, and -were consolidated. ib) See now, as to the requisite period of occupation, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. {(■) In Ijiclcley v. Tucl;er the voter was apprised of the conveyance prior to 31st July, 1859, and received notice to leave at Christmas, 1859. This distinction was, however, immaterial. 124 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the register, under 2 "Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 {a) , notwith- standing the severance of the reversion : Smerdoii v. Tucker, French v. Tucker, Bickley v. Tucker, 7 C. B., N. S. 37, 45 ; K. & &. 305, 318, 319 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 93, 96 ; 6 Jur., N. S. 557, 559 ; 8 W. E. 151 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 549. Revising barrister having held that certain facts did not shoiv a siifficieiit occupation as owner or tenant, the court would not interfere, as the conclusion drawn by the barrister from the facts teas not contrary to law. Borough of New Wi?s'dsor. B. claimed to have his name inserted in the list of voters. He was one of the lay clerks of Windsor, and as such had for several years occupied a house within the borough, of the annual value of £10. He had been appointed lay clerk by the dean and canons of Windsor, in whom was the freehold of the house in question. A certain number of houses were occupied by the lay clerks. There were more lay clerks than houses, and the juniors received £20 a year more salary till a house became vacant, when the salary was reduced by the £20. The lay clerk might then take the house, but was not obliged to reside therein, as he could perform all his duties without doing so ; but he could not let the house without permission of the dean and canons. The claimant stated his belief that he held his office for life, or so long as he performed his duties ; that he had never seen the statutes of the dean and canons, though he had no doubt of the existence of such statutes ; that he had no right of access to them, and had made no attempt to see them or procure evidence from them ; that he knew of no book re- lating to his office but the cheque book, in which his name was entered, and which he saw once a month. («) Repealed, save as appears in note (J) ante, p. 103. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 125 The revising barrister having rejected the claim on the ground that the evidence was insufBcient to show an occupation by B. as owner or tenant, The court would not interfere, as the question was one of fact, and the conclusion drawn by the revising barrister from the facts stated was not contrary to law: Bridgeicater v. Durcuif, 11 C. B., N. S. 7; K & G. 377 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 46 ; 8 Jm\, N. S. 590; 10 W. E. 171 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 491. I^ari of a Jiouse not structurally severed _/)'o;w the resi- due held not to he a " house ^^ icithin section 27 {a) of Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Bridgwater. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of " houses in succes- sion." Having occupied, as tenant, a house in the borough during the earlier part of the qualifying year, he moved therefrom to another house, one side of which he rented and resided in during the remainder of such year. The side consisted of rooms on the ground floor, having doors into the hall, which was shut off from the street by an outer door, kept closed night and day ; also of rooms on the upper floor, approached by a staircase used exclusively by the appellant, between which rooms and the rooms on the other side of the passage, occupied by the landlord (the owner of the whole house, who resided on the premises) there was no communication. The appellant had a lock and key to each of his rooms, and both he and his landlord had keys of the street door, and they were rated jointly. Held (/>), that the part of the house occupied by the appellant as his residence was not a " house '* {a) Repealed, save as appears in note (i) ante, p. 103. (h) The court, in a considered judgment, reviewed Pitts v. Smcdley, 7 M. & G-. 85 ; ante, p. 104 ; Wanseu v. Perkins (Hill'-s case), 7 M. & G. 151 ; ante, p. 106 ; Score y. Huggctt, 7 M. & G. 95 ; ante, p. 105; and Tomsr. Lnckett, 6 C. B. 23; ante, p. 111. 126 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. •within section 27 (a) of 2 Will. lY. c. 45, as it was not structurally severed (b) from the residue, and, there- fore, the appellant was not entitled to he registered as a horough voter in respect of it : Cook v. Humher, 11 C. B., N. S. 33; K. & O. 413; 31 L. J. C. P. 73; 8 Jur., N. S. 698; 10 W. E. 427; 5 L. T., N. S. 838. Offices, not structurally severed from residue of 2^re- miscs of ichick they formed part, held not to qualify under section 27 {a) of Reform Act, 1832, City of London. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of " offices," of which he had the exclusive occupation as tenant, his residence being elsewhere (within seven miles of the city). These offices comprised the whole of the first floor of a house. The appellant's landlord occupied the shop on the ground floor, and resided with his family on the upper floor. There were two outer doors to the house, one opening from the street into the shop, and the other opening from the street into a passage communicating with a staircase leading to the first and upper floors. The door opening from the street into the passage had only one lock, of which the appellant and his landlord each had a key. There was also an inner door, leading from the shop into the passage, and this was used exclusively by the landlord and his family. Held, that the floor occupied by the appellant, not being structm-ally severed (Z') from the rest of the house or building of which it formed part, was neither a "house" nor a "building" within section 27 (r^) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and therefore the appellant was not entitled to vote: Wilson v. Roberts, 11 C. B., N. S. 50 ; K. & G. 430 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 78 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 719 ; 10 W. R. 429 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 838, 841. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note [h) ante, p. 103. {p) See now section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1S78. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 127 Tipper floor of Jwv.se, consisting of tico rooms {the one a shop, the other for residence) opening the one into the other, and communicating with landing on common staircase by an outer door, over which occupier of such rooms had exclusive control, held to he a separate " house " uithin section 27 («) of Reform Act, 1832. City of London. The appellant was objected to on the list of occupiers. He had occupied for the statutory period, as tenant, two rooms constituting the whole of the upper floor of a house. These rooms (an inner and outer room) opened the one into the other, and communi- cated with the landing on the staircase by one outer door, over which the tenant had exclusive control. One of the rooms was used by the appellant as a tailor's shop, and the other as a sitting and bed- room. Neither room, taken singly, was of sufficient value to give a borough vote, but both together were. The lower floors of the house were occupied by other tenants, and all the tenants had access to their several holdings from the street, thi-ough a doorway a,t the entrance of a passage leading to the common staii'case. At this entrance there was a door, but it had no fastening of any kind, and could not be so closed as to secure the premises against intrusion from the street. Held, that there was such a "structural sever- ance" (Jj) within Cook v. Humher as to constitute the appellant's rooms a " house " within section 27 [a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and, consequently, to give him the right to a borough vote : Henrette v. Booth, 15 C. B., N. S. 500 ; H. & P. 23 ; 33 L. J. C. P. 61 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 1293 ; 12 W. E. 173 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 392. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note [b) ante, p. 103. {b) See now section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. 128 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Confinement in gaol more than seven miles from borough for misdemeanour, during five months of period of residence required by section 27(«) of Reform Act^ 1832, a break of residence. Borough or Kidderminster. The respondent (a householder) was objected to at the revision of 18G4 on the ground that he had not resided within the borough, or seven miles thereof, for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July (b), a& required by section 27 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45. On 27th February, 1864, the respondent was con- victed of an assault, and committed by the magistrates to Worcester gaol for six months without the option of paying a fine. Worcester gaol was more than seven miles from the parliamentary borough of Kidderminster. At the date of, and during so much of the quali- fying year as preceded, his conviction, the respondent resided, and carried on business, at a house in Kidder- minster. After his conviction, but before leaving Kidderminster, the respondent (a widower, with no family) made arrangements by which the house was occupied, and his business (that of a butcher and beerseller) carried on, by his servant on his behalf during his absence. Having served his term of imprisonment, the respondent returned on 25th August, to his house at Kidderminster, and had resided there ever since. Held, that the respondent, having by his own voluntary criminal act debarred himself of the liberty of returning to his home during the six months of residence required by the statute, was not entitled to be registered : Fon-cll v. Guest, 18 C. B., N. S. 72 ; H. & P. 149 ; 34 L. J. 0. P. 69 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 1238 ;. 13 W. E. 274 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 599. («) Repealed, save as appears in note {b) ante, p. 103. (6) See now, as to the requisite period of occupation, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FKAXCHISE — OCCUPATIOX. 129 Revising barrister having decided that a certain structure^ qfichich he gave a description, teas a " building" within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832, and that voter occupied it as tenant, the court would not review his decision, there being nothing in the case inconsistent with the possibility of the structure being such a building, or of its being so occupied. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent iad, for more than twelve months next previous to 31st July, 186-4 (the last day of the qualifying year) (b), rented and occupied land (yearly value ^20) for the purposes of his business as a market gardener. There was no building on the land when the respondent took it, but previously to 31st July, 1863, he had built upon it at his own expense a wooden structure, having boarded sides, and a thatched roof, and supported by wooden posts let into the ground. This structure was entered by a -door fastened with a padlock, and it was used by the respondent for storing potatoes and other things connected with his business. The revising barrister having found that the structure was a "building" within section 27 {a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that the respondent occupied it as tenant, The court held, according to the principle laid down in Watson v. Cotton, 5 C. B. 51, r/«Yc, pp.112,113, that there was not sufficient in the barrister's description ■or statements to warrant them in disturbing his decision on either point : Pou-cll v. Farmer, 18 (J. B., N. S. 169 ; H. & P. 172 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 71 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 162; 11 L. T., N. S. 736; 13 W. E. 467. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note ib) ante, p. 103. {b) See now, as to the requisite period of occupation, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1S78. S. K 130 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court rejected revising barrister's findinfj, that a certain structure was a " huildincf within section 27 [a) of Reform Act, 1832, Jus description of it showing that it teas neither adapted to, nor intended for, residential or commercial purposes. Tenant farmer held not to occupy as tenant a shed erected on his land during the term of his tenancy by a political agent, there being nothing to show that it was built under conditions that would make if parcel of the freehold. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent had for several years rented and occupied a farm within the parish of Kidderminster Foreign. The greater portion of the farm, including the farm buildings, was beyond the borough limits, but some of the land (of the clear yearly value of £10) lay within the borough. There was no building on the portion of the farm within the borough when the respondent took the farm of his landlord ; but some years before the revision a shed was placed upon the piece of land within the borough. This was done by the direction of a pohtical agent, who had no sort of interest in the land, and who was not sho"^Ti to have obtained the landlord's permission for the erection in question. The shed was a wooden one, having boarded sides, and a boarded roof, and supported by four posts let three feet into the ground. It adjoined a public road, and most of the side boards facing the road had been broken to pieces. There was no floor to the shed. It was entered by a door, and was used by the respondent for keeping agricultural implements. The revising barrister having decided that the shed was a "building" within section 27 of 2 "Will. lY. c. 45, and that the respondent occupied it as tenant, The coitrt, reversing the decision, held, — 1. That, although the barrister had found that the. shed was a "building" within the (fl) Kepealed, save as appears in note (b) ante, p. 103. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 131 statute, his description of it (whicii was complete) (a), excluded the possibility of its being such a building, it being obviously neither adapted to, nor intended for, resi- dential or commercial purposes, and, con- sequently, failing to satisfy the require- ments of the statute, according to the principles laid do'^ni in Cook v. Humher, 11 C. B., N. S. 41, 44, 45. 2. That, assuming the shed to be a " building " within the meaning of the section, the respondent did not occupy it as tenant, for the case did not show that it was built under conditions which would vest it in the landlord, subject to the interest of the tenant during the term : Poicell y . Boraston , 18 C. B., N. S. 175 ; H. & P. 179 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 73; 11 Jur., N. S. 160; 13 W. R. 465; 11 L. T., N. S. 734. Qualification in respect of " building and land^' held satisfied by p)y oof that building n-as of a permanent nature, that it was useful for occupation of the land, and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied, at a rent exceeding £10 per annum, a piece of land upon which he grazed a cow. XTpon the land was a stone building, roofed, which he used for milking his cow in, and for keeping hay(i). («) The completeness of the description constituted an essential distinction between the above case and Watson v. Cotton, ante, pp. 112, 113, where (the revising barrister's description being iw- complete) the court ' ' declared it to be their duty to assume any- possible facts not excluded by the case, for the purpose of affirming the barrister's finding." See the judgment of the court in the principal case. (i) According to the report in the Law Reports (differing in this respect from the other reports of the case) the building was k2 132 DIGEST OF rARLTAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. The building had three sides, was open in front, and had a loft over, which was used as a fowl roost. The voter was a dairyman. The building was worth about 10s. a-year to the tenant : [For the decision (in favour of the vote) see Ilodqes V. Harris, post, 134, 135 ;] Gilliam v. Harris, H. & P. 305, 308 ; H. & E. 328, 334 ; L. E. 1 C. P. 155, 158 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 101, 103 ; 14 W. E. 479, 480 ; 12 Jut., N. S. 627, 628 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 763. Qualification in respect of " building and land " held satisfied b>/ proof that building icas of a permanent nature, that it was useful for occupation of the land, and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied, at a rent exceeding £10 per annum, a field in which was a stone building, roofed. The building was a linhay, open to the field. There was a crib in it. One side of the linhay formed the back of a large tank, which contained from 60 to 80 hogsheads of water. The roof of the tank was lower than that of the linhay, and the water flowed from the roof of the linhay into the tank. There was an internal {a) communication between the linhay and the tank. The water was used to water the cattle which fed upon the land. The linhay was worth to the tenant about 5s. a year. [For the decision (in favour of the vote), see Hodges v. Harris, post, 134, 135] : Mason v. Harris, L. E. 1 C. P. 155, 158 ; II. & P. 305, 309 ; H. & E. 328, 334; 35 L. J. C. P. 101, 103; 14 W. E. 479, 480; 12 Jur., N. S. 627, 628 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 764. •used "for kccpinpr a pip"." On reference to the original case, as stated by the barrister, the statement in the text was found to be the correct one. (a) According to the report in the Law Times Reports the communication was external. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATIOX. 133 Qualification in respect of " building and land " held satisfied bij proof that building was of a permanent nature, that it icas iisefal for occupation of the land, and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied a piece of land (value exceeding £10 per annum), with a stone building, roofed, upon it. The building had thi'ee walls, and was open in front, with a hay-loft over. The land was used for depasturing the voter's own cattle, and the lower part of the building was useful as affording shade and shelter to them. The building was worth to the tenant about 5s. a-year. [For the decision (in favour of the vote), see Hodges v. Harris, post, 134, 135] : Adams v. Harris, H. & P. 305, 310 ; H. & E. 328, 335 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 155, 159; 35 L. J. C. P. 101, 103; 14 W. E. 479, 480 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 627, 628 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 764. Qualification in respect of ^^ building and land" held satisfied hij proof that building was of a permanent nature, that it uris useful for occupation of the land, and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied a piece of land (value exceeding £10 per annum), with a stone building, roofed, upon it. The building had three walls, and was open in front, with a hay-loft over. The land was used by the voter for depastur- ing other people's cattle, and the lower part of the building was useful as affording shade and shelter to them. The building was worth about 5.s. a-year to the tenant. [For the decision (in favour of the vote) , see Hodges v. Harris, post, 134, 135] : Prout v. Harris, H. & P. 305, 310 ; H. & E. 328, 335 ; L. E. 1 C. P. 155,159; 35 L. J. C. P. 101,103; 14 W. E. 479, 480 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 627, 628 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 764. 134 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Qualification in rcsj)ec( of *' building and land^' held satisfied hy proof that hmlding teas of a jiermanent nature, that it vas useful for occvpation of the land^ and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied, at a rent exceeding £10 per annum, a piece of land, with a building, roofed, upon it. The building liad three stone walls, and was open in front. The land was used for grazing the voter's cattle, and the building was useful, as affording shade and shelter to them. The building was worth to the tenant about 6s. a-year. [For the decision (in favour of the vote), see Hodges v. Harris, infra'] : Berry v. Harris, H. & P. 305, 311 ; H. & E. 323, 336 ; L. R. 1 C. P. 155, 159 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 101, 104 ; 14 W. R. 479, 480 ; 12 Jul'., N. S. 627, 628; 13 L. T., N. S. 764. Qualification in respect of " building and land " held satisfied by pi^oof that building was of a permanent nature, that it was useful for occupation of the land, and that it added to value thereof, though in a small degree. Borough of Totnes. The voter occupied, at a rent exceeding £10 per annum, a piece of land, with a building, roofed, upon it. The building had three stone walls, and was open in front. The land was used by the voter for the purpose of taking in other people's cattle to graze, and the building was useful as affording shade and shelter to them. The building was worth to the tenant about 6s. a-jear. Held, that the buildings (in this and the five next preceding cases {a) ) being of a permanent nature, useful for the occupation of the land on which they [a) Gilham v. Harris, Mason y. Harris, Adams v. Harris, Front T. Harris, and Berry v. Harris. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATIOX. 135 were placed, and bo)id fide adding to the annual value thereof, though in a small degree, were "build- ings" within section 27 {a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 : Hodges V. Harris, L. K 1 C. P. 155, 159 ; H. & P. 305, 312; H. & E. 328, 336 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 101, 104 ; 14 W. E. 479, 480 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 627, 628 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 764. Structure suhstantiallu built, and used hy voter for agricultural purposes in connexion icith his land, a building within section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832. Borough of Totnes. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of " building and land." He occupied, at a rent exceeding £10 per annum, a piece of land, with a stone building, roofed, upon it. The building had four walls and a door, and was used by the appellant for keeping guano and other manures, which he put upon the land. Held, reversing the barrister's decision, that the structure was used for a purpose consistent with its being a "building" within section 27 {a) of 2 Will.IY. c. 45, and, consequently, not being deficient in form and durability, it was a " building " within that section, and the appellant was entitled to a borough vote in respect of it : Norrish v. Harris, L. E. 1 C. P. 155 ; H. & P. 305 ; H. & E. 328 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 101 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 627; 14 W. E. 479 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 762. Farming is a " business " within section 4 of the Com- panies Act, 1862. Partners ivho cannot prove that they occupy as tenants icithoiit disclosing a partnersliip made illegal by above statute, not entitled to vote. Borough of Totxes. The 4th section of the Companies Act, 1862 (25 & 26 Vict. c. 89) prohibits, with certain exceptions (immaterial to the present (a) Repealed, save as appears in note {b) ante, p. 103. 136 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAllY REGISTRATIOX CASES. case), the formation of partnerships consisting of more than twenty persons, for the purpose of carry- ing on any " business that has for its object the acquisition of gain," unless registered under the Act. Forty-three persons (parties to a consolidated appeal) were on the list of voters in respect of build- ing and land. They and three others (not parties to the appeal) had jointly hired land with a building upon it (rent £473 lO.s. per annum) with the double object of obtaining votes and making a profit by farming ; but votes were the principal object. The partners appointed a manager (one of their number), who farmed the land on their account. The partnership was not registered under the Companies Act, 1862. Held, 1. That farming was a " business " within the meaning of the Act. 2. That as the partners could not prove that they occupied as tenants, without having recourse to a contract which, in default of registration, was by the statute illegal, they were not entitled to be registered as voters («) : Harris v. Amenj, H. & P. 294; H. & E,. 357; L. E. 1 C. P. 148; 12 Jur., N. S. 165; 35 L. J. C. P. 89 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 504 ; 14 W. E. 199. («) The case does not state whether the maBaging- partner in occupation was or was not a party to the above consolidated appeal ; but the court did not recognize any distinction between his position and that of his co-partners, in so far as his and then* claims respectively to the franchise were concerned, and Btles, J., as reported in the Jurist, expressly refers to him as ' ' one of the claimants." It is submitted, however, that the managing partner, being in actual occupation of the property, had no need to resort to the illegal agreement, evidence of which was essential to his co- partners to enable them to prove their constructive occupation through him. If the above distinction be well founded, and the managing partner was a party to the appeal, it would seem to follow that the appeals were improperly consolidated ; see Prior v. IJ'aring, 5 C. B. 56, post, " Practice," and Robson v. Broun, 1 C. B., N. S. Z^, post, "Practice." BOROrCH FRA>CHISE — OCCVPATION. 137 A room in a set of chambers in the Temple^ exclusiveli; occujned by the sub-tenant thereof, and used by him solely for his business as a barrister, not a qualify- ing tenement within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 {a). City of London. The respondent was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation, as tenant, of " Chambers." His landlord rented a set of chambers in the Inner Temple, such set being so structurally severed from the rest of the buildings as to be of itself a house {b) . It consisted of two rooms and a vestibule. There was no direct communication between the two rooms ; but each had a door opening into the vestibule, which communicated with a landing on a public stau^case by a door. The respondent had the exclusive occupation of one of these rooms, as sole tenant thereof, together with a right of way over the vestibule ; and he had, in common vdth. his landlord, who occupied the other room, perfect control over the door on the landing. The respondent was a barrister, and occupied his room solely for professional purposes, and not for a dwelHng-house. Held, that the subject of the respondent's occupa- tion was not a sufficient tenement to entitle him to vote, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 {a) : Cuthbertson v. Butteru-orth, L. E. 4 C. P. 523 ; 1 H. & C. 188 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 98 ; 17 W. E. 465 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 140. The mere fact of occupation being eleemosynary not necessarily inconsistent with occujyation as owner. City or Hereford. The appellant had, during the quahfying year, occupied one of several houses known as " Lord Coningsby's Hospital." He had been separately rated, and had paid his rates. {(i) Repealed, save as appears in note {b) ante, p. 103. (b) See now section 5 of the Parliamentarj- and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. 138 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The hospital was founded iu 1614 for, and was occupied by, eleven needy persons who were called " servitors," but who performed no service. These persons, of whom the appellant was one, were appointed to their respective houses by A., the owner of the Coniugsby estate, whence the funds of the hospital were derived. One of their number was elected by A. to superin- tend the rest, and was called " Corporal Coningsby." The rules of the foundation had become partly obsolete, but A. could do as he liked with regard to the rules. The servitors paid no rent, received fixed payments from the estate, and were supplied with clothing and coals from the hospital funds. They were not allowed to enter, or go beyond the limits of, the hospital after 9 p.m. without the special leave of the superintendent. They were bound, under the penalty of a fine, to attend chapel, to keep the windows of their houses clean, to refrain from certain misconduct, and not to be absent from the hospital for more than three days at a time "wdthout the superintendent's permis- sion. Each occupier held his house and a garden near it for his life, and was ii-removable therefrom except for felony or the like. No " servitor " had ever let the house allotted to him, but the appellant had let his garden because he was too old to cultivate it. Held, on the authority of Simpson v. Willdnson, 7 M. & G-. 50, ante, 2, 3, and Roberts v. Perckal, 18 C. B., N. S. 36, ante, 34, 35, that the appellant had a freehold interest in the house he occupied, notwith- standing the eleemosynary character of his occupation, and that, consequently, he was entitled to vote, as occupying as owner, under 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3 : Fryer v. Bodenlwm, L. E. 4 C. P. 529 ; 1 H. & 0. 204 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 185 ; 17 W. E. 294 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 645. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATION. 139 Inhabitant occupier of chcelling-Jiouse not disqualified hy proviso to section 3 of 30 ^^ 31 Vict. c. 102, hij reason of his taking in a lodger, to n-Jtom he let exclusive use of a bed-room, and joint use with him- self of a sitting-room. Borough of Bradford. The appellant claimed to be registered in respect of his occupation of a dwell- ing-house. He had been, during the requisite period, an inhabitant occupier, as tenant, of a dwelling-house in the borough, and had been duly rated, and had paid his rates, in respect thereof. For three months during such period, he had let a furnished bed-room in his house as a sleeping apart- ment to a lodger, together with the joint use with himself of another apartment as a sitting-room. The appellant provided board for his lodger, and re- ceived a fixed weekly sum for the lodging and board. Held, that the proviso in section 3 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, must be read as though the words "joint occupier " were followed by the words " as owner or tenant," that the lodger not being such an occupier, the pro\aso did not apply, and, consequently, the appellant was entitled to be registered : Brewer v. McGowen, L. E. 5 C. P. 239 ; 1 H. & C. 275 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 30 ; 18 W. E. 167 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 462. Occupier as tenant of a set of chambers in the Temple not disqualified by sub-letting some of the rooms therein. City of London. The appellant was on the list of voters m respect of his occupation as tenant of a set of chambers in the Temple. These chambers, so structurally severed from the rest of the building as to be of themselves a house under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 (ff), consisted of three distinct rooms, not com- municating together, and a vestibule into which the rooms respectively opened. One of the rooms was occupied by the appellant («) Repealed, save as appears in note (5) ante, p. 103. 140 DIGEST OF PAULIAMENTAUY REGISTKATIOX CASES. for transacting the professional business of a barrister. He demised each of the other two rooms (unfurnished) to two tenants respectively, barristers, who had the exclusive use of them, occupying them for the pur- poses of their profession. The appellant provided attendance and coals for the whole set, and whatever rates and taxes were payable (there were no poor rates) were paid by him. The appellant and each of his tenants had a key to the outer door. Held, that the appellant was the occupier as tenant of the whole set of chambers, notwithstanding the sub-letting of part thereof, and therefore was entitled to the franchise under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 {a) : SwifU V. LaNcaster, L. 11. 5 C. P. 246 ; 1 H. & C. 287; 39 L. J. C. P. ;J3 ; 18 W. P. 170; 21 L. T., N. S. 492. Residentiary canons of Exeter Catliedral occupy their dicellinys, each as a corporation sole, and not as a member of the chapter^ and are^ consequently , en^ titled to city rotes in respect of such occup)ation. City of Exeter. The respondent, one of the re- sidentiary canons of Exeter Cathedi-al, was on the list of voters, as occupier of 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. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note [b] ante, p. 103. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 141 Held, that the proper inference from the above facts was, that the respondent occupied his house as a corporation sole, and not as a member of a corpo- ration aggregate, and, consequently, that he was entitled to a borough vote under 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 3 : Ford v. Uarimjton, 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. The Naval KnigJdfi of Windsor held not to occupy their diccllings either as owners or tenants, hut as members of an ekcmosijnary corporation. Borough of New Windsor. The respondent was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of one of a range of seven dwelling-houses, known as Travers College. Each of these houses was separately rated, and the respondent had paid the rates which had become payable in respect of that occupied by him. He was one of the seven " Naval Knights of Windsor," having been duly appointed by royal •warrant in 1867 to supply a vacancy in that body. By virtue of his appointment he went into occu- pation of the house in question, which he chose with the consent of authority. He had to keep it in repair, and held it for life, subject to removal or expulsion for any of the causes specified below. " The Naval Knights," an institution founded for the relief in perpetuity of seven unmarried naval officers, who have become superannuated or disabled, were incorporated by royal charter in 1798, and in the following year the land whereon Travers College stands was conveyed to the " knights" in their cor- porate name for the purposes of the institution. The charter of incorporation, after reciting the will of the founder, ordained in pursuance thereof that the " knights " should be subject to a variety of rules, orders, and regulations, set forth in the charter, and to such others as should thereafter be framed by 142 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the crown for their "better government. Accordingly, one of the " knights " is governor of the rest ; and they are all under the control of certain visitors. They are to lead vii'tuous, studious, and devout lives, to attend daily service in the chapel in Windsor Castle, and to live together in a collegiate manner. They are forbidden to sleep out at night, and can- not, during residence, absent themselves from college for more than ten days in any one year without leave. They are liable to fines for breaches of discipline, and to removal or expulsion for any of the following causes : — Refusal to pay fines, marrying, causing scandal, disobedience after two warnings, becoming convicted of any notable crime. Held, that the respondent did not occupy as owner or tenant, but simply as a member of the corpora- tion, and subject to restrictions which were incon- sistent with his being owner of the house assigned to him, and that consequently, he was not entitled to a borough vote under 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 3 : Darant v. Kennett, L. E. 5 C. P. 262 ; 1 H. & C. 297; 39 L. J. C. P. 17; 18 W. E. 286; 21 L. T., N. S. 603. A counting-house held to confer a qualification, although it iras neither an entire building, nor structurally/ severed from the rest of the house of which if formed 2)arf. City of London. The respondent claimed to be inserted in the list of voters in respect of a counting- house. The cotmting-house consisted of two rooms com- municating with each other, and forming, together with the landing of the staircase, the first floor of a house. The house had in former years been occupied as a dwelling-house, but the use of it as such had been BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCIIPATIOX. 143 abandoned, and it had "become appropriated to business purposes, being let out in separate Holdings to tenants who occupied them as counting-houses or business offices ; but no structural alteration had been made in any part of the house since it had been disused as a dwelling-house. Each of the two rooms occupied by the claimant had a separate door to the landing of the staircase which gave access to the first floor and the floors above. The claimant used the two rooms in question as a counting-house, in his trade or business of a wine merchant. He alone, and to the exclusion of the landlord, had the keys of the doors that opened on to the landing. After business hours these doors were locked and the keys taken away by the claimant or his clerk. There was an outer door to the house opening on the street. This door was opened during the day, but after business hours it was closed and secured by a latch lock, of which the claimant had a key. The claimant was rated in respect of the premises occupied by him, and he paid his landlord (the lessee of the entire house) a yearly sum of £65, for rates and rent ; such rates being paid over by the landlord to the collector on the claimant's behalf. All other requisites of the qualification were duly proved. Held, that the rooms occupied by the claimant were, notwithstanding that there was no structural severance of them from the rest of the house, a counting-house, within section 27 (a) of the Eeform Act, 1832, and, consequently, that the claimant was entitled to the franchise under that section (b) : Piercf/ (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b) ante, p. 103. (b) The 5th section of the Parliamentary and 5lunicipal Regis- tration Act, 1878, embodies the law contained in the above decision, and extends it to any part of a house separately occu- pied for the purpose of any trade, business or profession, whether such part be described as a "house," &c., in the terms used in section 27 of the Reform Act, 1832, or as an "office," "chambers," or " studio," or by any like term. 144 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. V. Maclean, L. R. 5 C. P. 252 ; 1 H. & C. 371 ; 39 L. J. C. r. 115; 18 W. E. 732; 22 L. T., N. S. 213. The court were divided in opinio)/ as to w/tet/ier a sever- ance {structural or practical) u-erc needed to con- stitute part of a house a separate ^^dwelling-house" within section 61 of Jiepresentafion of People Acty 1867. . City of London. II. was on the list of claimants in respect of a " house." He occupied, as tenant, one room in a house, and was separately rated in respect thereof. The house (originally built for one family) consisted of nine rooms, let out in tenements, some of two rooms, the others of one. Each tenant had the exclusive use and occupation of his room or rooms, but the passage, staircase, and certain conveniences (consisting of a privy and ashpit) were common to all the tenants. The outer or street door was never closed, and was without lock or bolt available, although it retained two staples, through which a bolt formerly was, and still might be, shot. The owner did not reside on the premises. The revising barrister decided that the premises occupied by the claimant were not a dwelling-house within 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and disallowed the claim. Held, per Willes and Brett, JJ., that the decision should be affirmed. Per WiLLES, J., that the words in section 61, *' any part of a house occupied as a separate dwelling," mean a dwelHng- house, such as would, according to Cook v. Humber, 11 C. B., N. S. 33, antCy pp. 125, 126, have been a house vdthin the Reform Act, 1832, /. e., part of a house structurally severed from the rest of the house of which it forms a part {a). {a) See now section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Hegistration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 145 Per Brett, J., that, although there need not be a structural, there must be a practical, separation, in order to satisfy the section. Held, per Bovill, C. J., and Keating, J., that the decision should be reversed, and that no sever- ance or separation, structural or practical, was required: Thompson v. Ward, L. E. 6 C. P. 327; 1 H. & C. 530 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 169, 170 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 679. The court were divided in opinion as to whether a sever^ ance {structural or practical) were needed to con- stitute part of a house a separate ^Ulwelling-house'* within section 61 (a) of Representation of People Act, 1867. City of Exeter. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a " dwelling- house." He occupied, as tenant, two rooms in a seven-roomed house, and was separately rated in respect of them. The other rooms were occupied by another tenant. The two rooms occupied by the appellant were on different floors, and the appellant could not get from one room to the other ^vithout using a passage, staircase, and landing, which were common to both tenants. The house had a front door, which was generally kept open by day and shut by night, being fastened by an ordinary latch and bolt. The door was fastened sometimes by the appellant, and sometimes by the other tenant. Neither had any right to exclude the other from the use of the front door. The owner did not reside on the premises. The revising banister decided that the two rooms did not constitute a dwelling-house within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and expunged the aj)pellant's name. {a) See now section 5 of the Parliamentary and llunicipal Registration Act, 1878. S. L 146 DIGEST OF rARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, per Willes and Brett, JJ., that the decision shoiild be affirmed. Per BoviM,, C. J., and Keating, J., that it should be reversed (a) : JSllis v. JBurc/t, L. E. 6 C. P. 327, *329 ; 1 H. & C. 530, 537 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 169 ; 24 L. T., N. S. 679. Jiecfor^s absence abroad from October to June in quali' filing ycar^ a curate living in rectory-house during such period, trith rector^s sanction, and under a licence from the bishop requiring him {the curate) to reside there, hehl to be a break of residence which disoititled rector for the borough franchise. Borough of New Windsor. The respondent, the rector of Clcwer, was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of the rectorj-house. He had been absent from the house from October to June of the quahfyiug year under the following ch'cumstances : — He obtained from the bishop a licence for non- residence from 17th May, 1871, until 31st December, 1872, under 1 & 2 Yict. c. 106. He, however, re- mained in possession of the house till October, 1872, when he went abroad for the winter, with the intention of returning in the spring. Upon the respondent's departure in October, 1872, ia stipendiary curate, licensed by the bishop to serve the cure, went to reside in the house, being required to do so by his licence, and continued to reside in it until the respondent's return in June, 1873. Before leaving, the respondent arranged with the curate that three rooms in the house should be retained by the respondent for his own use. These three rooms were kept locked up, and the key left with a servant who had been employed by the respondent, but was during his absence paid by the curate. [a) See the judgments in Thompson v. Ward, supra. See also section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCLPATIOX. 147 It was admitted by the respondent that if he had returned before June, 1873, he could not have required the curate to leave, without providing accommodation for him elsewhere. Held, that the respondent had not " resided" for the six months next previous to the last day of July in the qualifying year, as required by section 27 (a) of the Eeform Act, 1832, and that he had not been an " inhabitant occupier" for the whole of the qualifying twelve months (b), as required by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, and, con- gequently, that he was not entitled to the franchise under either of those sections : Durant v. Carter, L. R. C. r. 261 ; 2 H. & C. 142 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 17 ; 22 W. R. 158 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 681 (c). JExchange of duties, residenees, and servants, hcticeen an incumbent in a parUanientary borough and a brother cleryijman {living more than seven miles from the borough) for a few weeks during qualifjing year, held a break of residence disentitling incumbent for the borough franchise. City of Exeter. The respondent, the incumbent of a parish near Exeter, was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a house of an annual value exceeding £10. He had for some years past, except as hereinafter mentioned, continuously occupied and resided in the said house. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (b) ante, p. 103. (b) See now, as to the reqmsite period of occnpation and residence, pcction 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. (c) The House Occupiers' Disqualification Removal Act, 1878 ■(41 Vict. c. 3), enacts (section 3) that " every man shall be entitled to be registered and to vote under the provisions of the said section" (section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867), "not- withstanding that during a part of the qualifying period not exceeding four months in the whole he shall by letting or otherwise have permitted the qualifying promises to be occupied as a f uruishcd house by some other person." l2 148 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATIOX CASES. In June of the qualifying year the respondent and a brother clergyman, the vicar of a parish distant more than seven miles from the city of Exeter, in pursuance of an arrangement between them, and with the object of obtaining change of air, exchanged their duties and residences for the months of July and August. The respondent left his servants (excepting one) in his house to wait upon the vicar, continuing the payment to them of their wages, and sometimes sending them directions as to their conduct. He, moreover, retained two rooms in his house (a bed-room and a dressing-room), these being either locked up or occupied by one of his servants ; but he retained these rooms not with any intention of using them while the vicar remained in the house, but simply to prevent them from being disturbed while he (the respondent) was away. The respondent did not return, or contemplate returning, during the two months. Held, that there was a break of residence fatal to the respondent's acquirement of the franchise (a) : Ford V. Pi/e, L. E. 9 C. P. 269; 2 H. & C. 157; 43 L. J. C. P. 21 ; 22 W. E. 159 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 684. A sergeant of militia required hij superior autJiority to reside in a particular house with a view to the inr- formance of his duties, though such residence was not necessary for their performance, held not to occupy as tenant (b). Borough of Devizes. D. was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a house. (a) A person circumstanced as was the respondent in the above case would now be entitled to the franchise as an " iuliabitant occupier," vinder section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 18G7, by virtue of section 3 of the House Occupiers' Disqualifica- tion Removal Act, 1878. See the last-named section quoted in note ((■) to the preceding case. [b) See now 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3, and cases decided on that section, post, pp. 184—203. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUPATIOX. 149 He was a sergeant on the permanent staff of tlie Wiltshire militia, and as such occupied the house in question. By section 2 of the Militia Pay Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 76), it is enacted, that (with an exception not material to the present case), "every member of the permanent staff of the regular militia when disembodied, shall reside in such places as shall be sanctioned by the secretary of state for war." Under section 3 of the Militia Law Amendment Act, 1874, the above Act ceased to be in force as an Act of parliament, but was to have the same effect as if its provisions had been embodied in a royal warrant. The house occupied by D. had been duly sanc- tioned by the secretary of state for war, and had been assigned to D. by the commanding officer of the regiment, to live in. Both it, and other similar houses, had been built under the provisions of the Militia Law Amendment Act, 1854, and they all stood close to the buildings in which the mihtia stores were kept, the houses being intended for the accommodation of the men employed in looking after the stores. It was D.'s duty to look after the stores, and he was bound to live in the house assigned to him, although he could perform his duties equally well if residing elsewhere. Had he left the house without the permission of his commanding officer, he would probably have been dismissed the ser\ice, as for a breach of disciphne. He was, moreover, liable to be turned out of the house at any moment at the will of his commanding officer. The sum of 2.s. 4:d. per week was deducted from his pay as occupier of the house, but if he had resided elsewhere (as, with permission, he might have done), he would not have received the 2s. 4f/. extra. Held, reversing the decision of the revising bar- 150 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICirAT. CASES. rister, that D. did not occupy as tenant within section 'S of 31 & 32 Vict. o. 102 : Fox v. Ball?/, L. R. 10 C. P. 285 ; 2 H. & C. 261 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 42 ; 23 W. 11. 244 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 478. Borowjh voter, in order to establish his franchise in respect of occupation as tenant, has no need to prove his landlord's title. Borough of Northallerton. B. and another on the list of occupiers in respect of " building and land (joint)," were objected to on the ground that they had no qualifying interest in the premises. By a memorandum of agreement of 2nd July, 1878, between one F. (described therein as "the landlord") of the one part, and B. and two other persons (described therein as "the tenants") of the other part, it was agreed that " the landlord " should let, and the " tenants " take, the premises in question from 1st January, 1878, for one year, and so on from year to year, at an annual rent of £34. " The tenants " had taken possession under the agreement. The beneficial interest in the premises was in F.'s mother for her life under a deed of settlement of which F. and his brother were co- trustees. At the date mentioned in the memorandum of agreement, as that of the commencement of the tenancy (1st January, 1878), and for five or six years previouslj^, F. had himself rented and occupied the premises in question (under an oral agreement) as tenant to his mother. It was contended at the Revision Court, in support of the objection, that, the legal estate being in F. and his co-trustee by virtue of the deed of settlement, F. was not in any legal sense the tenant of the premises so as to be in a condition to sub-let them. The revising barrister was of that opinion, and held that no substantive interest in the premises had been vested in B. and the two other persons under the memorandum of agreement. He accordingly expunged the names objected to from the list. BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATIOX, 151 The court reversed the decision, on the ground that for the borough occupation franchise created by section 27 {a) of the Reform Act, 1832, it is unne- cessary to prove the landlord's title. Foicle [h) v. Trevor [h), 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 82. A grrniary, forming the upper floor of part of a building, hut strncturallg severed therefrom, icith a dooricay {the only entrance) eight feet from the ground, and accessible only by movable steps, ichich had to be removed from time to time to prevetit obstruction, held a '^ building^' conferring the franchise, uithin Reform Act, 1832, section 27 {a). Borough of Northallerton. R. and two other persons were on the list of voters in respect of their occupation (as tenants) of premises, the qualifying nature of which was described in the third column as a "Building (joint) and land (joint)." The structure described above as a " building " was a granary, and it formed the upper iloor of part of a building, the lower part of which consisted of a stable, a passage, and a barn. The passage, which separated the stable from the barn, was open at one end, and led to a cowhouse beyond. Over the stable and passage was the granary in question. There was nothing above it but the roof of the building. The only means of access to the granary was a door in the outer wall of the building and over the open end of the passage. The door sill was eight feet from the ground, and, («) Repealed, save as appears in note {b) ante, p. 103. {b) The declarations appended to the statement of the case in the above (consolidated) appeal were made and signed, the one by "William Fowle and the other by William C. Trevor, simply on behalf of the persons interested as appellants and respondents respectively. Neither declarant appears to have been "inte- rested" in the matter of the appeal otherwise than in the capacity of agent. As to the sufficiency of such a declaration in a consoli- dated appeal, see the observations of the court in Wankhjn v. JFoolktt, 4 C. B. 97, 98, 99, and sections 42 and 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18. 152 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. to get up to the doorway, R. and his co-tenants used a movable set of wooden steps, wliich were in their sole and exclusive occupation. These steps when in use were necessarily placed at the open end of the passage, and there so obstructed the thoroughfare that they had to bo removed from time to time to allow of egress from the passage. The granary was separately occupied by H. and his co-tenants for the purpose of business. The revising barrister held, on objection, " that the granary was not such a part of a building as to be of itself and by itself a ' building ' within the meaning of the statutes relating to the borough franchise," and he therefore expunged R.'s name and those of his co-tenants from the list of voters. The court reversed the decision, Trevor (a) v. FoH-k {a) [not reported]. Although hy section 5 o/41 8^~ 42 Vict. c. 26 t//e term " dicelling-house " in 30 8f 31 Vict. c. 102 is to include *' any jxirt of a house separately occupied as a du-elli)ig," the du-elling-housc franchise is not acquired by the tenant of part of a house thus occu- picd hy him, unless he occujnes so independently of his landlord's control as to he rateable under 4:3 Eliz. c.2. Borough of Chelsea. B. claimed to have his name inserted in the list of inhabitant occupiers. He had occupied as his residence for the requisite period one unfurnished room in a dwelling-house, at a weekly rent of 3.s. 6(/., he furnishing such room and residing in it with his wife and family. The clear yearly value of the room if let unfurnished was less than £10. The room was rented by B. fi'om the [a) The declarations appended to the revising hamster's state- ment "were made and signed hy the declarants simply as agents, neither being personally "interested" in the matter of the appeal. See the note to Foicle v. Trevor, supra. BOROLGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATIOX. 353 tenant of the entire house, who held of the owner of the house at a yearly rent. B. had a key of the outer door. The house comprised more rooms than that occupied by B. B.'s immediate landlord resided on the premises, and, subject to the occupation by B. and his right of access to and from the outer door, exercised a general control (a) over the whole house, but supplied no service to B. either personally or by servants. Sub- ject to the question whether the room so occupied by B. was or was not a dwelling-house for the purposes of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 18G7, B. was in all respects qualified to be on the list of voters as an inhabitant occupier. It was contended before the revising barrister that B. was the separate occupier of a room constituting for the purposes of the Kepresentation of the People Act, 1807, by virtue of section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, a dwelling- house, as tenant, and as such entitled to be on the list of occupiers. The revising barrister disallowed the claim on the ground that, as the renter of the entire house resided in the house, and exercised a general control over it, the occupation by B. was that of a lodger, and not that of an inhabitant occupier, as tenant, of a dwell- ing-house. The court (Q. B. D.) reversed the decision on the ground that the room in respect of which B. claimed, being " separately occupied " by him "as a dwelling," constituted a " dwelling-house " within section 3 of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867, by virtue of section 5 of the Parhamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Yict. c. 68, the Court of Appeal reversed the deci- (a) It Tvas admitted on the ar;?nment in the Queen's Bench Division that no facts in support of this statement could be stated beyond what were to be gathered from the case itself. 154 PAHLIAMllXT.VKY AM) MIXICIPAL CASES. sion of the court below, being of opinion that B.'s occupation, althougli separate, was not of such an independent character as to render him capable of being rated in respect thereof under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and that consequently he occupied as a mere lodger, and not as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house {a) (a) In the absence of any exhaustive definition (statutory or judicial) of the distinction between the dwelling-house franchise and the lodgfcr franchise, the subjoiucd extracts from the judg- ments of Jessel, M. R., and Lixdley, L. J., in Bradky v. Itai/lis, Morfec v. 2^ovis, and Kirby v. liiJI'cn (the three cases having been argued together), may serve as a guide to revising barristers in deciding questions invohHng such distinction : — Jessel, M. R. : "It seems to me, as to imfumished lodgings (and I will only deal with unfurnished lodgings, as it is the onh' class of cases with reference to which questions are likely often to arise), where the owTier of a house does not let the whole of it, but retains a part for his own residence, and resides there, and wheie he does not let out the passages, staircases, and outer door, but retains the ownership of all of them, giving to the ' inmates ' (I use that term for my present purpose) merely a right of access, which is sometimes called a right of ingress and egress, and re- taining a control over the passages, staircases, and outer door, ■w ith a right of interfering, — I do not mean an actual interference, but a right to interfere, — a right to turn out trespassers, and so on ; there I consider that the o-wner is the occupying tenant of the house, and the inmate, whether he has or has not the exclu- sive use of the room, is a lodger. That is one extreme case. " Now I take another. "WTiere the landlord lets out the whole of the house into separate apartments, and lets out each floor separately, so as to demise the passages, reserving simply to each inmate of the u])per floors the right of ingress and egress over the lower passages, but parts entirely with the whole legal ownership for the term demised, and retains no control over the house ; there, in my opinion, the inmates are occupying tenants, and are capable of being rated as such. That is the extreme case on the other side. " There will be an immense number of intermediate cases, which, as I said before, can only be dealt with as they arise. I have dealt with them as well as I can, but, for the reasons I have given, I can only deal with them imperfectly. I have tried in vain to frame an exhaustive definition satisfactory to my own mind. Take such a case as the first of those before \is. Does it make any difference that the inmates have latch keys to the outer door and also keys to the inner door? I think not. I think they are still lodgers notwithstanding. Does it make any difference that the landlord does not reside there personally, but ha-< rpsiripTit. servants,^ wllp occupy, on his behal fj_£ art of the house r I think iioE Ithink the ininates are stiil lodgers. Does it make any BOROrCH FRANCHISE OCCUPATION. 155 within the meaning of the statutes : Bradley v. Baylis^ L. E. 8 a. B. D. 195 ; Colt. Eeg. Cas. 163 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 183 ; 46 L. T., N. S. 253 ; 30 W. E. 823. difference that the landlord does or does not repair, or does or does not pay rates or taxes ? I thuik not ; they are still lodgers. " On the other hand, suppose a landlord does not demise the ■whole of the house, but demises all the rooms in it — e%-erything that can be demised, in fact, except the passages and staircases, &c., as to which he gives the inmates the right of ingress and egress, but exercises no control over, and does not reside in, or interfere in any way with, the house — I think the inmates are occupying tenants. The fact of the passages and staircases, &c., not being actually demised, is not sufBcient to distinguish them from occupying tenants. Here, again, does the fact of the landlord repairing or paying rates and taxes make any difference ? I think not. In the case of tenants from year to year it very often happens that the landlord repairs. But his right to enter in order to make such repairs does not, in my opinion, prevent the occupation of the tenant being a separate and rateable occupation : " Colt. Eeg. Cus. 210, 211, 212. LixDLEY, L. J. : " The distinction between tenants who are not lodgers and tenants who are lodgers, must be discovered from other sources than the statutes, and it is extremely difficult to draw the line between them. At the same time, the word ' lodger ' involves the idea of lodging with some one else from whom ho hii"es his lodging ; whilst the word ' tenant ' does not involve, although it does not exclude, this idea ; and this difference gives the clue to the distinction which the statutes have made. Taking this difference as a guide, it appears to me that, where a house is wholly let out in unfurnished apartments, separately occupied by tenants, and their landlord does not reside in the house, and has no servant in the house to look after it for liiin, the tenants are rateable and are not lodgers ; whilst, on the other hand, where a house is let out in unfurnished apartments to tenants, and their landlord resides in the house, or has a servant in it, to look after it for him, then it appears to me that such tenants are not rateable and are lodgers: " Colt. Eeg. Cas. 247, 248. 156 rARLIAMEXTARY AND MUNICirAL CASES. Although by section 5 q/*41 (^ 42 Vict. c. 26 the term '' (lu-eiliHg-hovse" in 30 8f 31 Vict. c. 102 is to include " ani/ part of a houHc separately occupied as a dwelling,'' the dwelling-houHe franchise is not acquired by the tenant of part of a house thus occupied by him, unless he occupies so independently of his landlord's control as to be rateable under 43 Eliz. c. 2. Borough of Hastings. M. claimed to have his name inserted in the list of parliamentary voters in respect of his occupation of a dwelling-house. He occupied two rooms on the first iloor of a house, using one as a bedroom and the other as a sitting- room, he and his wife taking their meals in the latter, and his wife doing the cooking therein. M. rented the rooms in question, unfurnished, at the weekly rent of 3.s., and his landlord, who was the tenant of the house, which consisted altogether of six rooms, occupied as his residence the entire house, with the exception of the two rooms let to M. M. and his landlord each had a key of the outer door, and each could let himself in and out as he pleased. There was a washhouse attached to the house, and it was used in common by M. and his landlord. It was no part of the agreement of letting that the landlord should, nor did he in fact, supply attend- ance, or render any service to M., the wife of the latter doing all that she and her husband required for the inhabitancy of the rooms occupied by them. The landlord w^as alone rated to the poor rates in respect of the occupation of the entire house, and he duly paid such rates. M. had the exclusive use of the rooms rented by him, and all the requisites for entitling him to be registered in accordance with his claim W'Cre proved, if he were an occupier of a dwell- ing-house wdthin the meaning of section 3 of the E-epresentation of the People Act, 1867, as amended by section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal BOROUGH FRAXCHISE OCCUPATION. 157 Registration Act, 1878, by reason of his occupation of the two rooms in question under the circumstances above stated. The revising barrister disallowed the claim, being of opinion that AE. did not occupy the two rooms as an inhabitant occupier within the meaning of the statutes, but as a lodger only. The court (Q. B. D.) reversed the decision on the ground that the rooms in respeci^of which M. claimed being "separately occupied" by him "as a dwelling," constituted a " dAvelling-house " within section 3 of the Kepresentation of the People Act, 1867, by virtue of section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Vict. 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 character as to render him capable of being rated in respect thereof under 43 Eliz. c. 2, and that conse- quently 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. R. 8 Q. B. i). 195 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 16^^ ; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 183 ; 46 L. T., N. S. 253 ; 30 W. R. 823. One icho separately occupies, as tenant, part of a house {wholly let out in similar tenancies) is not the less an inhabitant occupier of a da-ellin{/-house within 30 Sf 31 Vict. c. 102, and 41 c^^ 42 Vict. c. 26, bi/ reason of the landlord being rated, paying the rates, doing the rejmirs, 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 (a) See, as to the distinction, between an " inhabitant occupier, as tenant," and a "lodger," note (a) to Bradley v, Baylis, ante, on pp. loi, 155. 158 PAllLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. (Iwelling-liouse. He occupied, as tenant, at a weekly rent of 7.9., two rooms (furnishing them himself) on the first floor of a liouse. 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 wliole house, which contained eight rooms, and was wholly let out in similar tenancies, tlie 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 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 Yict. 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 " mthin section 3 of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867, by virtue of section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878. Leave to appeal having been granted under 44 & 45 Vict. c. 68, The Com't 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 (rt) See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 19, and 41 & 42 Vict, c, 26, s. 14. BOROUGH FRA>XHISE OCCUPATIOX. 159 liad not demised tlie 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 (a) : lurbf/ v. Bi/foi, 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. 11. 823. (a) See, as to the distinction between an ' ' iahabitant occupier, as tenant," and a '"lodger," note (a) to Bradley v. BaijUs, ante, on pp. 154, 155. In a schedule to the principal case (with which the revising barrister had cousolidated 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 wiU be ■observed, occupied two rooms on one floor. Brett, L. J., expressed a douV>t 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 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 Kirhy v. li'iffen. 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 Trior v. Waring, 5 C. B. 56, to refuse to entertain the appeal on the ground that the court had no jurisdiction. It would seera, 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 ful- filled by him, become entitled to vote in respect of a dwelling- house. 160 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. Tenant who at the commencement of ^qualifi/inrj year 8cparateJij occupies as his dicellinfj part of a house ^ iclncJi at that period is whoJhj let out in siniihtr tenancies, does not lose his status as an " inhabitant occupier ofadwcllin(j-house"and become a " lodger ^^ hi/ reason of one of the other tenants relinquishing his tcnancij and giving up his Jicys to landlord during qualifying year ; at all events if landlord does not exercise any control over the house beyond that u'hich is involved in his taking the usual steps to re-let the vacant tenement. Borough of Chelsea. R. was olDJected to on the list of occupiers. He liad for upwards of twelve calendar months next previous to loth 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 dwelling-house " within section 3 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and section 5 of 41 & 42 Yict. 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 Bevision Coui't 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 BOROUGH FRANCHISE OCCUPATIOX. 161 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 H. 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, afifirming 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 [^semblel could not be changed without his submission or consent) {a) was not converted into that of a " lodger," and consequently that his vote was properly allowed bv the revising barrister {b) : Ancketill v. Bat/Us, L.'R. 10 a. B. D. 577 ; Colt. Eeg. Cas. 289; 52 "L. J. Q. B. D. 104 ; 48 L. T., N. S. 342 ; 31 W. R. 233. (a) It would seem that, whereas a tenant cannot, without his consent or submission, be converted into a lodg-er, a lodger may be convei-ted into a tenant by the act of his landlord. See per LiXDLEY, 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. {h) This decision overrules a dictum of Beett, 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. E. 8 Q. B. D. 235, 236. S. M 162 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIRAL CASES. The municipal franchise stands; on the same footing as the par/ia/ncnfar// franchise as rer/ards 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 munieipal franchise in respect of such occupation, although the rooms icere used hy him as a divelUnfj only, a)td not '"''for busi- ness purposes." Borough of Pi-ymouth. A. was olDJected to on the list of voters (Division One) for Yintry Ward in the parish of St. Andrew. He separately occupied as a private dwelling only, two rooms at 9, Batter 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 hy him did not constitute a house within 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. R. 8 Q. B. D. 195, ante, pp. 152—155), was consequently entitled to his municipal vote : Greemcay v. Batehelor {Aldridge\s case), L. R. 12 a. B. D. 381 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 317 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 180 ; 50 L. T., N. S. 272 ; 32 W. R. 319. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — OCCUR ATIOX. 163 A voter, u-Jiose name was expunged from Division I. in consequence of an objection to his parlianientar// rote only, uas held not entitled to have his name tranfiferred to Division III. icithout proof of his being qualified as a burgess. Borough of Plymouth. 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 sche- dule to 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. The objection was ad- mittedly fatal to the parliamentary vote of the per- son 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 should be transferred to Division Three. The re- vising barrister consented so to transfer the name upon proof of a municipal cpialification. 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: Greemcay^. Batchelor {Jacobs case)^ L. Pt. 12 Q. B. D. 37G; 1 Colt. Peg. Gas. 322; 53 L.J. Q. B. D. 179; 50 L. T., N.S. 270; 32 W. E. 320. m2 164 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. BOEOUGH FEANCHISE— EESERVED EIGHTS. A merely colourable residence insufficient to qualify under 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 32. BoRoiJGH OF Tewkesbury. The appellant claimed, in 1844, to be inserted in the list of freemen for the borough of Tewkesbury. He, with liis 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 9f/. 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 fiiend'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 WiU. IV. c. 45, s. 32, {a) As the case originaily 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. E. 784, note. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 165 The court affirmed the decision : Whithorn v. Thomas, 8 Scott, N. R. 783 ; 7 M. & G. 1 ; 1 Lutw. 125 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 8 Jur. 1008 ; B. & Arn. 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 tchich he had ichen that Act icas 2)assed. Borough of Northamptox. 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 witliin 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 166 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Bedford, wliere he stayed for fourteen weeks; lie then retm-ned 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 : Jcffery v. Kitchener, 8 Scott, N. E. 923 ; 7 M. & G.' 99 ; 1 Lutw. 210 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 75 ; 9 Jur. 138 ; B. & Arn. 359. In order to he entitled to rote in respect of reserved rights under section 33 of Reform Act, 1832, voter must retain identical qualification which he heed when that Act was passed. Borough of Northampton. [In this case the facts were in all material points the same as in Jeff'rij V. Kitchener, snpra ; it was, therefore, decided, without argument, in accordance with the decision in that case :] Stanton v. Jeff'cry, 8 Scott, N. R. 933 ; 7 M. & G. 109, note; 1 Lutw. 219, note; 14 L. J. C. P. 79, note; B. & Arn. 307, note. Proviso in section 32 of Reform Act, 1832, excluding freemen admitted, other u-ise than hij birth or servi- tude, after 1st March, 1831, does not apply to freemen and liverymen of the city of London. City of London. The respondent (a freeman and liveryman) was admitted a freeman hy purchase after 1st March, 1831. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. 1G7 Held, that lie was not within the disqualifying proviso in section 32 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45 : Croucher V. Browne, 2 C. B. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 388 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 74; 10 Jiir. 184; B. & Am. 621. Non-2myine)it of rates by scot and lot voter for one year, a suspension of riyht to he registered — not a per- manent extinction of right to rote. Borough of Warwick. The 33rd section of the Eeforni 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 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 mem- bers to serve in any future parliament for such city or borough, if duly registered, &c. ; but that no per- son 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 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 168 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. on 31st July, 1845, remaining unpaid, and no tender thereof having been made (a). He had paid on 81st 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 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 : Niels v. Field, (b) 4 C. B. 63 ; 1 Lutw. 566 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 61 ; 10 Jur. 1088. Where a party had been admitted a '■\free burgess," by birth, of the borongh of Malmesbnry before 1st March, 1831, and elected one of the " capital burgesses " [ancient voters) after that day, he teas 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 (a) It does not appear from the case that these rates were ever demanded. Before a scot and lot voter could b'e 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. {h) In a note to this case, 4 C. B. 63, 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 Wanlchjn v. TFoollett, 4 C. B. 86 : see note to that case, post, "Practice." BOROUGH FRANCHISE RESERVED RIGHTS. 169 shall hereafter he elected, made, or admitted a hui'gess or freeman othermse than in respect of birth or servitude shall he 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, 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 resj)ect of birth," birth having made him eligible as a "capi- tal burgess": Gale v. Chuhh, 4 0. 13. 41 ; 1 Lutw. 544; 16 L. J. C. P. 54; 11 Jur. 22. Residence of fveeman heyond liitiits of ancient horougJt, hut tcithin limits of borough as extended by Boun- dary Act, 1832. Borough of Shrewsbury. E. on the Kst 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. 170 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The borougli boundary was extended by 2 & 3 Will. IV. c. 64. E. bad resided in a bouse witbin botb tbe ancient and extended limits of tbe borougb from 25tb Marcb, 1851, to 31st July following. For two years previous to, and up to, tbe said 25tb Marcb, be bad resided in a bouse witbout tbe ancient, but witbin tbe limits as extended by tbe above-mentioned Act. Tbe bouse so situate was witbin seven miles of tbe polling place of tbe borougb [a). Tbe revising barrister baving held tbe objection good, Tbe court reversed tbe decision : Jarvis v. Pecle, 11 C. B. 15. Right of voting as freemen hg birth, not restricted to freemen wJtose fatbers icerc admitted before 1st March, 1831 ; but is preserved continiiouslg 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, "tbat no person sball be so entitled {i.e., to vote) as a burgess or freeman in respect of birtb unless bis rigbt be originally derived from or tbrougb some person wbo was a burgess or freeman, or entitled to be admitted a burgess or freeman previously to tbe first day of Marcb, 1831." In tbe borougb of B. tbere was a bod}^ of freemen. Tbe sons of tbese freemen were entitled, on proving tbeir fatbers' marriage, tbat tbey were born of tbat marriage, and tbat tbey bad attained tbe age of twenty-one years, to be admitted as freemen. («) It does not appear clear what point the revising barrister intended to reserve, but, at all events, ho seems by his concluding statement in the case to have stated the objector out of court. BOROUGH FRANCHISE RESERVED RIGHTS. 171 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. Held, that S. was entitled to be registered as being a freeman whose " 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; H. & P. 97 ; 34 L. J. 0. P. 53 ; 10 Jur., N. S. 1206; 13 W. E. 207; 11 L. T., N. S. 483. Hcsidenfiari/ canons of Exeter Cathedral hold their diceUinys, each as a corporation sole, and not as a inenibcr of the Chapter, and are, consequently, entitled to city votes 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 Cjualifying 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 repaii's at his own expense, and with his enjoyment of which the Chaj)ter as a body cannot interfere. Held, that the proper inference from the above 172 DIGEST OF PATILTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 undf-r 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. '41 : Ford v. Jlannc/ton, L. 1(. 5 C. P. 282; 1 H. & 0. 331 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 107 ; 18 W. 11. 289 ; 21 L. T., N. S. 609. An office}' in tJie army dors not acquire a freeman's residentiary qualification by Jiaviny a home idthin. seven miles of the borough, unless he has actually resided there during the ichole of requisite period, for, being subject to the rules of the service, he cannot go home ichenever he jjleases. 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 thi-ee 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 (r^) 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 («) See now, as to the requisite period of residence, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FRAXCHISE RESERVED RIGHTS. 173 ■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. R. 9 C. P. 273 ; 2 H. & 0. 167 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 24; 22 W. E. 159; 29 L. T., N. S. 685. Condition of residence required hy section 31 of Reform Act, 1832, may he satisfied hy voter residing in tJie house of another as a guest. Continuity of residence not necessarily hroken hyahsence 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 (f/), 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. (a) See now, as to the requisite period of residence, section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 174 DIGEST OF rAKLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The house was one of a number of almshouses, which were given hy 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. The appellant was, during his two months' sojourn at his mother-in-lav/'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 residence was not broken by his being absent on business for one night: Beet I v. Ford, L. R. 3 C. P. D. 73 ; 2 H. & G. 374 ; 47 L. J. C. P. H. 56 ; 26 W. R. 146 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 408. Service tinder articles in London on the part of an inhahitant freeholder of Exeter during part of statutory period of residence, held to constitute a break of such, freeholder'' s residence in Exeter so as to disqualif// him as a voter for that city, inasmucJi as he could not, consistently uith his articles, go to his home in Exeter wliencver he pleased. City and County of the City of Exeter. The respondent, a freeholder on Form D., list No. 2, was («) The appeal was erroneously stated in the case to be founded on section 33. The reference should have been to section 31 ; see 2 11. & C. 374, note. BOROUGH FRANCHISE — RESERVED RIGHTS. I/O objected to on the ground that he had not resided for six calendar months next preceding 15th 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 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 20 th 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. E. 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. Pv. 137. 176 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. BOEOUGH FEANCHISE— LODaiNGS(a). A lodger does not lose his qualification as sueh by reason of his having claimed to he rated. City of London. The appellant, wlio was tHe respondent in Cuthbertson v. Mains, L. R. 4 C. P. 525, claimed as a lodger in respect of his occupation as stated in that case, post. The appellant had in due time claimed to he rated as for " part of a house ; " there were no rates due in respect of the premises at the time of the claim {b). 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) : Ilains v. Cuthbertson, L. E. 4 0. 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 bari-ister in Sains V. Cuthbertson (not in Cidhhcrtson y. Ilains, post), does not appear in the report. (c) It will be observed that the court did not decide that the status of the appellant was tliat of a lodger within tlie Represen- tation of the People Act, 1867, that question not having been submitted for their decision ; see per Bovill, C. J., in Cross v. Alsop, L. R. C C. P. 319. The simple point decided was, that the appellant, assuming him to bo a lodger within the Act, had not hecome disentitled to be registered as such by reason of his having claimed to be rated. BOROUGH FRAyCHISE — LODGINGS. 177 Members of Cambridge Unifersit//, n-Iief/ier felloics, scholars^ or undergraduates, held to have no votes for the town of Cambridge in resjjecf of their college rooms. Borough of Cambridge. The appellants were on tlie list of claimants as lodgers. Each appellant was a member of the University of Cambridge, and of some college therein, one being a fellow of his college, another a scholar, and the third an undergraduate (not a scholar). Each appellant occupied separately, and as sole tenant, a set of rooms in his college, and paid for them (unfurnished) an annual rent of £10 or upwards. Each set of rooms had a door into a common stair- case, and each appellant had a key of the door of his rooms. The rooms in each case formed part of the college buildings, which were approached from the street by an outer gate, and the master and fellows, or the master and senior fellows (as the case might be), had the regulating power as to the hour of closing the outer gate. No set of rooms was, or could be by law, separately rated. See 19 & 20 Yict. c. 17 (The Cambridge Award Act, 1856), ss. 22 and 24. Held, that each set of rooms, being so structurally separate as to constitute a " house," within Cook v. Eumber, 11 C. B., N. S. 33, and Henrette v. Booths 15 C. B., N. S. 500, was not converted by 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, from a dwelling-house into "lodgings" by reason of its not being separately rated or separately rateable, and therefore the appellants were not qualiiied as "lodgers." Held also, that even supposing the rooms in ques- tion were "lodgings," section 78 («) of 2 Will. lY. c. 45, was by sections 56 and 59 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, incorporated into the latter statute, so that {a) Repealed by section 15 of the Registration" Act, 1S85. S. N 178 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the appellants 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 " : Peroicne v. Peters, Barnes v. Peters, Balmcell v. Peters, L. R. 4 C. P. 539 ; 1 H. & C. 251 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 266 ; 17 W. R. 970. Lodger vote may he acquired in respect of apartments rented by claimant, and occupied as a residence hy his tcife and family during the qualifying period, although he himself may have slep)t there once or twice a iceeh only during that time, provided he teas at liberty to sleep there ivhenever 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 (rr), under the following circumstances : He was employed to look after a gentleman of intemperate habits, upon whom hi« 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 to perform his duties thoroughly, the friends of the gentleman took lodgings for the appellant at 22, Porteus road, 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 l)y his agreement to do so. Held, that the appellant had resided in the lodgings in Edge Terrace, within the meaning of (a) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Ee- jistration Act, 1878. BOROUGH FRAXCHISE — LODGINGS. 179 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s, 4, sub-s. 3, and was conse- quently entitled to vote : Taylor v. 8t. 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 vote. City of Westminster. The appellant claimed in 1870 as a lodger in respect of rooms in Ciiarles street, Berkeley square. From a date prior to 31st July, 1869, lie had been, and still was, a yearly tenant of the rooms in question, which he had occupied separately, and as sole tenant, for the twelve months immediately pre- ceding 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 following 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- ings was sufficient to give him a vote [tj) : Bond v. St. George's, Hanover Square, L. E. 6 C. P. 312 ; 1 H. & C. 427; 40 L. J. C. P. 47 ; 19 W. E. 101 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 494. (a) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878. [h) Beett, J., in delivering his judgment, cited approvingly the foUo-sving statement of the law: — " In order to constitute residence, a party must possess, at the least, a sleeping apartment ; but an iminterrupted abiding at such dwclHng is not requisite. Absence, no matter how long, if there be the liberty of returning at any time, and no abandon- ment of the intention to return whenever it may suit the party's pleasure or convenience so to do, will not prevent a constructive legal residence." EUiott on Eegistration and Qualifications, 2nd edition, p. 204. n2 180 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The declaration of a lodger claimant annexed to his notice of claim is prima facie evidence of his quali- fication not only in the case of lodgers icho, being on the existing register, claim again in respect of the same lodgings under section 22 of 41 S^ 42 Vict, c. 26, I)ut also in the case of lodgers claiming for the first time under section 4 o/'oO ^' 31 Vict. c. 102. Borough of Marylebone. N. claimed -under section 4 of the Kepresentation of tlie 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 Viet. 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 Viet. c. 18). It was contended on N.'s behalf that section 23 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26 applies to all lodger claimants, 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 Vict. c. 102, and that N. was consequently entitled to have his claim allowed without any evidence being adduced in support of it in addition to that furnished by his declaration ann(;xed to liis 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. BOROUGH FRANCHISE LODGINGS. 181 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 Yict. 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 2)rimd facie evidence of his Cjuahfication, his claim should, in the absence of rebutting evidence, have been allowed at the revision {a) : Nuth v. Tanq^liii, L. E. 8 a. B. D. 247 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 249 ; 51 L. J. Q. B. D. 177 ; 30 W. E. 346. {a) This decision puts an end to the doubt which had arisen in consequence of an opinion expressed by Lord Coleeidge, C.J., and Dexman, J., in Fickard v. Ilai/Us, L. R. o C. P. D. 235, to the effect that section 23 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 is confined to the claims of old lodgers. It seems to be the duty of the revising baiTister, by 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 signatui-es 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 LiNDLET, J., in I'ickard v. Bayhs, L. R. 5 C. P. D., on p. 247; Colt. Reg. Cas., on p. 116. 182 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of cliiun to he rcfjistcred, a j)art of lodger^s qualification to vote. Neglect to give such notice cannot he waived hij overseers publishing name in list of lodgers. [Davies v. Hophins (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 liad not claimed to be registered in manner provided by section 22 of 41 & 42 Vict.. 0. 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 iipon 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 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 Davies v. Hopkins (3 C. B., N. S. 376), and Leonard v. AIJowa>js (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. BOROUGH FRANCHISE LODGINGS. 183 The court, reversing tlie decision, held that to have claimed to he registered is a necessary con- stituent of the qualification 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 : Hcrsant v. Hake, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 412 ; 56 L. J. Q. B. D. 44 ; 1 Scott Fox's Reg. Cas. 12 ; 56 L. T., N. S. 337. 184 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. c. 3. Non-commissioned officers occujyying rooms in the cavalry barracks, Canterhury, held, in resjicct of such occiipafion to he inhabitant occupiers of dwell- ing-houses tcithin section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. City of Canterbury. Objection was made to the retention of the appellant's name on the list of occupation 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 bed-room 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 opened 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. 185 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 ban-ack 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 186 DIGEST OF parlia:sientary 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 mthin the meaning of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. The court reversed the decision : Atkinson v. CoUanI, L.E.16Q.B.D.254; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 375 ; 55 L.J. a 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. " Nest it was said that it was contrary to public policy that soldiers should have votes. No authority was cited for this j^roposition. On the contrar}-, 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 inteiTuption, attend and give his vote at such election. A similar provision is to be found in 10 Vict. e. 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. 187 recites that it is inexpedient tliat any person, otlier- ■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 by the 9th section of the Representation 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 consimUi easu 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 Registration Act of 1878, the term ' dwelhng-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 dwelling-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. 188 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. " A servant does not the less inhabit a dwelling- 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 ser- vant'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 mas- ter'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, OCCUPATIOX FRAJ^CHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 189 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 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 necessary 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 appellant served under anybody who inhabited any rooms in the same block of buildings. " These considerations dispose of most of the cases relating to non-commissioned officers and married men. " In the case of Loutij 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 Atldnmn 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 190 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. eases in addition to those reported ^;os?^, on pp. 190 — 208 :— Moffit V. Collard (from the city of Canterbury) ; ffSiilUcan V. Collard (ditto) ; Donoghue v. Bi/rne (from Warrington) ; Donogkue v. Ritchie (ditto) ; Ford V. Pardoe (from the city of Exeter) ; Ford V. Sinerdon (ditto) ; McGoican v. Coleman (from Pontefract) ; C Flaherty v. Chambers (from Maidstone) ; Stothard V. Purcell (from the Holderness division of the East Riding of Yorkshire) ; Tihton V. Bott (from Wrexham) ; Sedgirick 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 du-elling- house within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, although a superior officer occiqyicd quarters in the same block. City of Canterbury. The appellant was a captain in the King's Dragoon Gruards, and com- manded the troop of his regiment attached to the cavahy 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 liere found that the appellant had occupied liis room under such circumstances as to constitute the iuliabitancy of a dwelling-house by virtue of service in the army. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 191 The revising barrister, liowever, expunged the appellant's name on tlie ground, first, that the harracks 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, yiz., 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 : Loicry v. CoIIanl [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 391—395, ante, pp. 186—189]. Acting quarter-master sergeants in the musketrij depot, Gravesend, occupying rooms in the Milton Barracks, held, in respect of such occupation, to he inhabitant occupiers of dicelling-houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. Borough of Gtravesend. 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 imder the Queen had occupied for the prescribed period a house or cottage within the Milton Barracks. This house or cottaere was one 192 DIGEST OF rARIJAMENTARV REOlSTUATrON CASES. of a block of houses or cottages which were sot apart for tlie occupation of the mamed men as their quar- ters, and the said house was marked "acting 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 ho 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 fm^niture 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 fumitiu-e 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 OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 193 inspection if, and wlien, 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 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 anytime 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 commanding 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 s. o 194 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. of a like nature to those occupied by him , he would have had no option but to obey. 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—395, ante, pp. 186— 189]. Sergeants in the Royal Marines occupying rooms in the Marine Barrachs, Chatham, held, in respect of such occupation, to he inhabitant occujners of dwelling-houses idthin section 3 of the Represen- tation of the Peojyle 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. 1 Marine Barracks. I Chatliam. [ | 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 OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 YICT. C. 3. 195 him as a sitting-room and a bedroom, but lie did not mess in the said room. 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 doors 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 ofiicer 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 o2 19G ])IGEST OF rARLIAMEKTARY REGISTRATION CASES. to remove any part of such regulation furniture from liis room ; but he was allowed to have, and did have, 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 dut}^ 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 boimd 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. OCCUPATIOX FKAJs^CHISE TNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 197 The Queen's regulations and orders for the army, approved by her Majesty the Queen, and published 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. Chatham [included in the judgment in Athinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—395, ante, pp. 186— 189]. Non-commmioned officers and ijrivates occupying rooms in the Winchester Barracks held, in respect of suck occupation, to he inhabitant occiqners of diceUincj- houses icitkin section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. City of Winchester. The appellant and sixt}'- 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 dweUing-house under 48 Yict. c. 3, s. 3. The sixty-nine voters in question were all non- commissioned ofiicers 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 198 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. whom had likewise occupied separate and the same 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 YICT. C. 3. 199 tarracks after his time of leave liad 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-commis- sioned officers or privates who might be drunk or disorderly, or out without leave. No man was locked into his cpiarters 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 £in eluded in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collanl, 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 391—395, ante, pp. 186—189]. Officers and non-commissioned officers occupying rooms in the Copthorne Barracks, Shreu-shury, held, in respect of such occupation, to he inhabitant occupiers of dwellinrj-houses within section 3 of tlie Hepresen- tation of the People Act, 1884. Borough of Shrewsbury. The following persons claimed to have their names inserted in the list of 200 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Inhabitant Ilouseliolders : — Greorge 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 propert}', " 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. Lieuienani 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 to suppress any disorder there, and that he had no more right of entry than that of a police officer to OCCUrATlON FRANCHISE IXDER 48 VICT, C. 3. 201 enter a private house. But the colonel could arrest the claimant. Lieutenant SiticelVs 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 WijJie^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 MurpJufs 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 light 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 JIara's claim. — The claimant was a ser- geant. He was a single man. He lived in '• McLeod's Block," and occupied one room on the second story upstairs, which room formed his bed- room and sitting-room. He had the sole and exclusive 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. 202 DIGEST OF PAKLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 " McLeod'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 purposes of the Representation of People Act, 1867, and a "dwelling-house" within 48 Yict. 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 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 OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 203 dwelling-liouse ■vvithin the meaning of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, s. 5. He accordingly allowed the claims. The court affirmed the decision : Roberts v. Miuyhy [included in the judgment in Atkinson v. Collard, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 391—395, ante, pp. 186—189]. Although actual inhahitancy 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 Act, 1884, there must nevertheless he a constructive inhahitancy ; hut to make out con- structive inhahitancy, voter must shoio that he had an intention to return after a temporary absence and a ptower of returning at any time tcithout breach of any legal obligation. City of Exeter. The respondent, whose name appeared on the list of parliamentary voters in respect of the occupation of a dwelling-house (de- scribed as "the Barracks, Topsham Koad"), was objected to by the appellant, on the ground that the respondent had not himself occupied a dwelling- house during the whole of the qualifying period. The respondent was a battery sergeant-major in the Royal Artillery, stationed at Topsham Barracks, Exeter. He was unmarried, but, being a staff- sergeant, he had the right to the exclusive use and occupation of one large room in the block of buildings known as the staff-sergeants' quarters in Topsham Barracks. All the furniture in his quarters belonged to the respondent, with the exception of the fire-irons, bedstead and table. The respondent was absent on duty at Okehampton for twenty-one days during the qualifying year, and could not return without leave, but during his absence he retained his room and kept his furniture in it, no other person using or occupying the room. The revising hamster found as a fact that during the whole of the qualifying year the respondent had 204 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. liimself separately occupied the same room as a dwelling by virtue of his office as a sergeant-major in her Majesty's army, and decided that the re- spondent was entitled to have liis name retained on the list of voters as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house by virtue of section '6 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1884 ; and lie accord- ingly retained the respondent's name on the list. The court (reversing the decision) held, that although an 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 Act, 1884, there must nevertheless be a constructive inhabitancy, but, to make out a con- structive inhabitancy, the voter must show that he had an intention to return after a temporary absence, and a power of returning at any time without breach of any legal obligation, and that the respondent, having failed to show this, should have been ex- punged from the list of voters : Ford v. Barnefs^ L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 254 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 396 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 24; 53 L. T., N. S. 675; 34 W. R. 78. City of Exeter. The respondent's case differed from the last preceding one {Ford v. Barnes) only in the following particulars : — The respondent was a married man, and, as such, resided in the married quarters mth his wife and family. While the respondent was absent on duty at Okehampton his wife and family had the right to, and did, remain in and occupy his quarters during his absence. In this case also, the revising barrister decided to retain the name of the respondent on the list, and his decision was reversed : Ford v. Elmsley, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 258 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 397 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 25. [The case was argued with Ford v. Barnes, and the same judgment applies to both.] OCCUPATION FKAXCHISE UXDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 205 IVJiere an industrial trainer of a workhouse, paid and empiot/ed hij the poor law guardians, hij whose permission he had, by virtue of his employment, the exclusive use and occupation of a bed-room and sitting-room in the icorkhouse as his dwelling, the guardians reserving another room in the house for their oicn use as a board-room, and the master of the icorkhouse {also paid and employed by the guar- dians) living in another part of the workhouse building, but uithout control over the industrial trainer, save 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 Mepresentation of the People Act, 1884; secondly, that the workhouse was not inhabited by any person under u-hom the industrial trainer served, as neither the guardians nor the master inhabited the whole workhouse ; and thirdly, that the industrial trainer did not serve tinder the master. City of Exeter, The appellant, wliose name was on the occupiers' list, was objected to on the ground that he had not occupied the qualifying property as OTSTier or tenant. The appellant's name appeared on the list in the following form : — Adams, John. I Union workhouse, I Dwelling- I Okehampton I Okehampton. | house. | Road. The appellant was an industrial trainer, appointed, paid, and employed hy 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 206 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 bj 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 Bepresentation 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 OCCUPATIO^' FRANCHISE UNDER 48 A'ICT. C. 3. 207 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 " dwelling-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. D. 13 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 666. Sko}) assistants separately occupying, by virtue of their employment, furnished bedrooms in a du-ellimj- house beloncfuuj to their employers, and sharing a sitting-room therein for their meals, the employers not residing in the house, but exercising a general control over it by means of a resident caretaker, and supplying service by means of a resident domestic servant, icere held to be entitled to the franchise, each as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, under 48 Vict. c. 3, s. 3. Borough of St. Pan'cras (South Division). — The appellant claimed under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884 ; he had, dui'ing 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, similarly inhabited by other persons in the same 208 "DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. employment as the appellant ; also a dining room, in which the appellant and the other inmates had their meals (provided for them by their employers) 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 thi'oughout 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 tlie 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 bed-rooms 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, tliat the several bed-rooms 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 tliat by reason of the control exercised, and service performed by the employers as above stated, the bed-rooms in ques- tion were not separately occupied as dwellings within 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 5, and therefore were not OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 209 dwelling-liouses for the purposes of the Eepresenta- tion of the People Acts, 1867 and 1884, and he accordingly disallowed the claims. The coiu't held (reversing the decision) that the conditions of section 3 of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1884, had been complied with, and consequently 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 : Stribling v. liaise, L. E.. 16 a. B. D. 246; 55 L. J. U. B. D. 15; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 409 ; 54 L. T., N. S. 268. The effect of section 15 of the Registmtion Act, 1885, is merely to remove frorn members of the University of Cambridge the particular disqaalification ichich had previous] y attached to them, and not to confer on them a more extensive franchise than that enjoyed by an ordinary inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house. Therefore Cambridge iinder- graduates, 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 r 007ns. Borough 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 c^ualifying 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 210 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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, which extended to about half the year, without the exjjress 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 Yict. 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 co^ege 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 Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 211 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 Eegistration 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 Eegistration 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 jDlaced on the register : Tanner v. Carter, L R. 16 a. 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. p2 212 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. The effect of section 15 of the Registmtion Act, 1885, is merely to remove from members of the University of Oxford the particular disqualification which had previously attached to them, and not to confer on them a more extensive franchise than that enjoyed by an ordinary inhabitant occupier of a du-elling- house. Therefore Oxford nndergraduates, being prevented by college discipline from occupying their rooms in college throughout the entire period of fptalification prescribed by statute, are not entitled to a rote in resjjcct 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 pm-poses, such as a college meeting or lecture. The general right was qualified OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 213 in tlie 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 repaii's 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 fiu'niture 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 increased in amount according to the lateness of the hour at which he retm^ned. 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 under- graduate's rooms to visitors without asking leave of the undergraduate, this consent being taken for 214 DIGEST OF TARLIAMENTARY KEGISTEATION CASES. granted ; and in one college (Wadliam) 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 con- sulting the undergraduate occupants. The under- graduate 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 re- quirements of discipline, of which the college autho- rities 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, occiqyy his rooms during the vacations; and that these vacations, of which there were three, comprised a period of six months in the year. Duiing 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 15th 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 Eepresentation 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 OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER 48 VICT. C. 3. 215 appellant had not inhabited, and had no power without permission from the college authorities to inliabit, their rooms during the prescribed statutory period of resi- dence, they were not entitled to be placed on the register : Banks v. Mcumll, 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 barracJcs as a chveU in g -house by virtue of militanj service, teas compelled hij the rules of such service to he absent from his quarters in barracks for ticenty-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. Borough of Warrington. The appellant's name appeared in division 2 of the occupiers' list, and he was objected to on the ground that he had not occupied the qualifying premises for the qualifying period. The appellant was a married non-commissioned cfi&cer residing with his wife and family in the Orf ord Barracks, Warrington, in separate rooms allotted to him by the military authorities and constituting a dwelling-house partly fui'nished by himself. The rooms had been assigned by the quarter-master, who might change them at his discretion, but in point of fact the rooms had been retained by the appellant during the qualifying year. The appellant had been compulsorily absent on duty at Altcar in Lancashire for 27 days of the qualifying year, but whilst he was so absent his name was retained on the strength of the Warrington regimental depot in the monthly return of the forces made by the commanding officer to the War Office, and the rooms continued to be occupied by the appellant's family and furniture. The appellant could not, while compulsorily absent 216 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. at Altcar or elsewhere, return to personal inhabitancy of his rooms without a written permission or pass signed by the colonel or commanding officer pre- scribing the number of hours, and the purpose, for which it was granted, as well as the hours between which the pass could be used. Reasonable leave was usually granted to persons in the appellant's position as of course, and the appellant had, in fact, availed himself of the privilege accorded, and returned to Warrington for one or more days during his period of compulsory absence. The revising barrister found that the appellant had not occupied during the qualifying period, as he could not return, except by leave as aforesaid, without a breach of duty, and without subjecting himself to a trial by court-martial; the appellant's name was accordingly expunged. The appellant gave notice of appeal, and the question reserved for the court was, whether the constructive inhabitancy of the appellant had, on the above stated facts, been made out. The names of nineteen other persons were included in a schedule attached to the special case, the facts relating to each of whom being similar to those in the appellant's case, except that for one of them (a warrant officer), a verbal permission to return to the personal inhabitancy of his rooms was deemed by the military authorities sufficient in place of the written permission or pass above referred to. The court dismissed the appeal, with costs, the case being governed by Ford Y.Barnes, ante, pp. 203,204; Splttall V. Brook, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. 426 ; 56 L. J. a. B. D. 48 ; Scott Fox's Reg. Cas. 22 ; 35 W. R. 520. ( 217 ) NOTICES OF CLAIM— COUNTIES. Service of notice of claim on 20th Juhj^ a good service, although that clay 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 tlie decision, that the notices, having been delivered in compliance with section 4 of 6 Vict. c. 18, were well served : Rau-lins v. West Derby, 2 C. B. 72 ; 1 Lutw. 373 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 70 ; 10 Jur. 268 ; B. & Arm 599. Production of stamped diqjlicate 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. 218 DIGEST OP PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. In the ordinary course of post, it would have been delivered on 20tli July (as required by section 4 of G 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 Bishoj) v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45, pod ("Notices of objection — Counties"), that the production of the stamjDed duplicate was a suffi- cient substitute for service in due time, there being no distinction in this respect between notices of objection and notices of claim : Bay ley v. Nanticich^ 2 0. B. 118; 1 Lutw. 363, «o^e. 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 Vict. c. 18, to refer to the overseers of the ^jarish 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, 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. NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 219 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 was 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 assist- ant 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 register, was signed by the particular overseer and the assistant overseer only, designated, as above mentioned, 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 invahd by reason of their not having been signed by a majority of the over- seers, as required by 6 Yiet. c. 18, ss. 5, 101, con- sidered that the register then in force for the parish 220 DIGEST OF rAllLlAMENTAll\ REGISTRATIOM CASES. 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 section 27 {a) of the Act. He then proceeded to amend such last-mentioned list imder section 40 (/>), by expung- ing 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 decided that the address in the notice of claim was, under the circumstances, such as " to be com- monly understood " to refer to the overseers of the parish at large, that the notice was, therefore, suffi- cient within section 101 of 6 Yict. c. 18, and that it was well served. The court held, that the decision was fully warranted by the facts : Elliott v. St. Mary Within, 4 C. B. 75 ; 1 Lutw. 575 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 101 ; 8 L. T. 343 ; 11 Jur. 69. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note [b], ante, on p. 103. [b) This section was virtually superseded by s. 28 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, and fonnally re- pealed by s. 17 of the Registration Act, 1885, and First Schedule thereto. NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 221 If clulm he 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 requii'e 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 dehvered to the overseers in due time ; but the claimant's name at the foot of the notice was not ^vritten bj 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. 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 inquii^e into the sufficiency thereof, after the over- seers had acted on it, by inserting the claimant's name in the list {a) : Davies v. Hoj)kins, 3 C. B., N. S.-376 ; K. & G. 118 ; 27 L. J. C. P. 6 ; 30 L. T. 152 ; 4 Jur., N. S. 690 ; 6 W. E. 68. (a) Williams, J., iu 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 concuirence 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 mlet quod feri own debint), that the overseers are, 222 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. £12 occupier (a) need not specif// 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 Widdicombe-in-the-Moor) had, on 25th August (/>), 1871, sent to the overseers a notice of claim in the fol- lowing form : " To the overseers of the parish of Widdicombe-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 Yict. c. 58, s. 17, and 6 Yict. c. 18, s. 15, had been sufiiciently 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 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 Davics v. Hophins 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 quahfication to vote, but also that they gave ' ' due notice of claim" ; see Lire Sale, post, j)p. 223 — 225. The jy«"S0Hff? 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. Salse, ante, pp. 182, 183), and must, therefore, be strictly proved. {a) See note [a), ante, on p. 96. {h) The last day for service of notices of claim both in counties and boi'oiighs is now 20th August ; seethe Registration Act, 1885, 8. 3, sub-s. 1. NOTICES OF CLAIM — COUNTIES. 223 it was a claim to be placed on that list : Firth v. Widdi- combe-in-the-Moor, L. E. 7 0. P. 172; 1 H. & C. 653 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 833. If claim he inserted in list of voters under section 5 of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is not comjx'tent to revising bar- rister to require j^^'oof that it was served on the overseers in due time. West Gloucestershire. A notice of claim was served on the overseers on 25tli July, instead of, as required by section 4 of 6 Yict. 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. Held, affirming the decision, on the authority of Davies v. Hopkins, 3 C. B., N. S. 376, ante, p. 221, that it was not competent to the revising bar- rister to inquire into the lateness of the service of the notice of claim, after the overseers had acted on it, by inserting the claimant's name in the list : Leonard v. Allonw/s, 2 H. & C. 411 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 81 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 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 sec- tions was applicable^, that due notice of such claims respectivehj had been given, the fact of their pub- lication 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, (ff) Sec note (rf), anU^ on p. 9G, 224 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 name from the list of £12 rated occupiers for the then cmTent 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 satisfaction of the revising barrister ; and it was therefore con- tended on behalf of the said J. S. (who was not present), that his claim ought to bo 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 arc 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 NOTICES 01' CLAIM COUNTIES. 225 Ms behalf to the revising barrister {a), but he refused to state a case for appeal. The court (witliout 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 Yict. c. 18 (which- ever of those sections applied), that J. S. had given due notice of his claim to be inserted, and that, in the absence of such proof before the revising bar- rister, he was right both in disallo^\dng the claim {b) and in refusing to state a case for appeal. The rule was accordingl}^ discharged with costs. In re Sale, Colt. Eeg. Cas. 152 ; 50 L. J. C. P. D. 113; 43L. T., N. S. 635. {a) It seems that such a notice is a condition precedent to a case being stated : see In re Bane and others, post, "Practice." .''- (b) This decision is important as correcting an erroneous notion (■which, it is believed, had extensively prevailed), that Davies v. Eojjkins (3 C. B., N. S. 376 ; ante, pp. 221, 222) was applicable to all claims -without distinction: see the thu'd paragraph of note (a), ante, on p. 222. 226 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. NOTICES OF CLAIM— BOEOUGHS. " House ^^ a sufficient description in third column of voter'' s qualification {consisting of the occiqmtion of two houses in succession), 2)rovided the situation of both houses be ^^roperli/ stated in fourth column. City of Lincoln. One whose qualification to vote consisted of tlie 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 descrii^tion 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 Yict. 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, jjf-r Erle, J., that the amendment, if necessary, was warranted by the statute : Hitchins V. Brou-n, 2 C. B. 25 ; 1 Lutw. 328 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 38 ; B. & Arn. 545 ; 9 Jur. 1058. (fl) By the Registration Act, 1885, s. 4 (sub-s. 6), 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 list of claimants so signed to be entitled to vote." NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROUGHS. 227 Where claim was in respect of successive occiqxdion of houses, each of ichich 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 ground that the number of the first house was neither inserted in the list, agreeably to form No. 8 {a) in Schedule B. to 6 Yict. 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 afiirmed 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. Douner, 2 C. B. 63 ; 1 Lutw. 365; 15 L. J. C. P. 81; 10 Jur. 207; B. & Axn. 588. («) In the case aa 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 Hst. Fonn 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. q2 228 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of claim sufficient, notwithstanding claiinanfs qualification is inacciwatehj described therein, pro- vided inaccuracy he such, that, had it occurred in list of voters, it would hare been amendable under section 40 {a) of 6 Viet. 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 borougli 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. House St. Andrew's Hill, in the succes- sive occaipation 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 insulhcient, by reason of its stating the qualification to be in respect of successive occupations {a) Sec note (i), ante, on p. 220. NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROUGHS. 229 of two houses, both of which, by reference to the heading of the fourth cohimn, appeared to be in the parish of St. Andrew the Great, whereas one of them (No. 15, Hill's road), w^as 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 Grreat. 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 A^ict. 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 : JEaden 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. 220. 230 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where mtmher of house, omitted from second column of claim {the claim not being altogether illusory), teas supplied to the revising barrister : held, that he was warranied by section 40 {(i) 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. Mumford, L. E. 2 C. P. 81 ; H. & P. 335 ; 36 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 964 ; 15 W. E. 221 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 441. "jffbz(se" in a notice of claim a sufficient description of claimant''s qualification as occupier of a house, although the borough, where the rote is claimed, has a list of freeholders under section 31 of Reform Act, 1832,' f?.s w'cll as a list of occupiers under section 27 (6).. Such description, if insufficient, held to be amendable under section 40 {a). City of Exeter. Gr. 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 published by the overseers, the nature of Gf.'s qualifi- cation was described as " house." (ff) See note {h), ante, on p. 220. [b) Repealed, save as appears in note {h), anic, on p. 103. NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROUGHS. 231 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 Gr.'s qualification as occupier of a house under 2 Will. IV. 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 Yict. c, 18, to amend, by inserting the claimant in the list as " occupier of a house " : Ford v. Boo)i, L. R. 7 0. P. 150 ; 1 H. & C. 668 ; 41 L. J. 0. 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 mistakes in a " list," within section 28, sub-section 1, of 41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26, but mistakes in a " claim," within subsection 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. (ff) See note {b), ante, on p. 220. {b) The case not stating in express terms -whether the appellant 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. 232 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 Eegistration 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 Hatn- 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 //sf," within section 28, sub-section 1, of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Eegistration Act, 1878, and therefore the revising barrister was not hound 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 correcting them : Picliayd (b) v. Bai/l/s, L. E. («) Sec note (b), ante, p. 231. [b] The declaration of appeal appended to the revising barrister's \ NOTICES OF CLAIM — BOROIGHS. 233 5 C. P. D. 235 ; Colt. Eeg. Cas. 98 ; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 182 ; 41 L. T., N. S. 509 ; 28 W. P. 256. 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 AKred Young, I appeal from this decision. " RiCHAED 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 bo 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 Wankhjn V. Woollett, 4 C. B. 97, 98, 99. 234 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. NOTICES OF OBJECTION— COUNTIES. Not necessary in point of law that name of county or large town, in or near u-hich ohjector''s residence is situate, should bo added to the descrij)tion of the latter in a notice of objection sent to the voter, if the facts shoio 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 parisli of ," it is sufficient and proper to sub- stitute in notice of objection the tcord " township " for ''parish,'^ if there be a separate list for the township. South Lancashire. A notice of objection sent by post was in tlie following form : — " To Mr. Samuel Warburton, of Newton, near Hyde, Cheshire — " Take notice, that I object to your name being retained in the Harpnrhey list of voters for the Southern Division of Lancashire. " Dated this 18th day of August, 1844. " (Signed) John Gtadsby, 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 insuflScient in fact, and that something ought to have NOTICES OP OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 235 been added to the description of the objector's place of abode, as "Lancashire," or "near Manchester" (Didsbmy 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, sufRcient 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 Yict. 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 j^lace 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 coiTesponded with that in the register (a) : Gachhy v. JVarbioion, 8 Scott, N. E. 775 ; 7 M. & G. 11 ; 1 Lutw. 136 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 9 Jur. 17; B. & Arn. 272. (a) It seems from the subsequent cases of Melbourne v. GrccnjieM, 7 C. B., N. S. 1, po&t, pp. 243, 2-i-i, and Calver v. Roberts, 1 H. & C. GIG, post, pp. 252, 253, that the objector must describe himself in his notices of objection as of his actual place of abode, without reference to the description in the second column of the register. 236 ])IGEST OF PARI-IAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection not vitiated hij adding the number and Htroct to the objector^s place of abode as de- scribed in list of voters. East Gtloucestershire. 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. & Ai-n. 514. Production of stamped duplicates of duly posted notices of objection [to voter and overseers) sufficient sub- stitute for service in due time. East Gtloitcestershire. An objector produced duplicate notices of objection, in the proper form, to the voter and the overseers, bearing the Manchester post mark of 21th 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 to which they were addressed also impressed upon them. (ff) This (2otli 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 boroiighs is now 20th August. See the Regis- tration Act, 188.5, s. 3, sub-s. 1. NOTICES OF OBJECTIOX COU:STIES. 237 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. Mo^'MOUTHSHlRE. 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. WooUos." In the list of voters for the parish of St. WooUos 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. The court held, that as the notice did not contain i« «fee^ a sufficient statement of tho objector's place (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 Jui-. 16 ; B. & Am. 582, note; Hickton v. Aiitrohus, 2 C. B. 82; 1 Lutw. 363, note; B. & Am. 586, note. 238 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. of abode, it was bad in law (a), and could not be aided by reference to the register : Woollett v. Davk (b) , 4 C. B. 115 ; 1 Lutw. 607 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 185 ; 11 Jur. 477; 8 L. T. 470. An external address, essential to duplicate notice of objection. Monmouthshire. To prove tliat 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, Grarndiffaith." 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, Grarndifiaith," 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. Flatclier, 5 C. B. 14, and the note to that case, post. {h) 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 Wanlchjn v. Woollett, 4 C. B. S6; see the note to that case^os^, "Practice." NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 239 Notice of objection to name being retained " on the list of voters for the parish of S., in the southern division of the county of 7F".," instead of {as the form prescribes) ^^ in the p)arish of S. list of voters for the southern division, <^'c.," held a sufficient compliance with 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 7, Sched. (A.), Form iVo. 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. 240 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection sent by post, addressed to overseers of the parish or township of [naming it), uithout 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 Yict. c. 18. It bore the London post office stamp of 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 (r/), 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 {h) : Jones V. Innous, 17 C. B. 290 ; K. & G. 21; 25 L. J. C. P. 78; 1 Jur., N. S. 1112; 4 W. R. 84. Notice of objection sent by post, addressed to overseers of the parish or township of [naming it), uithout adding name of county, sufficient, if acted on by the overseers, such conduct on their part affording a prima facie presumption that they received the notice in due time. West Kent. A duplicate notice of objection, produced before the revising barrister, was addressed, {a) See note (a) on p. 236. {b) It "will be observed tliat 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 : seeB'ishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45, ante, pp. 236, 237. The attention of the court, however, does not appear to have been directed to the defect in question. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 241 " 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 duphcate 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 Avas also proved that they had published such list. Held, in accordance with Jo)ies 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. E. 85. («) See note («) on p. 236. [b) See note (i) to Jones v. Innous, supra. Where a notice of objection does not reach the overseers within the time limited by statute, and tliut 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, pp. 265, 266. An objector can always pro- tect himself against such a contingency by availing himself of the provisions of sections 100, 101, of 6 Vict. c. 18, relating to stamj)ed duplicates : see Bishop v. Helps, 2 C. B. 45, a?itc, pp. 236, 237, and Mornsbi/ v. Bobson, 1 C. B., N. S. 63, jjost, pp. 242, 243. 242 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Notice of objection sent hy post to voter at his place of abode as described in list, sufficient, without adding to the address the name of toicnshij) contained in heading of list. West Eiding op 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 sliire for the West Riding of the county of York, in resjiect 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 Brown. Lido-et hill. Freehold houses and land. Church lane, Low- town, Robin lane, and Eichardshaw 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. E. 24; IJur., N. S. 1141. Production of stamped duplicate, conclusive evidence of service in ordinary course of X)Ost, although such service has been, in fact, prevented by delay at p)ost office. North Durham. Notices of objection, directed to the overseers and to the person objected to, were delivered, open and in duplicate, to the postmaster, at the post office in Durham, within the usual busi- NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 243 ness hours, on 22ucl August, 1856 (tlie year of tlie revision). It was proved at the re\dsion 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 imtil 26th August. The stamped duplicates were produced before the revising barrister, bearing the Durham post office stamp of 22nd August. Held, in accordance with Bishop v. HeJps^ {ante, pp. 236, 237), 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 : Eonishy V. Rohson, 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 by his actual place of abode, without regard to second column of register; if, instead of so de- scribing 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. 1 CoTvliill, I Freehold houses and I Gutter. 1 Belper. | land. | He had removed from Cowhill, Belper, in October, 244 DIGEST OF PAKLIAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. 1858, to a place called Grutter, in the same township 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 liegistration 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 by 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 : Methonrne v. GreenfieM, 7 C. B., N. S. 1 ; K. & G. 261 ; 29 L. J". C. P.' 81 ; 6 Jur., N. S. 510 ; 1 L. T., N. S. 93. Production of stamped duplicate notice of objection, duly signed by objector, is evidcjice of objector having also signed notice left loith post-master to be for- warded to voter. West Kent. A document purporting to be a duplicate notice of objection, stamped at the proper post-office on 24tli 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 by post was also signed by him : Lewis V. Eoberts, 11 C. B., N. S. 23 ; K. & G. 402 ; 31 L. J. {(/) See note («) on p. 236, ante. NOTICES OF OBJECTION COUNTIES. 245 C. P. 51 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 485 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 351 ; 10 W. R. 80. Objector may send notice of objection to overseers by post in the ordinary way {without adopting statutory mode), but in that case it must appear that notice reached overseers in due time. Middlesex. [The case named below was sub- stantially the same as Smith v. Huggett, post,^']). 278, 279, and is governed by the same decision, the only difference between the two cases being, that, whereas in Smith v. Hug get t 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 ; -Jl L. J. C. P. 38 ; 5 L. T.,K S. 425 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 619 ; 10 W. R. 131 {a). Objector^ s usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a p)Ct'8on unacquainted with his hand- writing, sufficient, if written with due care to give requisite i)formation to person objected to. North Riding of Yokkshire. 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 diligence, without reference to the register, arrive at any reasonable conclusion as to what the surname was intended to designate. (a) James v. Smith (11 C. B., N. S. 65, note), in which the facts ■were the pame as in Smith v. Huggctt and Smith x. James, except that there each notice was in a seijarate envelope, was (the learned reporter states) taken to bo disposed of by the decision in those cases. 246 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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. WaU:e)' (Aylan's case), 13 0. B., N. S. 80 ; K. & Gr. 634, 543 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 60, 63. Ohjectorh usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a person unacquainted icith his hand- writing, sufficient, if written with due care to give requisite information to i^erson objected to. North Eiding 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 0. B., N. S. 40; K. & G-. 534 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 60, 61 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 603. Objector'' s usual signature to notice of objection, although illegible to a person unacquainted toith his hand- ivriting, sufficient, if ivrittcn loith due care to give requisite information to person objected to. North Biding 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 written his surname : it was held, that this additional fact carried the case no further than Trotter v. Walker'] : Sedgwick v. Trevor, 13 C. B., N. S. 42 ; K. & G. 534, 544 ; 32 L. J. 0. P. 60, 64 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 603, 606. (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." I NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 247 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 andsm-name of the voter objected to, as described in the list or register ; " " Place of abode, as described ; " " Nature of quahfication, 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, 18b5. " 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. Holloimy, L. E. 1 C. P. 145 f H. & P. 281 ; H. & E. 315 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 164; 35 L. J. C. P. 100 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 468 ; 14 W. E. 202. 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 ichich objector is qualified to object, and tvithin j^eriod allowed for objecting. Merionethshire. A notice of objection to the voter was dated 18th of August, 1865 (the year of 248 DIGEST OF PAELIAMENTAIIY REGISTRATION CASES. the revision), but the notice to tlie 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 C[ualified 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. R. 1 C. P. 140 ; H. & P. 320 ; H. & R. 341 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 123 ; 35 L. J. C. P. 94 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 633 ; 14 W. R. 204. Revising barrister has no power to expunge voter'' s name unless properly ohjected 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 Fulham 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, pp. 36 — 38, had decided that the shareholders in Fulham Bridge had no qualification in respect of their shares. 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. & R. 338 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 125; 14 W. R. 201 ; 13 L. T., N. S. 469. {a) It is clear that tlie above decision "vrould apply equally to a notice to the voter, and, as observed by Byles, J. (L. R. 1 C. P. 144), to notices of claims. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COrXTIES. 249 Note to Form No. 10 in Schecl. B. of 6 Vict. c. 18 docs not appli/ to notices of objection {to overseers) in counties, noticitltstanding there are, since 30 8^" 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 30, and 31 (^ 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 19, more than one list of voters for a countij. South-East Lancashire. R. was objected to on tlie 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 Yict. c. 18, s. 6, there was a separate list of £12 occupiers {(i), made out pur- suant to 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 30, and 31 k 32 Yict. 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 cj^ualification as described in the register, and was in accordance with Form No. 4, Sched. A. to 6 Yict. c. 18. Held that, not^dthstanding that it is the duty of the overseers to make out a separate list of £12 occu- piers {(i) under the provisions of section 30 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and section 19 of 31 & 32 Yict. 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 question was good, although it did not specify the list to which the objection referred, as du-ected (in the case of boroughs) by the note to Form No. 10 in Sched. B. of Yict. c. 18 : Chorlton v. Johnson (Bee's ease), L. R. 4 C. P. 400 ; 1 H. et C. 54 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 39 ; 17 W. R. 119; 19 L. T., N. S. 530. A £12 occupier (a), ichoscvote nris objected to, was held entitled to a specific statement of the grounds of objection. Sol'th-West LA^x'ASHIRE. A. was objected to on the list of voters, as £12 occupiers, for the town- ship of Bootle-cum-Linacre. (a) See note («), ante, on p. 96. 250 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Vict. c. 3G, s. G, the notice of objec- tion was bad for not specifying the ground or grounds of objection : Bennett v. Bnunfitt (Alderson's case), L. R. 4 C. P. 407 ; 1 H. & C. 80 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 17 W. R. 202 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 283. WJiere, in a notice of objection, served on the voter, the sufficiency of description of ohjector^s place of abode is doubtful, it is matter of evidence for revising barrister ivhether the notice in fact gives the requisite information. Merionethshire. In a notice of objection served on the voter (a), the objector's place of abode was 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. E. 4 0. P. 414; {a) The notice of objection -was in accordance with Form No. 5 in Sched. 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 alleged qualification as a £12 occupier. Such being- the case, the notice in question should have been according to Form No. 2 in Sched. A. to 28 Vict. c. 36. The error was fatal to the validity of the notice {Bennett x. Brumfitt (Alderson's case), supra), but was not taken advantage of. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 251 1 H. & C. 91 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 67; 17 W. E. 175; 19 L. T., N. S. 563. If ohjedor 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 p)rove 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. The court held, reversing the decision of the revising barrister, that it was competent to the objector to do so : Norris v. Pilchcr, L. R. 4 0. P. 417; 1 H. & C. 173; 38 L. J. C. P. 69; 17 W. R. 225 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 563. Where 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, Bloomsbury, London, W.C., (Present place of abode), "110, Guildford Street, Russell Street, TF.C." 252 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The revising barrister decided that the description of the objector's present place of abode was incoiTect, defective, and misleading, for the following reasons: — 1. It was not stated therein in what city, town, or place Guildford Street, Russell Street, W. 0., was situate. 2. There was, in ordinary parlance, no such street as Gruildford Street, llussell 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, Co vent Garden, and Great Rus- sell Street, both of which were a long way from Guildford Street. Held, that the reasons (a) stated were insufScient 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 : JS^on-is v. Pik/ier, L. R. 4 C. P. 417 ; 1 H. & C. 173 ; 38 L. J. C. 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 acinal place of abode. South Essex. An objector described himself, in his notices of objection, as of "Pembroke Eoad, 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- (rt) BoviLL, C. J., in his judgment, said : "It is perfectly plain that, as a general x'ule, the revising barrister must decide all questions of fact, and that iipon a pure question of fact the court cannot revie"w 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. Taking the case in this view, I think his decision cannot be supported on either of the grounds suggested." NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 253 ceding the revision, lie had resided at a house in Pembroke Eoad, 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, Grosvenor Park Terrace, Grosvenor Park Poad, and he had let his house in Pembroke Poad to a tenant, who was in occuj)ation of it when the notices were signed. The two houses were very near each other, and the objector being well known in the locahty, could be easily found. Held, in accordance with Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1, ante, pp. 2-^, 244, that the notices of objection were bad, for not giving the objector's actual place of abode : Caher v. Roberts, 1 H. & C. 616 ; 20 W. E. 147 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 751 («). W7iere 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 " itithin 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, s. 22), //' objector describe himself in notice of objection as " o)i the register of voters for the township^'' without specifying the list in icltich 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 («) "WiLLES, J., is reported (1 H. & C. 62-1) to have said, that the court had «o power to overrule Melbourne v. Greenfield, even if thev desired to do so. But see per Eeett, J., in Omie's case, L. R. 8 C. P. 299 ; 2 H. & C. 80 ; and per Bovill, C. J., and Beett, Geove, and Dexman, JJ., in Hadtield's case, L. E.. 8 C. P. 311, 313, 314, 318, 320, 321 ; 2 H. & C. 103, 104, 112, 113, 120, 124, 125 ; also per Geote, J., in Leonard'^. Alloicarjs, 2 H. & C. 419. Roberts v. Percival, 18 C. B., N. S. 38, 39, may also be referred to as bearing on the same question. 254 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Rochdale. 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 Rochdale 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 Vict. c. 18, Sched. A. No. 5, was sufficient, and that, notwithstanding section 22 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58, there was no need of its specify- ing on which of the two lists the objector's name appeared : ChorUon v. Tonge, L. E,. 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 show that the property, being situate in a borough, is such as to entitle voter to the borough franchise, and consequently such as to disqualify him as a county 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 : — Freehold Bishopweannouth benefice. parish. Cocken, WiUiam. The Rectory, Eishopwear- mouth. The voter was the rector of Bishopweannouth, 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 ri2:ht of his benefice. NOTICES OF OBJECTIOX — COUNTIES. 255 The notice of objection was in the form given by 28 Yict. 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 Yict. c. 36, s. 6, to allow of such proof being given : Simey v. Dixon, L. E. 7 C. P. 190 ; 1 H. & C. 626 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 18 ; 20 W. K 238 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 811. Notice of objection sent to the t'oter {(dreachj on the register) hy jyost, pursnant to section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, must contain his place of abode as described in list of voters transmitted to overseers hy clerk of the peace, although voter may have changed his residence, and overseers have (im- properly) altered and published such list accord- ingly. East Devoxshiiie. 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 : — Mobert Nose/worthy. I Boddacleave, in I House and land I Boddacleave. I this parish. | as occupier, j 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. 256 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. In the list published by the overseers, therefore, the name appeared as follows : — Robert Xosewoj-t/ii/. JJuihhivMre'm House and land ! BuiflhWh'lll'it this parish. Bowdcn. as occupier. 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 NoHcicorthy, of Bowden Farm, BucMand-iii-the-Moor.'" This Avas the correct address at the time the notice was sent. 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 desen'bed in tlie list of voters transmitted to tJie overseers hij the elerl; 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 : Noseirorthij v. Buehland-in-the-Moor, L. E. 9 C. P. 2;i3 ; 2 H. & C. 127 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 27; 22 W. R. 155; 29 L. T., N. S. 675. Where there is no deUverij of letters at roter^s 2}^c£ of abode, excejjt by some private accidental convey- ance, service of notice of objection must be 2)roved otherwise than by stainped 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, NOTICES OF OBJECTION — COUNTIES. 257 ■" directed to the person to wliom 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 the ordinary course of post, at 10 a.m. 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 6 Yict. c. 18, did not apply, and consequently that service in due time under section 7 of the statute was not proved : Leuis v. Evans, L. R, 10 C. P. 297 ; 2 H. & C. 279 ; 44 L. J. C. P. 41 ; 31 L. T., N. S. 487 ; 23 W. R. 244. The statement of the year 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 C. 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., s. s 258 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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. Futon, " of Church Street, Moldgreen, " Huddersfield." 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. 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. Reg. Cas. 342 ; 53 L. J. Q. B. D. 108; 32 W. R. 246; 51 L. T., N. S. 396. ( 259 ) NOTICES OF OBJECTION— BOROUOHS. Where notice of objection to the part//, though in strict compliance uith Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, teas in fact a misdescrijjtion, it teas held insufficient. City of Bristol. A notice of objection duly served on a voter was signed " William Tudball, Hot we 11 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 : Tudhall v. Bristol, 7 Scott, N. R. 486 ; 5 M. & G. 5 ; 1 Lutw. 7 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 49 ; 7 Jur. 1041 ; B. & Arn. 8. Postmaster's duties with regard to stamped duplicates may he legally performed hy his managing clerk. Borough of Bradford. By section 100 o£ 6 Yict. 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 j)ost?naster 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 s2 260 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 mcuuKjimj ckrk, 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 ckrk 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. 08; 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 ofQ Vict. c. 18, although notice was jwsted by his clerk. Borough of Totnes. By section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, it is enacted, that persons desirous of sending notices of objection by post shall deliver the same, duly dii-ected, 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. 261 bringing the same, duly stamped, and that the pro- duction h>j the partij kIio posted 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 (r/), 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 : Cumiiiff v. Toms, 8 Scott, N. R. 827 ; 7 M. & G. 29; 1 Lutw. 151 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 54; 8 Jur. 1052. Notice of objection and stamped duplicate thereof must be signed bij objector persona/i//. 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 G Yict. c. 18, it had not the personal signature of the objector, which was rendered essential by that section for every notice of objection. (a) This was within the time for ser\'ice enacted by 6 Vict. c. 18, B. 7 ; see as to alteration of date, note (ff), ante, on p. 236. 262 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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. & O. 88 ; 1 Lutw. 200 ; 9 Jur. 90 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 67 ; B. & Am. 347. If objector'' s name he 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 under- stood to be that of objector — u-hether it be so or not, a question 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. C. P. 58 ; B. & Arn. 421. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 263 Foot note to Form No. 10, Schechde B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, held not to apphj 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 overseers. 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. (rt) See now the Parliament arj- and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, Schedule, Form I., Nos. I and 2, note. 264 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. There are as many of tliese 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 refeiTed : Wanseij v. Perkins (Quigley's ease), 8 Scott, N. R. 954 ; 7 M. & &, 127;. 1 Lutw. 235 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 60 ; B. & Arn. 38G ; Jur. 113. Notice not titiated hj insertion of siiperftdious /cords, if they he 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 firej)lace, 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 natiu-e of the quaKfication was described as " a potwaller." In the list of occupiers, the name of the appellant was entered as follows : — Allen, John. 1 East Street. | Dwelling'-liouse. | 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, 265 The following notice of objection had been dulv served upon him. " To Mr. John Allen, of East Street, Sonthside. " I hereby give you notice, that I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote ^.s- 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 : Allen v. House, 8 Scott, N. R. 987 ; 7 M. & G. 157 ; 1 Lutw. 255 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 79 ; 9 Jur. 230 ; B. & Arn. 415. Where overseers made out two lists, it teas held that notice of ohjection {to overseers) must speeify list to which ohjection 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 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 (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note {a), ante, on p. 236. 266 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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. 18, and that the defect was not cured by the overseers' publication of the objection : Barton v. Ashlo/, 2 C. B. 4 ; 1 Lutw. 307 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 36 ; B. & Arn. 518. Validity of service through the pod ^ 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 y. Leu-is, 2 C. B. 60; 1 Lutw. 380, note; B. & Am. 608. Notices of objection signed by objector with his actual place of abode, u'hich differed from that ajjpearing against his name in list, held a sufficient compliance u-ith 6 Vict. c. 18. Borough or 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." (ff) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note {a), ante, on p. 236. {jb) 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. 267 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., diasentiente), that the notices were sufficient {a) : Knowles v. Brooking, 2 C. 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 descrip>tion thereof in list. 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 Adej^, " Of the parish of Fisherton Anger, in the said borough, on the list of voters for the parish of Fisherton Anger." The objector's name appeared on the Fisherton Anger list of voters as follows : — Charles Adey. 1 Fisherton street. I House and I Fisherton street. I I Garden. | 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 (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 obser\'ation8 of the court in Melbourne v. Greenfield, 7 C. B., N. S. 1. 268 DIGEST OF PAKLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES, place of abode not being described tberein as described in the list of voters. The revising barrister having held the notice suffi- cient, The court (in accordance with Knoicles v. Brookiiu/, supra), affirmed the decision : WiHs v. Adei/, 2 C. B. 246 ; 15 L. J. C. r. 205; 1 Lutw. 481, note; B. & Am. 782. AltJwugh objector on lint of freemen could not liter /(U if comply ivith Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, it icas held that he was, nevertheless,, required hy the statute to specify in notice of ohjec- tion 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 voten^ 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 in the borough, made out by the respective overseers, and one list of freemen of the borough at large, made out by the town clerk. 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 : Eidsforth v. Farrer, 4 NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 269 C. B. 9 ; 1 Lutw. 517 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 132, sub tit. Farrcr v. Echicorth; 10 Jur. 1012, sub tit. Farrer v. Edsworth. The statement of the year of our Lord, an essential addition to date of notices of object io)i. 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 notice of objection was served upon another churchwarden, who had not signed the list. Held, that the notice was well served : Beenlen v. Hocldn, 4 C. B. 19 ; 1 Lutw. 526 ; 16 L. J. C. 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 ivrongly 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. street. (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note («), CDite, on p. 236. 270 DIGEST OF rARLTAMEXTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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. Greemill, 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, icithout 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 (ff) Ceesswell, 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 lilitton, he woiild have brought himself within the words of the Act," 1 Lutw. 594. But the judg- ment of the coirrt points to the opposite conclusion. Wilde, C. J., in delivering judgment, said, " Wlien 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 in the power of the objector to select which he pleases. If he chooses to select the particular mode of ser\dce which is described in the 1 7th 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 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 of the other two modes of service, namely, personal service, or send- ing the notice by post accordinsr to the du-ections of the Act," 1 Lutw. 596, 597. NOTICES OF OBJECTIOX BOROUGHS. 271 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. Flatcher, 5 C. B. 14; 2 Lutw. 11 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 34; 11 Jur. 949; 10 L. T. 136. Service of notice of objection hy leaving it at voter^s residence {as stated in list) heticcen 9 and 10 p.m. on 25th August (b), under circumstances affording no presumption that notice duhj 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 (b), 1847 (the year of the revision), and knocked at the usual entrance door several times, but {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, accord- ing to the circumstances of each particular case. Wilde, C. J., in delivering- his judgment in the above case, explains the dis- tinction 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- 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. Pilcher, L. R. 4 C. P. 417, 420, 421, 422. [b) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 236. 27^ DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. no one answered. He tliereupon 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 (a) for the revising barrister, but added that he 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 nuder 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, held to be an " overseer'^ IV it kin 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 betiveen 11 and 12 at night on 2bth August (b). 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 (b). 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. {a) Matjle, J., in referring to the above case in Points x. Athcood, said: " Watson v. Pitt does not decide that the sufficiency of the service is always a question of fact." For fiu-ther observations of that learned judge on this point, see note on the next page. (i) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note («), ante, on p. 236. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 273 The assistant overseer, wlio 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 inserted the name of the person objected to in the list of objections. Held, 1. That the appointment having been made under 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, the confirmation thereof by the Poor Law Commissioners was not essential to its validit}". 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 invahdate the service {a) : Points v. (a) Per Matxlk, 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 jnanner that there is no reasonable probabiUty 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. S. T 274 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Atticood, 6 0. B. 38; 2 Lutw. 117; 18 L. J. C. P. 19 ; 13 Jur. 83. Where revising barrister decided that description of objector'' s place of abode icas bad, such description being neither bad on the face of it, 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 th& 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 Yict. c. 18, s. 17. ^"OTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 275 The court reversed the decision : PoiceJl v. Casicell (not reported except in relation to a point of practice on appeal). Objector'' s description of htmse/f 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 his notice of objection as being " on the hst 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 toTVTi 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 Maxjle, J.), that the notice of objection was sufficient under section 17 of 6 Vict. e. 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 ; 2 Lutw. 246 ; 22 L. J. C. P. 15 ; 20 L. T. 127 ; 17 Jur. 141. The icords " list of jjersons entitled under the Reform Act to vote^^ 4"c., held sufficiently descriptive of £10 occupiers'' list, to distinguish it from that of persons possessing reserved rights. 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 t2 276 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. retained on the list of persons entitled tinder the Reform Act to vote in the election of members for the City of Westminster. " Dated, &c. " (Signed), &c." 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 Vict. 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 re\ision court that the words " under the Reform Act " introduced into the notice of objection in question were not a sufhcient compli- ance with the above direction. The revising barrister having decided that the notice was insufficient, The court reversed the decision {a) : Huggett v. Leicis, 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 sent hypost {as directed hy statute), not vitiated by the fact of postmaster having received it out of the duly appointed business hours. Borough of Ash burton. An objector delivered a notice of objection (to the party), in duplicate, to the postmaster of the post office at Ashburton, at 6 a.m. on Monday, 25th August (b), 1856 (the year of the revision). («) Maule, J., is reported to have said in the coui'se 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 vphat 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 j)recedent to the right to expunge the name ; see K. & G. 4. {b) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note {a), ante, on p. 236. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROL-GHS. 277 He produced before tlie revising barrister one of tlie duplicates, bearing the Ashburton post mark of 25tli 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 Yict. 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. Whiteicay, 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. Notice of objection sent hy post {as directed hy statute), not vitiated hy the fact of postmaster having received it out of the duly appointed business hours. Borough of Ashburtox. 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 (a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (rt), ante, on p. 236. 278 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. duplicates produced before the barrister bad the Asb- 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. Dm-ing 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. WJiUeicay, supra ; the barrister having come to the same conclusion as in that case, The court affirmed the decision : Paddon v. White- wmj, 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 jjlace of abode. Borough of Macclesfield. A stamped duplicate notice of objection was duly addressed on the back 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 Yict. 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 Jm^, N. S. 672 ; 5 W. E. 75. Objector may send notice of objection to overseers by post in the ordinary way {without adopting statutory t)iode), 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 {a) See as to alteration of date for service of notices of objection, note (a), ante, on p. 23G. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 279 of his notice of objection on tlie overseers of the parish of St. Anue, 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 np 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) : Sniit/i v. Hugr/eft, 11 C. B., X. S. 55 ; K. & G-. -iU ; 31 L. J. C. P. 38 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 617 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 425 ; 10 W. R. 131. 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 icill icas property 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 Cui'tis, of 25, Clowance street, on the list of voters for the parish of Stoke Damerell." (ff) Byies, J., is reported to have doubted whetiier section 100 applied to notices of objection to overseers ; however, the court, in Bishop V. Helps, ante, pp. 236, 237, held, that that section did, by virtue of section 101, apply to such notices, if they vrere directed to the overseers at their "usual place of abode." 280 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Hved 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, 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 ease during 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 ho)ui fide places of abode, he might state either. 3. That 25, CloAvance street, was not shown to NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 281 have been his place of abode when the notices were signed, and, consequently, the notices were bad. The com-t 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 object io)i {to t/te partf/), wherein objector de- scribed hiimc/f in literal complia)ice icith Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, held sufficient, although overseers made out tico lists for the parish, viz., one of £10 occupio^s, and another of possessors of reserved rights. 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 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 Yict. c. 18 : SatnuelY. Hitchmouqh, 13 C. 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. 282 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAKT KEGISTRATIO^S CASES. Where there were more districts than one in a borough, each having a separate list of voters, it zcas held that notices of objection toere insufficient, for not stating distinctly in ichich list objector^s name was to be found. Borough of Kidderminster. The ancient parisli 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." Held, that the notices were insufficient, as they did not specify the hst on which the objector's name was to be found : Crowther v. Bradney, 15 0. B., N. S. 536 ; H. & P. 63; 33 L. J. C. P. 70; 9 L. T., N. S. 444; 12 W. R. 176. ISTOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROTTGHS. 283 Notice of objection {to the pcirty) in the words " I object to the name of " {the name of the jjerson objected to) " being retained," Sfc, instead of the icords " / object to your name being retained" (^'c, held a sufficient compliance uith section 17 and Form No. II, Sched. B. ofQ Vict. c. 18. Such notice held not to be vitiated by the fact that the christian and surnames in the body thereof were not tcritten 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 Rice" (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 cii'cumstance, that section 17 of 6 Yict. 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 ui-ged, 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. 284 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Held, afSrming the revising barrister's decision^ that the notice satisfied the requirements of the statute, and that, if there was any inaccuracy, it was cui-ed hy section 101 : Force v. Floud, 15 C. B., N. S. 543; H. & P. 56; 33 L. J. C. P. 71; 12 W. E. 174; 9L. T., N. S. 508. Where objector in borough of D. [consist ing of imrish of S. D., and township of E. 8., each having sepa- rate lists) described himself in notice of objection as " on the list of voters for the borough of D., and toicnship of E. S.," held a sufficient description, n-ithin 6 Vict. c. 18, s. Yi . Borough of Devonport. Notices of objection to the overseers and the party were signed as follows : — " Edward William Cole, of G9, 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 to"v\Tiship 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. The list published in Stoke Damerell was headed : — " List of persons entitled to vote for the borough of Devonport, in respect of property occupied within the parish of Stoke Damerell." The Hst 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." NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 285 On tliis list tlie objector's name appeared, with Ms 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 Yict. 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 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 52 ; 13 W. E. 268 ; 10 Jul^, N. S. 1206 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 451. Stamjyed notice of objection, produced vnder section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, not the less a duplicate hecause it differs from notice retained by postmaster by having the word ^'^ copi/" 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 Yict. 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 C. B., N. S. Ill ; H. & P. 223; 34 L. J. C. P. 99; 13 W. E. 271 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 479. Notice of objection [to the p>arty) sent by 2)osf under section 100 of 6 Vict. c. 18, not vitiated by reason of the post town and county being added to voter^s place of abode " as described in the list.^' City of Eochester. A. was described in the list of voters for the parish of Frindsbury as follows : — " Akenhead, James. I Canal road, I House. 1 Canal road. I Frindsbury. | | 286 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. A notice of objection was sent by post under section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, addressed " Mr. James, Akenhead, Canal road, Frindsbury, Rochester, Kent.'' Held, that the addition of " Rochester, 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. E. 2 0. P. 86 ; H. & P. 355 ; 36 L. J. 0. P. 67 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 1018 ; 15 W. R. 223 ; 15 L. T., N. S. 468. Notice of objection [to the parti/) sent hij post under section 100 ofQ 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 Rochester. F. was described in the list of voters for the parish of Frindsbury as follows : — Frankenstein, Leon. I St. Margaret, | House. I Cazeneuve street. 1 Rochester. | | A notice of objection was sent by post, under section 100 of 6 Yict. c. 18, addressed " Mr. Leon Frankenstein, Cazeneuve street "(«), St. Margaret, Rochester, Kent." 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. Prall (Frankenstein's case), L. R. 2 C. P. 87, note ; H. & P. 357, note ; 12 Jur., N. S. 1019. («) The following statement is api^ended 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 i)oint of distinction" {i.e. between this and Akenhead's case) "was not brought in any way to the notice of the court." NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROUGHS. 287 Objector entitled to insist on objection, (dthough he may liave imblished a notice of its withdraival {a) . City of Carlisle. Notices of objection having been duly served upon several voters, the objector jDublished 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 Vict. c. 18, to require the voters objected to to prove their quahfications ; and, inasmuch as such notices were matters of public concern, he had no jurisdiction to inquire whether or not they had been withdrawn («) : Proudfoot v. Barnes, L. R. 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 Tvithdrawal of objection enacted in Schedule 3, Form (N.) of the Registration Act, 1885. 288 DIGEST OF PAHLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Whether notice of objection sufficiently describes objector's place of abode, a question of fact for revising barrister. If the description be such, that jjerson objected to could easily find objector by inquiry, on going to the place stated, it is sufficient. City of Hereford. The appellant described Mmself 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, Grreen street, which was in the district known as " Bartonsham." It was objected that "Bartonsliam" 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, Bartonsliam, or at 1, Argyle place, Bartonsliam, Under these cu'cumstances, the barrister decided that the description was sufficient. NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS. 289 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 : T/iackica// 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. JVJiere notice of objection to the pnrtij, though in strict compliance ivith Form No. 11 in Schedule B. to 6 Vict. c. 18, icas in fact a misdescription, it was held insufficient. Borough of M.\ldox. The borough lists 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 Tndhall v. Bristol {ante, p. 259), that the notice was insufficient: Bright v. Devenish, L. R. 2 C. P. 102; H. & P. 373; 36 L. J. C. P. 71 ; 15 W. P. 225 ; 12 Jur., N. S. 1019; 15L. T., N. S. 471. («) Whether a notice of objection describes on the face of it an objector's place of abode, Ls 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, b C. B. 14, and the note to that case, ante, p. 271. S. U 290 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES, Notices of ohjection stamped hij objector with facsimile of signature are sufficiently signed, tvifhin 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 witli 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 Vict. c. 18, s. 17 : Bennett v. Brumfitt, 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 six several places, of tohich the municipal borough of P. was 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 iras 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, Mylor, Palmouth, and Budook. 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 tlie above places, sent a notice of objection to a voter as follows : — " To Mr. William Andrew, of Porham street, in the town of Palmouth. " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on the list, for the town of Falmouth, of persons entitled to NOTICES OF OBJECTION BOROUGHS, 291 vote in the election of members for tlie borough of Penrjn. " Dated, &c. " Charles Moon, of St. Thomas street, Penrjn, 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 Vict. c. 18) : Moon v. Andrew, L. R. 4 0. P. 461 ; 1 H. & C. 75 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 97 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 452. A notice of objection [to overseers) to a borough voter, xohich did not specify in which of two lists the name of the person objected to appeared was, under 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 Vict. 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 of objection was sufficient : Aldridge v. 3Iedwin, L. R. 4 C. P. 464 ; 1 H. & C. 67 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 45 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 453. u2 292 DIGEST OF PARLIAMEXTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. WJiere objector in the borough of TV. (consisting of three townships, each having a separate list) described himself ^'^ notice of objection as " on the list of voters for G. street, in the borough of TV.," and it teas found by the barrister, that such description would be conimonhj understood in the borough to designate the list for the township in which G. street teas {trholly) situate : held that the descripition teas sufficient. Borough of Warrington. A notice of objection was served on the appellant, signed, " Samuel Dun- bobbin, on tlie list of voters for Golborne 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 G-olborne 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 G Vict. c. 18, s. 17, Sched. B., Form No. 11, was nevertheless sufficient, being such as to be " commonly understood," and, therefore, cured by section 101 of that statute : Allen v. Geddes, L. E. 5 C. P. 291 ; 1 H. & C. 413 (a). (a) S. C, nom. Allen v. The Toum Clerk of Warrington, 39 L. J. C P. 113; 18 W. R. 317; '22 L. T., N. S. 169. NOTICES OF OBJECTION — BOROrGHS, 293 Service of notice of objection on overseers by service at '•'• pJace for transacting parochial business." Semble, that a collector of poor rates (appointed under 44-0 JFilt. IV. c. 76, s. 46) who, by consent of the overseers, jjerforms their ordinary duties {includ- ing those connected with parliamentary registration), is an " overseer," within 6 Vict. c. 18. Borough of Bedford, Bj section 101 of 6 Vict, e. 18, it is enacted that "tlie 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. lY. 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 a notice is sufficiently served on any one of the overseers if " left at his office, or other place for transacting parochial business." The collector discharged the overseers' duties at an office, forming part of his dwelling-house, but having a distinct entrance. Held, that a notice of objection served there, was served at the proper place within the above section, there being no other place within the borough of B. 294 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. where any parisli business was transacted : Green v. Mep/iam, 2 H. & C. 458 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 92 ; 39 L. T., N. S. 450. Objector not required by note to Form (I.), Nos. 1 aiid 2 in Schedule of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to !. 16 Q. B. D . 252 ; 1 Colt.- Eeg. Cas. 455 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 11 ; 34 W. R. 366. s. 306 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS {a). WJicre qualification consists of two Iiouscs 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. J East street. He had for seven months previous to Slst 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) Bartlett V. Gibbs, 5 M. & G-. 81 ; 1 Lutw. 73 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 40 ; 7 Jur. 1158 ; B. & Arn. 98. (fl) 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, pp. 324, 325. (J) The period of occupation necessary to qualify is noTV com- puted by reference to ISth July ; see section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. [c) See note (*), ante, on p. 220. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 307 If premises giving a county vote he situate in a " street, lane, or other like j)lace,^^ and are not numbered, they are icell described in claim, and list of voters, as being in the particular " street,^^ 8fc., without 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 I Tinker lane, Hollinwood. freehold 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 occupjring tenant. It was contended before the revising barrister, that the description in the fourth column was not sufficient within the statute (6 Vict. c. 18), reference being also had to the forms in Schedule A., and that, neither of the cottages being nimabered, 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) EckersUy v. (a) TiNDAL, 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 numhered 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 he 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 Ko. 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 x2 308 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Barker, 8 Scott, N. R. 899; 7 M. & Q. 76; 1 Lutw. 190; 14 L. J. C. P. 65; 9 Jur. 331; B. & Arn. 334. A building calculated for a dwelling-house, though not used as such, is a " house " within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, 5.27 (r^. City of Bristol. F. was objected to in respect of a qualification described in the list as " house." 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. Coukting, 8 Scott, N. E. 949 ; 7 M. & G-. 122 ; 1 Lutw. 230 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 70 ; 9 Jur. 258 ; B. & Arn. 380. In a list of ocaqyicrs it is sufficient to state nature of qualifi/ing property, without stating the extent of ■votcr^s interest therein. City of Bristol. The respondent's qualification was described in the list as "house and shop." be numbered, the number also shall be given ; but that, if the 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 the 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 ." 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." {a) Repealed, save as appears in note (i), ante, on p. 103. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 309 He occupied the premises so described jointly with another person. The value was sufficient, and all the other requisites of quaUfication 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. CampUn, 7 M. & a. 167 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 999 ; 14 L. J. 0. P. 121 ; 1 Lutw. 264 ; 9 Jur. 403 ; B. & Arn. 425. Whether property he sufficiently described for the purpose of being identified, a question of fact for revising barrister, and the court will not reriew his decision thereon, if not shown by the evidence to have been erroneous. Middlesex. H. was described in the register for the parish of Willesden as follows : — Hall, Henry. The Grove, Neasdon, in this parish. House and land as occupier. Neasdon. 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 Grrove, 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. 0. P. 41 ; 9 Jur. 1100; B. & Arn. 527. 310 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. " 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, Gt. was objected to on the register of voters, on the ground that he was described in the second column thereof as " travelling abroad." It was proved that G. 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 afiirmed the decision : Walker v. Payne, 2 C. B. 12; 1 Lutw. 324; 15 L. J. C. P. 38; 9 Jur, 1014; B. & Am. 541. A icholly 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 Kst of occupiers as " Grreenwich ;" his actual place of abode was Uueen square, Blooms- burj, and not Grreenwich, 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 Yict. c, 18, s. 40 (a), upon the matter being supplied to the satisfaction of the revising barrister : Luckett v. Knowles, 2 C. B. 187 ; 1 Lutw. 451 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 87 ; B. & Arn. 730. {a) See note {b), ante, on p. 220. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 311 Part of a house so separated from residue as to con- stitute a ^^ house'' icithin 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. I I 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 [i)), the descrip- tion of the appellant's qualification was sufficient : Judson V. Luckett, 2 C. B. 197 ; 1 Lutw. 490 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 163 ; 10 Jur. 252 ; B. & Arn. 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 occu- I I above £50 (c). | pation. Attfield had occupied dimng the qualifying year two farms (severally of the prescribed rental) in the parish of Cold Ashby. (a) Repealed, save as appears in note {b), ante, on p. 103. \b) See the judgment in Cook v. Ewnher, 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. 93. 312 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The description of qualification appearing in tlie 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 : Barton v. Gen/, 5 C. B. 7 ; 2 Lutw. 4 ; 17 L. J. 0. P. 66 ; 11 Jur. 948 ; 10 L. T. 135. Where two houses are occupied in immediate succession, and one of them only is described in fourth column, revising barrister has no power to amend by insert- ing a description of the other, although the tvords " in succession " appear in third column. Borough of Shrewsbury. The appellant was on the £10 occupiers' list, and his quaHfication 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 Yict. 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. Bowdlcr, 5 C. B. 65 ; 2 Lutw. 59 ; 17 L. J. C. P. 70; UJur. 1041; 10 L. T. 165. " £50 occupier'''' (c), 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 : — Ilowitt, llcnry. | St. Ncota. | £50 occupier. | Cambridge road. It appeared that the appellant had occupied, for a {n) See note (i), ante, on p. 220. {h) See now section 2i of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enabling borough voters to make declara- tions as to misdescription. (c) See note {n), ante, on \>. 93. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 313 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 (r/). 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 quahfication, 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 Yict. c. 18, s. 40 {h) : Hoicitt V. Stephens, 5 C. B., N. S. 30 ; K. & Gr. 183 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 32 L. T. 162 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 123; 7 W. R. 55(f). 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 tico persons, if teas held sufficient to name one of such persons onhj, the sum assessed on that one's land being alone sufficient to qualifi/. 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 I John Lee, Esq., of houses and lands. | Hartwell. {a) See note («), ante, on p. 93. (b) See note [b), ante, on p. 220. (c) Per WiLLiAiis, J. — '•! must say that I think it would be very mischievous, if a re\'isiug barrister could hold that a claimant is bound to describe his quaMcation in the terms which a lawyer would use ; it is sufldcient that he describes it, so that a man of ordinary sense would not be misled as to its nature : " 28 L. J. C. P. 107. 314 DIGEST OF PAULIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Geo. III. c. 116. £104 lis. 4id. 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 («) of 6 Vict. 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 Ashfield, 5 C. B., N. S. 16 ; K. & G. 200 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 35 ; 5 Jur., N. S. 293 ; 32 L. T. 161. The ivord " tenant," a sufficient description in law of qualification under Chandos Clause (b), and may he amended for greater accuracy of definition. North Riding of Yorkshire. A voter was described on the register as follows : — BrisbyjWilliam. ( 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 defining it, under section 40 of 6 Vict. c. 18, by changing it into " farm, as occupying tenant." The court affirmed his decision : Birks 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. R. 90. (a) Sec note {h), ante, on p. 220. (J) Sec note («) ante, on p. 93. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 315 The tvorcl " 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 tbe same as the preceding one, and is governed by the same decision : Birks v. Allison (Dixon's case), 13 0. 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- fore, sufiicient : Jones v Jones, L. E. 4 C. P. 422 ; 1 H. & 0. 95; 38 L. J. C. P. 43; 17 W. R. 204; 19 L. T., N. S. 561. Publication of £12 (b) list not necessarily vitiated by in- terpolation of heading ajjplicable 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 Kst 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 (i), 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. (a) See note («), ante, on p. 93. {b) See note («), ante, on p. 96. 316 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Yict. c. 18, but was positively misleading, and consequently, that there had been no sufficient 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. E. 6 C. P. 272 ; 1 H. & C. 461 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 76 ; 19 W. E. 284 ; 23 L. T. N. S. 539. Where qualification icas described as " Freehold rent- charge (b) issuing 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 fomih columns, which were in accordance with the notice of claim, were as follows : — Freeliold. rent-charge (5) of £16 per annum issuing out of freehold houses. 1,2, 3, and 4, Stanley cot- tages, Tower Hamlets road. The appellant was the owner in fee simple of the plot of land on which stood the cottages described in (rt) See note (J), ante, ou p. 220. {b) Sec note (i), ante, on p. 7. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 317 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. 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., duhitante) : NiclioUs v. Biilicer, L, R. 6 C. P. 281 ; 1 H. & C. 472 ; 40 L. J. C. P. 82 ; 19 W. E. 282 ; 23 L. T., N. S. 542. Voter not restricted by description " diccUincj-Jiouse " to proof of qualification under section 3 of Representa- tion of People Act, 1867 ; but may sJiow tJiat 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 (c), 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. (a) See note {b), ante, on p. 220. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (i), ante, on p. 103. (c) The period of occupation necessary to qualify is now to be computed by reference to loth July : see section 7 of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 318 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Hst. It was objected, that B.'s qualification being described as dwelling-house, his title to be on the register could only be under section 3 of the Repre- sentation of the People Act, 1867, and, consequently, that he was disquaKfied 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., dissent iente), 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 : Townshend v. St. Marylebone, L. R. 7 C. P. 143 ; 1 H. & C. 606 ; 41 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 20 W. R. 148 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 749. Revising barrister shoidd 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 : — Preehold house and shop. | 4, Englisli 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 Enghsh street numbered "4," which did not belong to the voter, and in respect of which ho did not claim to be entitled to vote. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 319 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 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 Yict. c. 18, s. 40 (a), and therefore, one which the barrister ought to have amended : Bendle v. Watson, L. R. 7 C. P. 163 ; 1 H. & C. 591 ; 41 L. J. 0. P. 15 ; 20 W. E. 145 ; 25 L. T., N. S. 806. The description, " rent-charge {h) 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 that, 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 : 8/ierwin v. Whyman, L. R. 9 0. P. 243 ; 2 H. & C. 185 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 36 ; 22 W. R. 127 ; 29 L. T., N. S. 680. {a) See note [b), ante, on p. 220. \b) See note (ft), ante^ on p. 7. 320 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where a borough voter^s qualification teas described in list of occupiers as ^^ house," and it appeared that, although qualified tinder section 3 of 30 ^ 31 Vict, c. 102, he was not qualified under section 27(a) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45: held, that revising barrister teas empoKcred by section 28, subsection 12, of 41 8^ 42 Vict. 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 I 4, Bonhay Road. I House. I 4, Bonhay Koad. 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 («) 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 Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & 31 Vict. c. 102), but that the question whether a house was a "house" as required by the Eeform Act, 1832, or a " dwelling- house " under the Eepresentation 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 clearly defining the qualification, and retained the name of the respondent on the list. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note (J), ante, on p. 103. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IX LISTS OF VOTERS. 321 The court (witliout 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. Eeg. Cas. 310 ; 52 L. J. Q. B. D. 109 : 31 W. E. 247. Where the nature of a voter'' s qualification icas described in the third column of the overseers^ list as "du'elling- houses in succession,''^ and the voter had successively/ occupied during the qualif/ing year three houses, of tchich {through an inadvertence of the overseers) two only icere described in the fourth column of the list, viz., that tchich was firstly, and that which was lastly, occiqned by the voter; it was held by a majority of the court that the mistalxC was amend- able under s. 28 of 41 ^' 42 Vict. e. 26, by supply- ing in the fourth column a descrijition of the intermediate house (b). City of Exeter. The respondent's name was duly objected to on the list of voters, wherein it appeared as follows : — Hoar, "Wil- liam. 34, Prospect Place, Co wick Street. Dwelling - houses in succession. 44, Oxford Street, and 34, Prospect Place, Co-n-ick Street. («) 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 dweUing-honse) created by section 27 of the Reform Act, 1832; and, accordingly, that if a claimant failed under that Act, he might have had recoui-se to the Act of 1867, and vice versd : see 1 H. & C, on p. 612. (b) But see Foshett v. Kaufman, post, pp. 324, 325. s. y 322 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. The ground of objection was tliat of insufficient occupation. The respondent had occupied 44, Oxford Street, during the earlier part of the qualifying period, and 34, Prospect Place, during the latter part thereof. He did not, however, move from one house to the other direct, but went from 44, Oxford Street to 31, Prospect Place, and thence to 34, Prospect Place. His occupation of the three houses named, and not of the two houses only, gave him a complete qualification of the nature described in the third column. The overseers knew of the respondent's intermediate occupation of 31, Prospect Place, but accidentally and by mistake, omitted to specify it in the local description of the qualifying property in the 4th column. The revising barrister, at the respondent's request, amended the 4th column by striking out the figures 44 and 34 standing before Oxford Street and Prospect Place respectively, and retained the name of the respondent in respect of his qualification which consisted of his occupation of the three houses in succession as stated above. Held, on appeal, by Stephen and Cave, JJ. (Lord Coleridge, C. J., dissentiente), that the revising barrister had power under section 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, to correct the mistake (a), but that, instead of striking out the figures 44 and 34, he should have added " and 31 '' after Oxford Street : Ford v. Hoar, L. R. 14 Q. B. D. 507 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 351 ; 54 L. J. a B. D. 286 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 44 ; 33 W. E. 566. (a) But sec Foslcctt v. Kaufman, post, pp. 824, 325. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 323 Where a qualification was hy fnistake 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. Borough of Cardiff. The appellant's name was duly objected to on the list of voters (Division I.) for the parish of St. John the Baptist, West Ward. The description of the appellant in the said list was as follows : — Blosse, Harry- Francis Lynch. Grabalva House, Cathedral road. Offices, successive occupation. High Street and Charles Street. The appellant had, during the whole of the quali- fying year, occupied the office in High street only. The addition of "Charles street" was due solely to an erroneous belief of the overseers. The appellant had not sent in any declaration under section 24 of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 2(3, nor had he made any claim in respect of the office in High street only. The revising barrister was asked to amend the description in the third and fourth columns by expunging the words " successive occupation " in the third column, and the words " and Charles street " in the fourth column. This he refused to do, on the ground that Such correction would constitute a change in the description of the qualification ; and he therefore held the objection fatal, and ex- punged the name from the list. The coTirt, reversing the decision, held that the amendment was authorized by 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 : Blosse V. Wheatlei/, 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 364 ; 54 L. J. Q. B. D. 289 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 49 ; S. C. Lynch v. Wheatley, L. E. 14 Q. B. D. 504. 324 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES, The poxoer of amendment given hy section 28 of 41 &f 42 Vict. c. 26, suh-s. 1, is, in the absence of a decla- ration under section 24, restricted hy sub-section 13 to cases lohich involve no alteration of the descrij)- tion 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, Hemy. | 5, Victoria I Dwelling-house. I 5, Victoria I Cottages. I I 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- bouses in immediate succession, namely, one in High Street, Wapping, and the other, the said 5, Yictoria 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 w]iy the overseers had filled up the third and fourth columns as they had done, was that they had obtained from the person rated, or liable to be rated, in respect of 5, Yictoria Cottages, a return according to Form [A.] of the Greneral Forms to Schedule 3 of tlie Registration Act, 1885, in which it was by mistake stated tliat the appellant was on the 15th of July, 1884, and had be,en up to the date of the return, an inhabitant occupier of the dwelling- SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 325 house, 5, Yictoria 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, Yictoria Cottages," upon the authority of the cases of Hitchins v. Brown, 2 C. B. 25, and Ford v. Hoar, L. E. 14 Q. B. D. 507, ante, pp. 321, 322. The revising barrister decided that neither of these cases applied, and that he was bound by the case of Porrett v. Lord, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 65, and he ex- punged the appellant's name from the list. The court (Lord Coleridge, C. J., Grrove, J., dis- sentienie Cave, J.) affirmed the decision. Leave to appeal having been granted under 41 & 45 Yict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. R., Cotton and Bowen, LL.JJ.), affii-ming 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) : Foskdt v. Kaufman, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 279 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 466 ; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 1 ; 34 W. R. 90 ; 54 L. T., N. S. 64. (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 Foslcctt v. Kaufman ; the decision in the latter case therefore applies. 326 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where the nature of a count// voter^s qualification [of the annual value of less than £10) icas described in a list of voters as " tenement and garden^'' and the situation of the proijerty as " part of hailiff^s tene- ment," and it was proved that the voter teas the inhabitant occupier of such ^^part of bailiff \ tene- ment " as his " dwelling-house" it was held that the revising barrister was justified in amending the list by striking out the icords " and garden," and p)lacing the word " dwelling-house " before " tene- ment," as he did not thereby alter the descrip)tion of the qualification, but more clearly and accurately defined it ; the formal amendment, however, 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 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- I I 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 sot 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. SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 327 The revising barrister 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 " dweUing-house " to " tenement," making the nature of qualification read, " dwell- ing-house tenement," and he retained the names of the respondents on the lists so amended. The court (Lord Coleridge, 0. 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, LL.JJ.), 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 ; 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, 328 DIGEST or PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where the nature of a county Toter's qualification {of the annual value of less than £10) was described in a list of voters as " tenement and garden^^ and the situation of the property as " school yard," and it ap2)eared from the schedule attached to the special case that, idth 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 them, stated to be ^'school yard;'' as to five, "Cat Lane;" as to three, '^ Sigh Street,'" and so forth, it was held that, all the cases in the schedule being loolxcd 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. | 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 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 ho decided that ho had power, under sub- sections 1, G, 12, and 13, of section 28 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 2G, or otherwise, to expunge the words " and SUFFICIENCY OF DESCRIPTION IN LISTS OF VOTERS. 329 garden" from tlie 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, 0. J., Grove, J., dis- sentiente Cave, J.) reversed the decision. Leave to appeal ha\dng been granted under 4-1 & 45 Vict. c. 68, The Court of Appeal (Lord Esher, M. E., Cotton and Bowen, LL.JJ.), 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: Mini fie v. Banger, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 302; 1 Colt. Eeg. Cas. 493; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 10 ; 53 L. T., N. S. 590. 330 ])IGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. EATING (a) AND PAYMENT OF BATES. Payment of rates and faxes hy the imymaster-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 vahie for a borough vote. He was rated to the rates and assessed taxes in respect 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 : Hughes v. Chatham, (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 : sec section 19 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Ilegistration Act, 1878. See also Smith V. iSeffhill, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, and Barton v. liirmingham, 2 H. & C. 393. Por the definition and application of the rating Acts, see sect. 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. (b) Repealed, save as api)oars in note (/>), ante, on p. 103. (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, GOl, 602, 003, 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. 113G, 1138 ; B. & Am. 61, 90, 91, 96, 97- BATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 331 Joint rating of landlord and tenants, and payment hy landlord of ejitirc rate, in respect of premises, the nature and occupation of tchich are described in Wright v. Stockport, ante, p. 101, held a rating of, and payment hy, each occupier. BoKouGH OF Stockport. A factory being let, in distinct portions («), 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. M. ; and in the column headed " empty" was inserted the sum £1 17s. Qd. 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 pajonent of the entire {b) rate was virtually a payment by each occupier : Wright V. Stochporf, 7 Scott, N. E. 561 ; 5 M. & G. 33 ; 1 Lutw. 32 ; 13 L. J. 0. P. 50 ; 7 Jur. 1112 ; B. & Arn. 39. {a) For a description of the premises, and of the nature of their occupation, see Wright v. StockjMrt, ante, p. 101. (J) The rate having been 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. 332 DIGEST OF PAELIAMENTARY KEGISTRATION CASES. Omission of name of one of two joint occiqncrsfrom rate{(i) , through ignorance of overseers that he was a joint- occiqner of premises rated, not a " misnomer, or inaccurate, or insufficient description," uithin section 75 ofQ Vict. c. 18. City of Lichfield. The appellant claimed to be inserted in the list of voters in respect of the occu- pation of building and land. He and his father occupied the premises jointly, as tenants. Three rates were made during the qualifying year. The name of the father alone appeared in the first and second rate, but the appellant's name was inserted with his father's in the third. The appellant, being the person liable to be rated for the premises jointly with his father, had bond fide, and with his own hand, paid to the collector all three rates. The reason why his name had been omitted from the first two rates was, that the overseers were not aware at the time of such omission that the occupa- tion was joint. Held, that this was not a case of " misnomer, or inaccurate, or insufficient description," within 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 75, and that the appellant, not having been ^^ bond fide called upon to pay" the first two rates, although he had in fact paid them, was not entitled to be registered : Moss v. Lichfield, 8 Scott, N. E. 832 ; 7 M. & a. 72 ; 1 Lutw. 184 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 56 ; 8 Jur. 1075 ; B. & Arn. 330. («) See note («), ante, on p. 330. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 333 A claim to be rated {a), made under section SO of Reform Act, 1832, held to be good only for the rate in force u-hen the claim was made. City of London. On 26th July, 1837, L. (on tlie list of voters, at the revision of 1844), was the occupier of a warehouse, as tenant, and on or about that day he claimed to be rated in respect thereof. At the time of the claim there was a rate for the parish in which the premises were situate, but, there being no rate due in respect of the premises them- selves, the overseers neglected to put L.'s name on the rate for the time being. Subsequent rates were made in the parish between 26th July, 1837, and 31st July, 1843, and two rates were made between 31st July, 1843, and 31st July, 1844. L. had occupied the said premises from 26th July, 1837, to 31st July, 1844, inclusive, but he was not, nor did he make any claim to be, rated in respect of such premises, to any rate made after 26th July, 1837. Held, affii-ming the barrister's decision, that the operation of the claim was limited to the rate for the time being when the claim was made [b), and, con- sequently, that L. could not "be deemed to have been rated" in respect of the premises during the time of his occupation thereof required by sect. 27[c) of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and was therefore not entitled to the franchise : W^nisei/ v. Perkins (Lockey's case), 7 M. & G-. 145 ; 1 Lutw. 249 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 59 ; 8 Scott, N. R. 970 ; B. & Arn. 402. (a) A claim to be rated is no longer necessary ; see section 19 of tlie Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. (b) The necessity of renewing the claim was dispensed with by 14 & 15 Vict. c. 14, s. 1. (c) Repealed, save as appears in note {b), ante, on p. 103. 334 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. ^^ Rate for the time being, ^^ loithin section 30 of Reform Act, 1832, held to mean last rate perfected by alloimnce and imblication, notwithstanding the period for which it was made has 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 tune 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 ; Tindal, C. J., saying (2 C. 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 : " £ a shell v. Luchett, 2 0. B. Ill; 15 L. J. 89 ; 1 Lutw. 398; 10 Jur. 113. (a) See note («), ante, on p. 333. (5) See section 17 of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41). I RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 335 A mere expression of reacUmss to pay ichatever rates may he due, not a " tendering'^ of such rates, within section 30 of 2 Will IV. 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. Qd. 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 [h), 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 Eeform Act, 1832 ; that the appellant could not, therefore, be deemed to have been rated {a) , 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 legal tender would be a compli- ance with the Act, what occurred in the present case was clearly insufficient : Bishop v. SniecUey, 2 C B. 90 ; 1 Lutw. 384 ; 15 L. J. 0. P. 73 ; 10 Jur. 269. (rt) See note (a), ante, on p. 330. {b) See note («), ante, on p. 333. 336 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where name of occupying tenant of a house ivas inter' lined in rate hook between that of his landlord, who was rated for the house in question, and that of a person rated for other premises, nothing being carried out oj)posite tenants name, which teas not bracketed with landlord's ; this was 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, im- material. 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. 67 50 &c. &c. &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. Luckett, 2 C. B. 177; 1 Lutw. 441 ; 15 L. J. G. P. 83 ; 10 Jur. 115 ; B. & Arn. 700. See note {n), ante, on p. 333. EATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 337 Payment of rates hy landlord in pursuance of agree- ment with tenant, a bond fide payment hy tenant, within section 75 of Registration Act, 1843. Insertion of tcrong number of house in rate hooli, an " inaccurate description," witliin same section. City of London. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a " house, No. 4, Golden lane." He also claimed as occupier of a " house, No. 3, Grolden lane." By a mistake of the overseers, he was inserted in the rate hook 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 bo)id 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. Sembk, 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. Where name of occupying tenant was inserted in rate book under that of his landlord, against whose name alone the premises were entered in the rate, nothing being carried out opposite tenanfs name, which teas not bracketed icith landlord's ; this icas held a suffi- cient rating [b) of tenant. City of London. The appellant's name was on (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (5), ante, on p. 103. (i) See note (rt), ante, on p. 330. S. Z 338 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAEY REGISTRATION CASES. the list of voters in respect of " part of a liouse," ■wliic]i 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 question 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 : Jiukon V. LucMt, 2 C. B. 197 ; 1 Lutw. 490 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 163 ; 10 Jur. 252 ; B. & Arn. 707. Poor rate not allowed hy two justices, a nullity : voter not disqualified hy 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. "Pd' ! CJhurchwardens." 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 EHz. c. 2, s. 1, was a nullity, and, consequently, the appellant was not disqualified by reason of his not having paid it {a) : [a) "Want of due publication is eqiially fatal to the validity of a poor rate; see 17 Geo. II. c. 3, s. 1 ; 7 WiU. IV. & 1 Vict. c. 45, s. 2 : Itex\. jSfeivcomh, 4 T. E. 368 ; Sibbaldv. Roderick, 11 Ad. & E. 38; and Ormerodv. Chadwick, 16 M. & W. 367. As to non-payment of a duly published poor rate, the allowance of which Tvas possibly defective, but which was good on its face, see Baker v. Locke, 18 C. B., N. S. 52, post, pp. 341, 342. EATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 339 Foxy. Baiies, 6 C. B. 11 ; 13 Jur. 155; 18 L. J. C. P. 48 ; 12 L. T. 244 ; S. C. nom. Fox v. The Over- seers of Shaston St. Peter, Shaftesbury, 2 Lutw. 97. Occupier of premises in succession, icithin section 28 of 2 Will. IV. C.45, may acquire the franchise u-ithout having been rated (a) 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, 1858, and was duly rated [a) 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 (a), but the col- lector called on him and he paid the rate, for which the collector gave the usual receipt. Held, that whether or not J. was properly rated {b) within section 27 (c) of 2 Will. lY. 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 {(I) : Rogers v. Leivis, 7 C. B., N. S. 29 ; («) See note {a), ante, on p. 330. (b) Eele, 0. 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 Refonn Act, 1832, provided for claims in consequence of omission from the rate, the settlement cases were analogous. (c) Repealed, save as appears in note (i), ante, on p. 103. (d) Some of the expressions of the coiu't 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 tinder section 28. z2 340 DIGEST OF PAIlLIAMENTATi\' REGISTRATI0:N CASES. K. & Gc. 279 ; 29 L. J. C. P. 85 ; 8 W. E. 279 ; 6 Jul'., N. S. 612. Claim to he rated (a) held to he icell served upon one, who had hecn dull/ appointed assistant overseer under 59 Geo. III. c. 12, s. 7, and who had acted as such ever since he was so appointed, although prior to such claim his salary had hecn increased hy the vestry without any fresh, appointment by justices. Borough of Ashburton. The respondent was objected to on the list of voters for the parish of A., on the grounds that he had not been duly rated, and that his notice of claim to be rated was invalid. On 15th November, 1862, the respondent served on Y. a claim to be rated to the then existing rate, Avhich was the first rate for the electoral year. He was not put on that rate, but was rated to all subse- quent rates. Y. was on 21st April, 1859, duly nominated by the vestry, under the provisions of 59 Greo. III. c. 12, s. 7, to be assistant overseer at a fixed salary. On 30th August, 1859, this nomination was duly confirmed by warrant of appointment by two justices, pursuant to the same section. Sometime before 25th March, 1861, Y. gave notice to the board of guardians of the union of which the parish of A. formed part, of his intention to resign, but prior to Lady-day he withdrew such notice. At a vestry meeting held 25th March, 1861, a resolution was passed in favour of increasing the assistant overseer's salary to a certain sum specified in such resolution. Y. had continued to perform all the duties of assistant overseer at such increased salary, but he had never received any fresh warrant of a2)pointnienthy the justices {h). (a) See note («), ante, on p. 333. (h) The 7tli section of 59 Geo. III. c. 12, provides that it shall be lawful for the inhabitants of any parish in vestry assembled to nominate and elect any discreet person or persons to be assistant overseer or overseers of the poor of such pai'ish, and to determine RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 341 Held, tliat T. was an " overseer," witliin 2 Will. lY. c. 45, s. 30, to wliom a claim to be rated might be made, and, therefore, that the respondent's claim was well served (a) : Caunier 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. Jtate, (jood on the face of it, and iinajjjjeakd against, is '''• payahle from " a voter under section 27 {h) ofRe^ form Act, 1832, though it may not have heen signed hy a majority of the parish officers, as required by 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. 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 Greo. III. c. 12, s. 7, and his warrant of appointment required him to assist the overseers in the performance of all the duties incident and specify the duties to be by him or them performed ; and to fix a yearly salary. The act then empowers any two justices "by warrant under their hands and seals to appoint any person or persons who shall be so nominated and elected to be assistant overseer or overseers of the poor, for such purposes, and with such salary, as shall have been fixed by the inhabitants in vestry . . . and every person to be so appointed assistant overseer shall be and he is hereby authorized and empowered to execute all such of the duties of the oflice of overseer of the poor as shall in the warrant for his appointment be expressed, in like manner and as fully, to all intents and purposes, as the same may be executed by any ordinary overseer of the poor ; and every person or persons so appointed shall continue to be an assistant overseer of the poor until he or they shall resig'n such of&ce, or until his or their appointment shall be revoked by the inhabitants of the parish in vestry assembled, and no longer." {a) By the interpretation clause (section 101) of 6 Vict. c. 18, it is enacted, that "the words 'overseer,' or 'overseers of the poor,' shall extend to and 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 tchatsoevcr manner they may be appuintcd.'''' {h) Repealed, save as appears in note {h), ante, on p. 103. 342 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 (a), 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 (h). 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 (c) of the parish officers, as the assistant overseer had no power to join in making it. Held, that whether or not the assistant overseer could legally join in making the rate, it was appar- ently 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. lY. c. 45. Scmhle, 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. (ff) 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. [b) It is not stated in the case that the rate, although made dui-ing the qualifying year, was made at a time consistent with its haying become payable from the appellant previously to 5th Janu- ary in such year. See 11 & 12 Vict. c. 90. (c) 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 1. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 343 Revising barrister having found that voter had been sufficiently rated and had paid all rates, the court, being of ojnnion that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such findings, would not revieio the decision. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent owned and occupied a house and garden within the borough ; he also owned two othep 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 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, 1 864, 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 344 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. and garden occupied by liim, and that he had paid all his rates in respect of them, The court held, that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such findings, and therefore refused to interfere : Powell v. Jones, 18 C. B., N. S. 83 ; H. & P. 165 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 000 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 17 ; 13 W. E. 273. Bevising barrister having found that voter had been sufficiently rated (a) and had ^^did all rates, the court, being of opinion that the evidence was sufficient to warrant such findings, 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. 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 (b) of 2 TFill. IV. c'. 45. Borough of Cheltenham. The 12th section (c) of 17 Geo. 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- (rt) See note («), ante, on p. 330. (b) Repealed, save as appears in note (i), ante, on p. 103. (r) Repealed by 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, s. 16. KATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 345 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 disj)ute, 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 cm-rency of the April rate, and before the 1st of August, 1863 ; he had paid no portion of such rate {a), which was 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 fi'om him " within section 27 (b) of 2 Will. lY. c. 45, and, therefore, he was not disqualified for the franchise by reason of his not having paid it (c) : Flatcher v. Boodle, 18 (a) It was not stated in the case, but the court assumed, that the rate was not paid by the outgoing tenant. {h) Repealed, save as appears in note {h), ante, on p. 103. ((') "WrLLES, J., in delivering his judgment in the above case, distinguishes between a rate made during the voter's occupation, and a rate made prior thereto. Payment by the voter of the former was a condition precedent to his being j)laced 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 iu 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 346 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. C. B., N. S. 162 ; H. & P. 238 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 67 ; 13 W. R. 340 ; 34 L. J. 0. P. 77 ; 11 L. T., N. S. 630. A poor rate alloiccd during the twelve months com- mencing ^Ist July, 1867, hut signed hy the over- seers before that date, held not a rate " made " during qualifying year, 1867-8, within 30 8f 31 Vict. c. 102, 6'. 3, suh-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. A poor rate for the respondent's jDarish 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 (r/) 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 Yict. c. 102, s. 3, sub-s. 3, during the qualifying period {h), and, therefore, not one to which the respondent was required to be rated (c) for the purpose of the fran- chise : Jones v. Buhh, L. R. 4 0. P. 468 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 57; 1 H. & 0. 128 ; 17 W. R. 205 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 483. 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 futiire case. («) See 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, which enacts (section 17), that "a poor rate shall be deemed to be made on the day when it is alloiced by the justices." {h) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1S7S. ((■) See note (a), ante, on p. 330. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 347 Occupiers of small dicelUng -houses in boroughs which had adopted the Small Tenements Act were entitled to he p)laced on the parUamentary register in 1868, although they had not been rated to, or paid, poor rates made between 15th August, and 29th Sep)' tember, 1867. Borough of Whitehaven. The Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867, provides (section 3) that in order to be entitled to vote for a borough, the occu- pier of a dwelhng-house must have been rated as an ordinary occupier to all poor rates (if any) made in respect of the premises during the qualifying year, and (section 7) that "where the owner is rated at the time of the passing of this Act " (15th August, 1867) "to the poor rate in respect of a dwelling- house, or other tenement, situate in a parish wholly or partly in a borough, instead of the occupier, his liability to be rated in any future poor rate shall cease .... provided (1) that nothing in this Act contained shall affect any composition existing at the time of the passing of this Act, so nevertheless that no such composition shall remain in force beyond the 29th of September next." The owner of small dwelling-houses in a borough which had adopted the Small Tenements Act (13 & 14 Yict. c. 99), made an agreement with the parish under the provisions contained in the latter part of section 4 of that Act, to pay a composition in lieu of the full ordinary rate from 25th March, 1867, to 25th March, 1868 (the year of the revision). Two rates for the relief of the poor were made in 1867, viz., on 13th March, and the 5th September, and the owner had paid the composition as soon as it became due under each of them. The rate of the 5th September, 1867, remained in force until super- seded by another made on the 13th February, 1868. In respect of the latter rate the occupiers were rated as ordinary occupiers. Held, that the agreement under 13 & 14 Yict. 348 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. c. 99, s. 4, was a " composition" within proviso (1) of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 7 ; that, by virtue of that proviso, the owner's liability ceased on 29th Septem- ber, 1867, and not on 15th August, 1867 (the date of the passing of the Act), and that, consequently, the occupiers were entitled to the franchise under section 8 : 3Iason v. Bennett, L. E. 4 C. P. 502 ; 1 H. & C. 101 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 48; 19 L. T., N. S. 604. Occupiers of small dw ell in g -houses in boroughs which had adopted the Small Tenements Act icere entitled to he placed on the parliamentarn register in 1868, although they had not been rated to, or paid, poor rates made between 15th August and 29th Sep- tember, 1867. Boroughs of Northallerton and Malmesbury. [The statutory enactments given in Mason v. Bennett are to be taken as forming part of each of these cases.] The owners of small tenements in the above- named boroughs, wherein the Small Tenements Act (13 & 14 Yict. c. 99) had been adopted, were assessed to the poor-rate at three-fourths of the full rateable value pursuant to the provisions contained in the earlier part of section 4 of that Act. The only rate for the relief of the poor made in 1867 subsequent to the passing of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867, was made on the 4th Sep- tember, and the owners were assessed thereto, and paid the same according to the above reduced scale. Two poor rates were made in 1868 (the year of the revision), one on 14th February, and the other on 21st May, and in respect of these the occupiers were rated as ordinary occupiers. Held, that the assessment at less than the full amount of the rate under 13 & 14 Vict. c. 99, s. 4, was a "composition" within proviso (1) of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 7 ; that by virtue of that proviso the owners' liability ceased on the 29th September, 1867, RATING AND PAYMENT OF KATES. 349 and not on the loth August, 1867 (the date of the passing of the Act) ; and, consequently, that the occupiers were entitled to the franchise under sec- tion 8 : Trotter v. Trevor (Anderson's case). Hanks v. Jones, L. E. 4 C. P. 502, 510, 515 ; 1 H. & C. 109, 117 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 51, 53 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 606 ; Bishop V. Jones, 1 H. & C. 109, 117 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 606. Tenant occiqner icho, through his landlord, had paid his rates, hut whose name icns omitted from rate book (a), held not entitled to be registered. Borough of Hastings. A. had occupied a dwelling-house, as tenant, for the requisite period, and by agreement with his landlord, the latter was to pay the rates for him, he, in consideration thereof, paying a larger sum as rent than he would otherwise have done. Two rates were made for the relief of the poor in the parish in which the dwelling-house was situate, between 31st July, 1867, and 31st July, 1868 (the year of the revision). In neither was any name inserted under the head " name of occupier," but the name of the landlord appeared under the head " name of owner." Both rates had been collected from, and paid by, the landlord. A. had duly paid his rent to the landlord in pursuance of the agreement. The revising barrister decided, that A. had been rated to, and had paid, all rates for the relief of the poor, within the meaning of section 3 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, as construed with section 75 of 6 Yict. 0. 18, and, as he was duly qualified in other respects, retained his name on the list. The court reversed the decision {b) : Norris v. Eastings (Andrew's case), L. E. 4 C. P. 498. {a) See note {a), ante, on p. 330. [b) Another appeal came before tlie court at the same time as the above, but the circiunstances were precisely similar to those in Andrew's case, except that the overseers had written the voter's name in the rate book in respect of both rates, though without 350 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. Condition imposed on occupier hy section 14 of Boundary Act, 1868, kehl not to apply to a case where at the time of registration no poor rate had been made since the passing of the Act. Borough of Denbigh. The fourteentli section of tlie Boundary Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Yict. c. 46), enacts, that, " where, by reason of an alteration of the boundary of any borough by this Act, the occupier of a dwelling-house or other tenement (for which the owner at the time of the passing of this Act is liable to be rated instead of the occupier) would be entitled to be registered as an occupier at the next registration of parliamentary voters if he had been rated to the poor-rate for the whole of the required period, such occupier shall, notwithstanding he has not been so rated, be entitled to be registered, subject to the following condition : — That he has been duly rated as an ordinary occupier to all poor rates in respect of the premises made after the passing of this Act." B. occupied a dwelling-house brought by the Boundary Act, 1868, within the limits of the borough of Denbigh. The owner of the dwelling-house in question was liable to be rated for it at the time of the passing of the Act. No poor rate had been made for the township, in which the house was situate, between the time of the passing of the Act and the then next registration of parliamentary voters, nor had B. made any claim to be rated. any claim on the part of the voter, and after the making of the second rate. The court held that this additional fact could in no way affect the question. JS^o)ris v. Hastings (Imeson's case), L. R. 4 C. P. 498, 500. The necessity for the insertion of the occupier's name in the rate hook under circumstances, such as existed in the above case, is now, it seems (in so far as the franchise is concerned), dispensed with by section 19 of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, as explained by sec- tion 14 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. See also Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393, x>ost, pp. 363, 364. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 351 Held, that no rate having been made for the town- ship since the passing of the Act, the condition pre- scribed by section 14 did not apply, and, consequently, B. was entitled to be registered: Clarke v. Brouii, L. E. 4 0. P. 500; 1 H. & C. 181. Jtate signed, alloiced, and published, within the qualify- ing year, held to he a rate " made " {a) during that period, tcithin 30 8f 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 3, although it purported to have been made at a date prior thereto. Claim to be rated (b) made on behalf of another ivithout his knowledge of no avail for the franchise. Claim so made, if cajjable of ratification, must be ratified within qualifying year. Borough of Burnley. The appellant was on the list of occupiers at the revision of 1868, and was objected to on the ground that he had not been duly rated. A rate for the relief of the poor purported by its heading to have been made on 18th April, 1867. It was not in fact signed by the overseers until August, 1867, when it was also allowed by the justices, and published. The appellant's name was not then included in the rate, but it was afterwards inserted under the following circumstances. The appellant was a tenant of Messrs. Dugdale, a business fii'm in the borough, who had for years paid the rates of the appellant and of their other tenants in full, they in consideration thereof paying a higher rent. After the publication of the rate in question, a member of the firm requested the overseer, in general terms, to put the names of all the tenants of the firm on the rate. This the overseer accordingly did. The appellant had not been communicated with relative to such insertion of his name, and he was in no way a party to it. (a) See note (a), ante, on p. 346. {!/) See note (c), ante, on p. 333. 352 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTAUY REGISTRATION CASES. Messrs. Dugdale subsequently gave the overseers a cheque for the amount of all their tenants' rates. The appellant appeared at the revision coui't to support his vote. Held, 1. That the rate in question was not "made," within the meaning of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, s. 3, on 18th April, 1867, but in August, 18G7, and was, therefore, one to which the appellant should have been rated, in order to be registered as a voter in 1868 (a). 2. That the placing the appellant's name on the rate, under the circumstances stated in the case, was not a claim by him to be rated, within the meaning of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 30. 3. That if there could be a ratification, the appellant's conduct in appearing at the re\'ision coui't to support his vote was too late to operate as such ; and that, consequently, he was not entitled to be registered : Ainsicorf Uy. Creel-e, L. E. 4 C. P. 476 ; 1 H. & C. 141 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 58 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 824. A claim to he rated [h) for "part of a /lOuse," foUowed by a joint rating, held insirfficienf to mtisfy require- ments of section 30 of Reform Act, 1832, and section 61 of Representation of Reople Act, 1867. City oe London. The respondent was on the list of voters as occupier of a dwelling-house. He occupied exclusively, and as sole tenant, for his dwelling, certain rooms, which were not so structm-ally severed from the rest of the building as to constitute in themselves a house (c). He had the exclusive control over the doors which (a) See note («), ante, on p. 330. (]}) See note («), ante, on p. 333. (c) See now s. 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registra- tion Act, 1S78. I RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 353 shut the rooms off from the adjoining passage, and he had by virtue of his tenancy a right of way over the passage from his rooms to the house door, and in common with the other occupiers resident in the house perfect control over the house door, so as at all hours to be able to go in and out of the house as he liked. The respondent had in due time claimed to be rated for the premises as for "part of a house." In pursuance of such claim, the overseers had entered his name in the occupiers' column of the rate book, bracketed jointly with the other occupiers of the house ; but no separate rating or assessment was carried out against his name. Held, that whether or not the respondent was separately rateable, he could not be deemed, by virtue of section 30 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, to have been separately rated, within section 61 of 30 & 31 Vict, c. 102, and was, therefore, not entitled to the franchise as an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house, within that section {a) : Cuthhertson v. Jlains, L. R. 4 C. P. 525 ; 1 H. & C. 184 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 109. Claim to be rated [h) inoperative, unless made icithin qualifying year. Borough of Housham. The respondent claimed to be inserted in the list of voters in respect of his occupation of a " house." He had never been rated ; but he had paid, prior to 20th July, 1868 (the year of the revision), all the rates due in respect of the house up to the preceding 5th January. (ci) The case, although containing a statement that " in all other respects the respondent was jjroved to be qualified to be on the register," did not state specifically either that no rates were due at the time of the claim, or that the respondent had paid or tendered the rate. The court were asked to infer payment or tender, but refused to do so. As a matter of fact, there was no rate due at the time of the claim. This appears from the cross appeal of Uains t. Cuthberison, ante, p. 176. {h) See note («), ante, on p. 333. S. A A 354 DIGEST OF TARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. On 24th August, 1868, lie claimed to be rated to all rates made since 31st July, 1867. The current rate at the time of the claim was a rate made 15th January, 1868 (a). Held, that the quahfication for the borough franchise, under section 3 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, must be complete within the qualifying year, that the respondent's claim to be rated, having been made after the expii-ation of that period, was too late, and that it had no relation back, so as to operate as a claim made in due time, and that, consequently, the respondent was not entitled to be registered (/>). Afjncw V. Reilli/, 2 Ir. C. L. R. 560, and Mnldowney V. Makolmson, 15 Uiid. 375, remarked on : Medivin v. Sfreeter, L. R. 4 C. P. 488 ; 1 H. & C. 157 ; 38 L. J. 0. P. 180 ; 17 W. R. 380 ; 19 L. T., N. S. 827. To entitle occupier of part of a house to a vote under sections 3 and 61 o/'30 (^ 31 Vict. c. 102, he musty notwithstanding section 19 of 32 <^" 33 Vict. c. 41, he separatehj rated to the relief of the pioor^ unless the case is brought within section 3, or section 4, of the last-mentioned Act (c). City of London. The 19th section of the Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869 (32 & 33 Vict. c. 41), enacts, " that the overseers in making out the poor rate, shall in every case, whether the rate is collected from the owner or occupier, or the owner is liable to the payment of the rate instead of the occupier, enter in the occupiers' column of the (a) It is not stated in the case that this was the first rate made after the commencement of the qualifying year ; but the court appear to have assumed that no other rate had been made subsequent to 31st July, 1867. (b) See note (a), ante, on p. 333. (c) But see now section 14 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, referred to in note («), post, on p. 356, I RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 355 rate book the name of the occupier of every rateable hereditament, and such occupier shall be deemed to be duly rated for every qualification or franchise as aforesaid," and provides that " any occupier whose name has been omitted, shall, notwithstanding such omission, and that no claim to be rated has been made by him, be entitled to every qualification and franchise depending upon rating, in the same manner as if his name had not been so omitted." The appellant was an inhabitant occupier of two rooms being part of a house. The rest of the house was occupied by two other tenants. The rooms occupied by the appellant were let to him as tenant from week to week, at a weekly rent of 4.S. 6d., under an agreement that the owner (the appellant's landlord) should thereout pay all the rates on behalf of the appellant in respect of the premises occupied by him, the rent being higher in consequence of such agreement than it would otherwise have been. The overseers had agreed with the owner to collect the rates from him, and had, in making out the poor rate, entered in the occupiers' column of the rate book the name of the appellant and the other two tenants against the number of the house ; and in the appropriate colmnns, in line with the said names, the name of the owner, the rental, the rateable value (£14) of the whole house, and rate in the pound alone appeared. No separate rating or assessment in respect of the appellant's part of the house was carried out opposite his name. Held, that the appellant (the premises occupied by him not being separately rated) was not the occupier of a dwelling-house, within sections 3 and 61 of 30 & 31 Yict. c. 102, and that, there being neither an agreement in writing between the overseers and the owner to receive the rates from him, under section 3 A A 2 356 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. of 32 & 33 Vict. c. 41, or an order of vestry for rating the owner instead of the occupier, under section 4, the 19th section of that Act did not 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, hut excused {under 54 Geo. III. c. 170, s. 11) after com- mencement of quaUfi/ing year, held to disquaUfy for borough franchise. Borough of New Sarum. A. claimed to he 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 {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. ScqhiU, L. R. 10 Q. B. 422, and Barton v. Birmingham, 2 H. & C. 393, post, p. 364. RATING AND PAIMENT OF RATES. 357 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. C. P. 154; 19 W. R. 625; 23 L. T., N. S. 844. Inhabitant occupier of homes in succession, within section 26 of Representation of People Act, 1867, mat/ acquire the franchise without having been rated {a) in respect of the second house. City or 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 follo"udng 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 C. B., N. S. 29, must, by virtue of sections 56 and 59 of («) See note («), ante, on p. 330. 358 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the Representation of the People Act, 1867, he 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, under the circumstances, a payment by M. ; and that, consequently, M. was entitled to a vote : Moger V. Escott, L. K 7 0. P. 158; 1 H. & C. 645; 41 L. J. C. P. 86; 20 W. R. 368; 26 L. T., N. S. 99. The rates loMcli it is necessary that inhabitant occupier should have paid under section 3, sub-section 4, of 30 ^ 31 Vict. c. 102, are onhj those made and allowed after bth January of year preceding quali- fying year^ and payable uj) to 5th January of qualifying year. Borough of 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 February, 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 qualifjdng year in respect of the qualifying premises, but had not paid two rates, one of Aj^ril, 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 RATING AXD PAYMENT OF RATES. 359 5th January of the qualifying year(rt), and, conse- 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. E. 7 C. P. 227, 229 ; 1 H. & C. 741, 744; 41 L. J. C. P. 153, 154; 20 W. E. 863, 864; 26 L. T., N. S. 767, 769. Description in rate-hook 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 descrij^tion {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 Peniith, 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. Arnison 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 («) 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. 360 DIGEST OF rARLlAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. alter the rating from " N. Amison " 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 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 Gr. 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 Yict. c. 58, s. 30, and he was therefore entitled to be registered : LittJe v. Penrith, L. E,. 8 C. P. 259 ; 2 H. & C. 26 ; 42 L. J. C. P. 28 ; 21 W. E. 122 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 552. An occupier, whose 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 he registered, although landlord had after- wards, in September of qualifying year (the illegality of the composition having been discovered), jjaid the additional sum requisite to make vp 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. M. was inserted in the rate book as the amount RATING AND PAYMENT OF KATES. 361 of the composition payable by the owner, in respect of the house occupied by the respondent. 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 cj^ualifying year, paid the overseers an additional sum of 2s. 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 section 3, sub-sect. 4, of the Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867 («) : Durant v. JFit/icrs, L. E. 9 C. P. 257 ; 2 H. & C. 202; 43 L. J. C. P. 113; 22 W. E. 156. T/ie court were equally divided as to ichethcr occupier of rooms in a du-eUing-house {assuming them to he sufficient to qualify) must, in order to acquire the borough franchise under Representation of People Act, 1867, sections 3 and 61, have been separately rated {b) for such rooms to all rates in existence during qualifying year, or only to those made during such pieriod. The court were also divided as to whether px^^'i of a house, not structurally or practically separate from the rest, could constitute a dwelling-house icithin 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 teas no statute in force by 'which oicner could be rated instead of occupier. City of London. The respondent was on the list {a) Burant v. Fletcher (a subsequent case), 43 L. J. C. P. 114, note, "was, without argxmient, decided in accordance with the judgment in Burant v. Withers, the facts of the two cases being admitted to be undistinguishable. (i) See note («), ante, on p. 330. (c) See section 5 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registra- tion Act, 1878. 362 DIGEST OF PAKLIAMENTAHY REGISTRATION CASES. of voters in respect of his occupation of a dwelling- house. He had, during the qualifying year, occupied as tenant, part of a house, consisting of two rooms (not structurally separate from the rest of the house) in which he and his family entirely lived. These rooms were connected by a staircase and passage, which were used by the respondent in common with the tenants who occupied in a similar manner the other rooms in the house. The landlord did not live on the premises, or retain any control over them. The tenants had the exclusive control over the outer door. Two rates were made during the qualifying year, viz., one in November, 1872, and the other in May, 1873. In both of these rates the rooms occupied by the respondent were rated separately from the rest of the house at the sum of £3 10s., and the respondent was rated in resj)ect of them. The rooms were not rated separately from the rest of the house in a rate made in May, 1872, which was the last rate made before the commencement of the qualifying year. At the time of the passing of the Representation of the People Act, 1867, there was no statute in force in the parish wherein the house in question was situate, authorizing the rating of the owner of small tenements, instead of the occupier. Held, by Keating and Denman, JJ,, that the rooms occupied by the respondent constituted a 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 (ri) The interpretation contained in section 5 of tlie Parliamen- tary and Mniiicipal Registration Act, 1878, of "dwelling-house" is substituted for that contained in section 61 of the Kepresenta- tion of the People Act, 1807. RATING AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 363 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 months, 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 dming 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 Honey:\ian, JJ., that, as section 3, sub-sect. 2, requii'es that a dwelling-house should be occupied for the whole of the qualifying twelve months, and section 61 {ci) defines a dwelling- house (when not an entii'e 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 u-lioh 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 Brett, 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 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. Howmxl, L. E.. 9 C. P. 277 ; 2 H. & C. 208 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 115 ; 30 L. T., N. S. 382 ; 22 W. R. 535. («) See note (a), ante, on p. 362. 364 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Section 19 o/32 8^ 33 Vict. c. 41, applies not only to cases u'here oicner is liable hy agreement with the overseers under section 3, or by order of vestry under section 4, but also to cases ivhere he is liable by agreement with the occupier^ to pay the rates. Borough of Birmingham. H. had, dm-ing tlie qualifying period, occupied, as tenant, a counting house, for which he paid a yearly rent of £34. He had agreed with the owner of the whole house, of which the counting-house formed part, that the owner should pay the rates, and the owner had accordingly been rated, and had paid the rates, for the whole house. Held, that although the overseers had omitted H. from the rate hook, and he had not claimed to be rated, his franchise was preserved by section 19 of 32 & 33 Yict. 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. E. 10 U. B. 422, followed ; Cross v. Alsoj), L. E. 6 C. P. 315, ante, pp. 354 — 356, 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 hy section 3 of Poor Bate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, and the notice in writing required by section 4, sub- section 2, held to he conditions jyrecedent to legality of aUowances made under those clauses. Overseers held to have no power to waive performance of either of the conditions. Borough of New Windsor. A vestry order had been made under section 4 of the Poor Eate (rt) Sec note ('/), ante, on p. 356. RATIXG AND PAYMENT OF RATES. 365 Assessment and Collection Act, 1869, for the rating of the owners of certain tenements instead of the occupiers ; but, although no notice in writing had ever been given under sub-section 2 of that section, or agreement in writing entered into under section 3, the overseers in receiving payment of a rate from an owner, had allowed him 25 per cent., and the allow- ance, in so far as it exceeded 15 per cent., was sought to be justified under one or both of the above clauses. Held, that the allowance in excess of 15 per cent, was not one ^vhich the overseers were empowered to make, and, consequently, that the enactment in 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 cmpoicered to make from the rate," did not preserve the occupier's franchise (a) : Bennett V. Atkim, 2 H. & C. 430 ; L. R. 4 C. P. D. 80 ; 48 L. J. C. P. D. 95 ; 40 L. T., N. S. 66. («) It is now, however, enacted by section 2 of the Assessed Rates Act, 1879, that "where byway of commission or abatement or deduction under the principal Act (The Poor Rate Assessment and Collection Act, 1869), or purporting or assumed 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 puipose of every qualification or franchise depending upon rating or upon payment of rates, be deemed to have been diily made in pursuance of every or any agTeement, order, notice, or jDroceeding necessary for the validity thereof luider the princii:)al Act, and to have been and to be an allowance or deduction which the overseers were and are empowered 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 insuffi- ciency of any agreement, order, notice, or proceeding necessary for the validity thereof under the princii")al Act, or by reason of any informality or defect in the making thereof " 366 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. ASSESSED TAXES. A quarter'' s house tax ivhich, hy virtue of 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, was jMi/able ou 20th December, 1851, teas held to " have become payable " irreviously to the succeeding 6th January, idthin 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 27 {a), and 11 ^ 12 Vict. c. 90, although not demanded until after last-mentioned date. City of Westminster. The appellant claimed a borouglL vote, his claim being free from objection, except that he was a defaulter in payment of assessed taxes. Under the Eeform 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 6th April then next preceding. By 11 & 12 Yict. c. 90, the 5th January was substituted for the 6th April. By 43 Geo. III. c. 161, s. 23, assessed taxes were payable quarterly, 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 were 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, 1852, the quarterly house tax of 20th December, 1851. This tax was not demanded of him until 10th April. He paid it on 30th July. {a) Repealed, save as appears in note (i^), ante, ou p. 103. ASSESSED TAXES. 367 Held, that the taxes which, by 43 Greo. 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 ; 16 Jur. 1159 ; 20 L. T. 96 ; 1 W. E. 67. Occiqner of a ^^ house " in'fhin section 27 (a) of Reform Act, 1832, u'Jio icould under that section he disquali- fied by non-payment of inhabited house duty, is not the less disqualified because he occupies the ground fioor as a " shop," and his qualification is so described in the list. Borough or 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 linendrapers, 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 piu'pose 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, but had not paid the inhabited house duty, to which the premises were assessed. The instructions issued by the commissioners of assessed taxes for the district were substantially as follows : " For every inhabited dwelling-house which, with (a) Repealed, save as appears in note (i), ante, on p. 103. 368 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the lioiiseliold 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 ninejjoice." 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 6f/. 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. lY. c. 45, s. 27 (a), and he accordingly decided against the objec- tion, 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. 103. ( 369 ) CREATINQ VOTES. Conveyance not void under Splitting Act {7 8f 8 Will. III. c. 25) unless vendor be a ^iarty to the object intended by the conveyance. City of Lichfield. By 7 & 8 Will. III. e. 25, 8. 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 OS., hand 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 G-., but it was the proper money of the sub- vendees. Gr.'s object in proposing the pm-chase 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, thougb 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 ia the absence of fraud or collusion. See Alexander v. Kewman, 2 C. B. \2'l,post, pp. 371, 372. S. B B 370 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the statute, and the sub-vendees were entitled to he registered : 3IarshaU v. Bown, 7 M. & G-. 188 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 889 ; 1 Lutw. 278 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 129; 9 Jur. 164 ; B. & Ai-n. 445. Conveyance not void under Splitting Act (7^8 Will. III. c. 25) unless vendor he a party to the object of the jjurcjiase. Knowledge of, and acquiescence i7i, such object on the part of vendor^s solicitor, im- material. South Lancashire. Several persons (members of a political association) employed D. to procure for tbem 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 sej)arate deeds, duly executed before 31st January, 1845 (the year of the revision). The pui'chase-money f or 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. Boivn, supra, that the vendor not being i)rivy to the object {a) of the purchase, the conveyances were not void under 7 & 8 Will. III. c. 25, s. 6, and that the vendees were entitled to be registered : Hoi/land v. Bremner, 2 C. B. 84 ; 1 Lutw. 381 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 133 ; 10 Jur. 36 ; B. & Am. 611. («) The question of the illegality of such object, in the absence of fraud or collusion, was not before the court. See Alexander v. Newman, 2 C. B. 122 (the next case). CREATING VOTES. 371 A bond fide conveyance for valuahle consideration to several persons is valid, although the object of vendor be to give, and that of vendees, to acquire, the right of voting. "West Eidixg of Yorkshire. Thirty-five persons being desirous of having votes for the West Riding of Yorkshire, requested R., the agent of a pohtical 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. C. 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, B B 2 372 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTATIY REGISTRATIOX 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. Newman, 2 0. B. 122; 1 Lutw. 404; 15 L. J. 0. P. 134; B. & Arn. 657; 10 Jur. 313. A bona fide conveyance by a father to his sons in con- sideration of natural love 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. JVewman, and were decided accordingly : — Eilei/ T. Crossley, 2 C. B. 146 ; 1 Lutw. 420, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 144 ; 13. & Arn. 682 ; 10 Jnr. 316. Besivickr. Ashworth, 2 C. B. 152 ; 1 Lutw. 422, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 686. Beswick V. Akecl, 2 C. B. 156 ; 1 Lutw. 422, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Am. 687. Thorniley v. Aspland^ 2 C. B. 100 ; 1 Lutw. 423, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 088. Eaivlins v. Brcmner, 2 C. B. 106 ; 1 Lutw. 425, note ; 15 L. J. C. P. 145 ; B. & Arn. 692. CREATING VOTES. 373 A deed was accordingly executed on 30th January, 1845 (the year of the revision), by which the said H., in consideration of natui'al 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 anj^ rent. The conveyance was made by the grantor 2J>'^>^- cipaUy 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 eciuivalent to a pecuniary considera- tion, and there being no fraud in fact found by the revising barrister, the case was governed hy Alexander v. JVeinuau, 2 C. B. 122, siq)m, and the claimants were, consequently, entitled to be registered : Neicton V. Sargreaves, 2 C. B. 163; 1 Lutw. 424, note; 15 L. J. C. P. 154; 10 Jur. 317; B. & Arn. 690. A bond fide grant by father to son in consideration of natural love and affection is valid, although grantor^ s ohject he to entitle son to be registered. Whether or not there be fraud in making the grant, is a question of fact for revising barrister, nhose 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 by deed of 30th January, 1845 (the year of the (a) See note {b), ante, on p. 7. 374 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. revision), to the claimant, his heirs and assigns, in consideration of natural love and affection, a yearly rentcharge («), 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 executed by tho 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 question of fraud was conclusive, and could not be reviewed ; and (2) in accordance with Alexander' v. Neivman, 2 C. 13. 122, (inte, pp. 371, 872, that the deed was not void under the statute : Newton v. Mohherley (h), 2 C. B. 203 ; 1 Lutw. 427 ; 10 Jur. 318; B. & Arn. 695. {a) Seo note (b), ri)>tr; on p. 7. (i) The facts of Mivton v. Crowki/ (2 C. B. 207 ; 1 Lutw. 427 ; B. & Am. G97) were substantially the same as those in Nexoton v. Mohhcrlijj, and the court gave judgment in accordance with their decision therein. ( 375 ) PEESONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. Letter-carrier, who resigned Iii-s appointment within twelve months of the Zlst of July next preceding the revision, was held, under 22 Geo. III. c. 41 {repealed), not entitled to he 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 tlie deter- mination thereof, disqualified from voting. A., whose name appeared on the list of voters, was, in November, 1843, 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. R. 921 ; 7 M. & G-. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 207 ; B. & Am. 357 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 72. Collector of window duties appointed hy commissioners of assessed taxes, who were also land tax commis- sioners, held to be within the excejjtion created by section 2 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41 {rep)ealed), and, therefore, entitled to tote. 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 376 DIGEST OF TARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. duties on windows, and was appointed such, collector 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 : Dyev v. Gough, 7 M. & Gr. 109 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 934 ; 1 Lutw. 220 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 9 Jur. 308 ; B. & Arn. 368. Assessors, as icell as collectors, of assessed taxes, ap2)ointed hij commissioners of assessed taxes uho were also land tax commissioners, held entitled to vote. West Riding of Yorks. Four jDcrsons 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 j)ersons in every PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 377 township being annually returned to the said com- 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 Dijcr 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. & Gr. 120, note; 8 Scott, N. E. 945 ; 1 Lutw. 227, note ; B. & Arn. 379, note. A clerk to a receiving inspector of taxes appointed nnder 1 (^' 2 Will. IV. c. 18, 5.. 2 (repeakd), held not disqualified hj section. 1 of 22 Geo. III. c. 41 [repiealed). Borough of Cambridge. C. 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 Geo. III. c. 41, s. 1. By section 2 of 1 & 2 WiU. lY. 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 monies 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 treasuiy should authorize or direct ; and that it should be lawful for the last-named commissioners to grant annual allowances to such receiving inspec- 378 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 Yict. 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 Greo. III. c. 41 : Cooper v. Harris (Clenishaw's case), 7 M. & a. 120, note; 8 Scott, N. E. 947 ; 1 Lutw. 228, note. Exciisal hi/ justices under section 11 0/54 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 op 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 Greo. III. c. 170, s. 11, from the payment thereof, on account of his poverty. It was argued before the revising barrister that, PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 379 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. lY. c. 45. The revising barrister having decided in favour of the vote, The court affirmed the decision: Mashiter v. Dunn, 6 C. B. 30 ; 2 Lutw. 112 ; 18 L. J. C. P. 13 ; 13 Jur. 194; 12 L. T. 197. 8erjeants-at-mace {part ofu-hose duty it icas to act as constables) appointed by the corporation of a borough, subsequently to 5 ^ 6 Will. IV. c. 76, by virtue of a charter existing prior to that Act, held not dis- qualified by 19 4' 20 Vict. c. 69, s. 9. City and Borough of Hereford, It is enacted by 19 & 20 Yict. 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 (5 & 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. («) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. 380 DIGEST OF PAKLIAMEKTARY EEGISTKATION CASES. The serjeants-at-maee took tlie 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 Vict. 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) : Be BoinviUe v. Arnold, 1 C. B., N. S. 3; K. & G. 72 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 65 ; 3 Jiu-., N. S. 642 ; 5 W. E. 21 ; 28 L. T. 102. Parochial Belief. Borough or Maldon. A loan of money, for medical attendance, granted by the parish (under 4 & 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] : Devenish v. Digbij, 13 C. B., N. S. 28. Barochial relief to father^ not relief to son, so as to disqiialifi/ the latter for the borough franchise ; at least in the aliscnce of justice'' s order of main- tenance. Borough of Northalt.erton. S. was objected to on the ground that he liad been in receipt of parochial relief within the qualifying year. In November, of the qualifying year, S.'s father, being destitute and unable to work, became an inmate («) See now the Police Disabilities Removal Act, 1887. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 381 of tlie 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. 6c/. 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. 6(/. 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 requu'ing 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. & Gr. 531 ; 32 L. J. C. P. 59 ; 7 L. T., N. S. 678 ; 11 W. E. 92 ; 9 Jur., N. S. 443. Freemen of borough of Sanchcich, who icere also brethren of the hospitals of St. Bartholomew and St. John in that borough, not disqualified binder section 36 of Reform Act, 1832, the benefits belonging to them as such brethren not being ^^ alms'' ^ tcithin 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. These persons were brethren either of the hospital of St. Bartholomew or of that of St. John, and had {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 WiU. IV, c. 76, s. 56 : see 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 36 ; also per Cockbuen, C. J., and Blackbuen, J., in Reg. v. Ireland, L. R. 3 Q. B. 132, 133. 382 DIGEST OF PAB-LIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 inhabitants 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. lY. c. 45. The court afiirmed the decision, on the ground (fl) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. (//) The acciiracy of this finding may bo doubted, as the persons objected to as " ahnsmen " in 1690 (the Sandwich case, 10 Joum. 457 ; Heywood on County Elections, 2ud ed. 265), were probably members of these very foundations ; indeed it was assumed in the above case that they were. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 383 that, having a permanent right to the benefits they received as brethren, the voters were not placed thereby in a dependent or subservient condition: Smith V. Hall, H. & P. 11; 33 L. J. C. P. 59; 9 Jur., N. S. 1340 ; 12 W. E. 172 ; 9 L. T., N. S. 413 ; 15 C. B., N. S. 485. Not necessary that voter should have been of full age during the ivhole of the qualifying ijeriod. Borough of Kidderminster. The respondent claimed a vote as occupier, under section 27 of 2 WiU. 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 dui'ing the whole of the qualifying year. The barrister overruled the objection, and The court held that he was right {a) : Poicell v. Bradley, 18 C. B., N. S. Q>d ; H. & P. 159 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 67 ; 13 W. E. 272 ; 10 Jui-., 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 nest preceding 31st July (6), 1868 (the year of the revision), and had otherwise complied with the statutory requirements for the franchise as an inhabitant occupier. The Eepresentation of the People Act, 1867 (30 & {a) It is sufficient if a voter has attained his majority by 31st of Jiily next preceding the revision. See Hargreaves v. Hopper, L. R. 1 C. P. D. 195, j)ost, p. 386. The law has not, it seems, been altered in this respect by the Parliamentary and Mimicipal Regis- tration Act, 1878, for the provisions of section 7 of that statute have reference only to the period of occupation, i/c, necessary for qualification, and not to the date by which a man must be qualified VI respect of status. {h) See now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Regis- tration Act, 1878. 384 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 31 Vict. c. 102), enacts (section 3), that "every man shall in and after the year 1868, be entitled to he 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 Viet. 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 Reform Act of 1832 (2 Will. IV. c. 45), gives (section 27 (a) ) 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 autliorized 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 subjecf'to a 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 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 : ChorUon v. Lings, L. R. 4 0. P. (a) See note (J), ante, on p. 103. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 385 374 ; 1 H. & C. 1 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 25 ; 17 W. E. 284; 19L. T., N. S. 534. Women not entitled to county franchise. South-East Lancashire. The respondent claimed a vote as a 40.s. 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 C. P. 397 ; 1 H. & 0. 42. Peers ofjxirliamenf not entitled to he on the list of freehold voters. West Worcestershire, Middlesex, Hkrtford- 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 : £arl Beauchamp V. Madresfield, Marquis of Salisbury v. South Minis, the same v. Bontems, the same v. Bithcer, L. R. 8 C. P. 245 ; 2 H. & C. 41 ; 42 L. J. C. P 32 ; 21 W. E. 124 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 606. {a) The question wlietlier the names could be lawfully struck out ■n-ithout objection was not reserved, but, on the point being sub- mitted to the court, Beett, 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. 2G, applied to coimties by sect. 1 of 48 Vict. c. 15. S. CO 386 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES, Irish peers, who are not members of the House of Commons, not entitled to he registered. East Suffolk. The appellant was an Irish peer. He was not, nor ever had been, a representative peer, 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 Grreat Britain prior to 31st July next preceding the revision, was not entitled to be registered : Lord Rendksham v. Haicard, L. E. 9 C. P. 252 ; 2 H. & C. 175 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 22 W. E. 157 ; S. C, nom. Lord Rendlesham v. Tabor, 29 L. T., N. S. 679. To entitle any one to he registered as a £12 occupier {a), he must have been of full age on ^Ist 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 31st July (b), 1875 ; 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 theEepresentation of the People Act, 1867, and section 40 (d) of the Eegistration Act, 1843, that H. was not entitled to be registered : JIargrcavcs v. Hopper, L. E. 1 C. P. D. 195 ; 2 H. & C. 304 ; 45 L. J. 0. P. D. 105 ; 24 W. E. 186 ; 33 L. T., N. S. 530. {a) See note (a), ante, on p. 96. (/>) Sec now section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Eegis- tration Act, 1878 ; see also note (a) to PowcU v. Bradley, ante, on p. 383. (p) Repealed by section 12 of 48 Vict. c. 3, and Second ScVcdule thereto, Part II., except as to riglits of persons on the register at the date of the i^assing of that Act (Gth December, 1884), in re- spect of the then existing £12 (rateable) occuj)ation franchise, and except as to conditions made applicable by the said Act to any francliise enacted thereby. {d) See note {b), ante, on p. 220. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 387 Acceptance of voliintar// donation from trustees of a j)rwate charity^ under circumstances showing poverty and a state of dependence in recipient, held to he a receipt of^^ alms" ichich disentitled him to he regis- tered. Borough of Petersfield. C. was objected to at the revision of 1876, on tlie ground that he had, "within the qualifying year, received " alms," which by the law of parliament disqualified him from voting. In 1864, 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. Qd. to 12s. 6f/., 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 amoimt the grant should be. Of the money distributed in 1876, C. received 12.S. Qd. 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 trust was " alms " within section 36 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and therefore that he was not entitled to be registered: Harrison v. Carter (Cook's case) {a), (a) Anotlier appeal (Port's case) was argued with the above, the only difference between the two cases consisting in the fact, that C C 2 388 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. L. E. 2 0. P. D. 26 ; 2 H. & 0. 324 ; 46 L. J. C. P. D. 57; 25 W. E. 182; 35 L. T., N. S. 511. In order to disqualify under section 43 {repealed) of the FarVmmcntarii Elections Act, 1868, it was neces- sary tJiat tlie judge's report should find conclusively that bribery uas committed by or icith the know- ledge and consent of candidate. West Sussex. The apiDellant, 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 {a). 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 icith the laiowledge and consent of any ca)tdidate 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 incapahle during the said period of seven years — (1) Of being registered as a voter and voting at any election in the United Kingdom, 4"'^." The appellant, having been returned as duly elected on 31st of January, 1874, to serve in parliament for the borough of Kidderminster, a petition was presented against such election and return ; and at the trial of the petition before Mellor, J. (the election judge), such election and- return were determined to be null and void. 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. (a) This section was repealed by the Corrupt and Illegal Prac- tices Prevention Act, 1883. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 389 Tlie 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 retm-ned at the said election, and that his election and return were and are wholly null and void. And in compli- ance with the dii-ections of the Parliamentary Elec- tions Act, 1868, I fui'ther 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 retm-n, give to such voters and other voters and inhabitants of Kidderminster an enter- tainment consisting, among other things, of meat and drink, mth the view and intent to induce such voters to vote for him the said Albert Grant at such election." 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 (a) See 2 H. & C. 368, 7wte. 390 PARLIAMENTARY AND MUNICIPAL CASES. personally guilty of bribery," and, consequently, lie was not disqualified by section 43 of 31 & 32 Yict. c. 125, for being registered as a voter: Grant v. Paghmu, L. R. 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 parocMal relief or insufficient occu- pation constitutes the electoral incapacity referred to in section 28 {suh-section 7) of the Parlia- mentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878. City and Borough of Bath. Section 28 (sub- section 7) of tbe Parliamentary and Municipal Begistration Act, 1878, enacts that tbe 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 law 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 dm"ing 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). («) The qualifying period in relation to the non-receipt of pai'ochial relief, and siiiBciency of occupation is, hy section 7 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, to be computed by reference to \oth Julij, but the persons whom the revising barrister is required by section 28 (sub-section 7), to ex- punge from the list are those who are incapacitated on the last claij 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 barrister's riding (in favour' of the votes), in addition to that which formed the basis of the court's decision. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 391 In no case had any notice of objection been served on the parties whose votes were impugned. The facts of receipt of parochial 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 : Stoice V. JoIUfe (a), L. E,. 9 C. P. 734, followed ; Hcnjward v. ' Scott, L. E. 5 C. P. D. 231 ; Colt. Reg. Cas. 76; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 167; 41 L. T., N. S. 476. Where money teas paid by poor Jaw guardians out of the jKirish 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 onployed, the re- ceipt by such jjersons of the money so paid loas held to be a receipt by them of parochial relief disquali- fying tliemfor the franchise. Borough of Whitehaven. James Magarrill, a married man, with three children, applied to the re- lieving ofl&cer for Whitehaven for work. The re- lieving ofiicer gave him, and directed him to take to («) 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 proliibitious, persons con- victed of crimes which disqualify, or the like." 392 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. the task-master of tlie "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. Eobert 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 com-se of his employ- ment, brought back the ticket at the end of each day, and received from the relieving officer l.s. 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 sis 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 os. 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 apphcant, 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 clay more than others for each child above that number. The revising barrister, on ob- jection, expunged the name of James Magarrill, and PERSOXAL DISQLALIFICATIONS. 393 tlie names of fifty-tlu'ee other persons (scheduled), from the list of voters on the ground of their having received parochial relief, and the court affirmed the decision : Magan-Ul v. Whitchavcu, L. E. 16 Q, B. D. 242 ; 1 Colt. Eeg. 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. c. 44, being rendered by that statute incapable of giving their totes at any parliamentary election for a .borough icithin the metropolitan police district^ are persons who, in respect of any such borough, are ^Hncapaciiated by ... . statute from voting at an election^^ icithin flection 28 {sub-s. 7) of the Parliamentary and Municipxd 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. Borough of St. Pancras (South Division). The name of the appellant appeared in the occupiers' list in respect of the occupation of a dwelling-house. He was on the last day of July next j^i'eceding the revision a member of the metropolitan pohce force, having been appointed thereto by virtue of 10 Greo. lY. c. 44, s. 18 of which statute enacts that "no ... . person belonging to the police force appointed by virtue of this Act shall during the time that he shall continue in any such office, or within six calendar months after he shall have quitted the same, be capable of giving his vote for the election of a member to serve in parliament for .... any city or borough within the metropolitan police district .... and if any such .... person belong- ing to the police force shall offend therein, he shall forfeit the sum of one hundred pounds, to be recovered by any person who will sue for the same " as provided by the said section. The borough of St. Pancras is within the metro- politan police district. 394 DIGEST OF PAULIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. No olDJection had been made to the appellant's name being retained in the list on the ground of his being a metropolitan police constable, but the revis- ing barrister, being of opinion that the appellant was " incapacitated .... from voting " within section 28 (sub-s. 7) of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, expunged his name from the said list. The court, affirming the decision, held that the appellant belonged to the class of persons described in Stoice v. JoJUffe (L. E,. 9 C. P. on p. 750) as "persons who from some inherent or for the time irremovable quality in themselves have not, either by prohibition of statiites or at common law, the status of parliamentary electors," and that he, being in that condition in relation to the borough of St. Pancras on the last day of July next preceding the revision, was at that time " incapacitated from voting at an election " within section 28 (sub-s. 7) of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26, and was therefore rightly expunged from the list [a), although not objected to : Bonlon v. Bake, L. E. 18 Q. B. D. 421 ; 56 L. J. a. B. D. 41 ; 1 Scott Fox's Peg. Cas. 1 ; 56 L. T., N. S. 340. The words " medical or surgical assistance " in sections 2 and 4 of the Medical Relief Disqualification Re- moval Act, 1885, include all parochial assistance, medical or surgical in its nature, although not rendered hy a medical man. Therefore, the assistance of an uncertificated midwife supplied to the wife of a claimant at the expense of the parish was held, under 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 claim was opposed on the ground of his having during the qualifying year received parochial relief. [a) The disability of members of the police force to vote at par- liameutary elections is now removed by 50 Vict. sess. 2, c. 9. Theii' disability to vote as burgesses is still in force. PERSONAL DISQUALIFICATIONS. 395 In November, 1885, the appellant's wife applied to tlie relieving oflBcer for the Union, in which the ajDpellant'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 ofiicer, and not at the request, or apparently with the knowledge, of the medical ofiicer. On or about the 15th of January, 1886, the relieving ofiicer, 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 4.5. , or any other sum. The usual prac- tice in the relieving officer's district was for the guardians to pay the sum of lOs. Qd. 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 4.s. 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 EeHef 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 : Honcyhonc v. Ham- bridge, L. R. 18 Q. B. D. 418 ; bQ L. J. Q. B. D. 46 ; 1 Scott Fox's Reg. Cas. 26 ; 35 W. R. 520. 396 DIGEST OF rAKLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. LISTS OF YOTERS. 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 Aberjsfcwith, that it was not signed by a majority of the overseers. The town and liberty of Aberystwith was a ehapehy within the parish of Llanbadarn-fawr and formed a district of the borough of Aberystwith (one of the contributory boroughs of the borough of Cardigan), maintaining its own poor, and having two overseers, two churchwardens {a), and an assistant overseer {b). The list in question was signed by the two overseers Held, reversing the decision of the revising barrister, that that part of section 13 of 6 Yict. c. 18, which relates to the signing of the lists by the overseers was merely directory, and, consequently, that the list in question was valid : Jlorgan v. Parry, 17 C. B. 334 ; K. & &. 53 ; 25 L. J. C. P. 141 ; 26 L. T. 292 ; 2 Jur., N. S. 285. («) It -was contended before the court, that the two church- wardens in question were not overseers within the meaning of 6 Vict. c. 18 ; but, as that fact was not dis^Juted at the revision, the court held that it w-as not open to counsel to argue the point, and that the cjuestion was, whether, assuming the churchwardens were overseers, the words in section 13 "and the said overseers shall sign such lists" were compulsory. (h) The assistant overseer was, in accordance with directions given him on his appointment, occupied only in the business of collecting the rates, and discharged no other duties of an overseer; qucere, whether he was an overseer within 6 Vict. c. IS : see Green V. Mepham, 2 H. & C. 458, ante, pp. 293, 294. LISTS OF VOTERS. 397 The court has no jwwer to order corrections in register, except under sectio)i 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, 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 retui'ning 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 Usts to be altered. They accordingly refused the rule («) : Re Allen, 6 0. B., N. S. 334 ; K. & G. 258 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 256 ; 33 L. T. 122 ; 5 Jur., K S. 1011 : 7 W. E. 397. Register not complete until lists have heen signed by clerk of the peace, and delivered by him to sheriff. Strict compliance by clerk of the peace with directions in section 47 of 6 Vict. c. 18, as to signing and delivering lists on or before 30th November, not a condition 2)reccdent to validity of register. South Lanxashike. A notice of objection having been produced before the revising barrister, it was contended that the person by whom it was signed {a) The vote of one wliose name had been, as in the above case, expunged by mistake, was tendered, and held by Blackburn, J., to be a good vote : Oldham, 1 O'M. & H. loG. 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. 398 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. (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 tlie 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, 21, Devon- Freehold Peers court, WiUiam. sliire place, houses. Circus Everton. street. Ml-. Eob- erts and others tenants. The number prefixed to the preceding name was 5638, and to the succeeding 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- LISTS OF VOTERS. 399 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 pubHcation of the register; that the register became complete only when signed and delivered by the deputy clerks 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. Bre^nner, K. & G-. 352 ; 30 L. J. C. P. 33 ; 7 Jm-., N. S. 371 ; 3 L. T., N. S. 375 ; 9 C. B., N. S. 1. WJien two revising barristers are appointed for same district, one of them has no p)oicer, at least in the absence of objector, to restore name, which at a previous court has been didij 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 revisers 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 com"t 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 400 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 comi held by his col- league was excusable, entertained the application (although it Avas 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 the name (a) : B/ain v. PiUdngton, 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. E. 269. If name of £12 occupier {b) has been 2)laced by mistake on ivrong list, but tvifh correct description of qualifica- tion in third column, revising barrister has poicer to amend, by transferring name to list of £12 occu2ners. County of Southampton. The appellant's name appeared on the register of voters headed " Voters 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 quahfication was described thus, " occupier of house and land rated at £12 and upwards "(^). It was admitted that the appellant was not quaK- 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. (a) Ekle, 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 iinaUy determined by his colleague. {b) See note {a), ante, on p. 96. I LISTS OF VOTERS. 401 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 (a) of 6 Yict. c. 18, to correct such mistake by transferring the name from the list wherein it appeared to the £12 occupiers' list. 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 6 Vict. c. 18, and one, therefore, which the re\'ising barrister had power to amend, and ought to have amended, by trans- ferring the name to the list of £12 occupiers : Ballard v. Bobins, 2 H. & C. 384 ; L. E. 3 0. P. D. 92 ; 47 L. J. C. P. D. 50 ; 26 W. E. 80 ; 37 L. T., N. S. 436. Lists of coimf// claimants in respect of occiqKttion, and lists of new lodger claimants, not invalidated by reason of absence of overseer^ 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 pubhsh any of them until two or three days after the 2oth of August. It was contended at the Eevision 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 (a) See note [l], ante, on p. 220. S. D D 402 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 list. 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 allomng 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. ( 403 ) BOUNDAEIES. Orders of Local Government Board under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, held not to have 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 parliamentary 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 Grovemment Board hereinafter mentioned, an isolated and detached part of the parish of SuUington, known as " Broadbridge Heath." At the date of such order of the Local Grovem- 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 Vict. c. 61), the Local Grovemment 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 u u 2 404 DIGEST OP 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 "/or the purposes of the election of me mhers of Pcwlimnent 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 neio lists are made and neic constables are app)ointed.^^ By an order of the Local Grovernment 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 Sid- 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 %vithin the parliamentary borough of Horsham, and that the appellants were not entitled to have their names retained in the Horsham list. BOUNDARIES. 40& 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. Medicin, L. R. 5 0. P. D. 87 ; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 118; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 297; 42 L. T., N. S. 254. (a) Lord Colekidge, 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 j)ortion of the parish of Sullingtou Avill be, for certain pui-poses, 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 vrill 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 wiU have to vote, as they have heretofore voted," for New Shoreham. The chui"ch wardens 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. R. 5 C. P. D. 93, 94. 406 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where a voter had occupied a dwelling-home at BeckeU' ham in the county of Kent from before the Ibth of July, 1884, to May, 1885, and then moved direct to, and occupied for the remainder of the qualifying year, a dwelling -home at Loicer Syden- ham, situate in the same county, hut which had hy the Redistrihiition of Seats Act, 1885, become included in the Parliamentary Borough of Leicis- hatn, it was held that he was entitled to be registered as a voter for the borough of Leicisham in 1885 by virtue of section 17 of the Redistribution of Seats Act of that year. Borough of Lewisham. The claim of one Frederick Grrimwood to be inserted in tlie list of voters was as follows : — Grimwood, 2S, Dillwyn Dwelling-houses 29, Yewtree Road, Frederick. Road, Lower in succession. Beckenham, and Sydenham. 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 anterior to the loth 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. 407 division of the county of Kent, but 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 Lewdsham, in respect of immediate succession from a dwelling-house which was formerly in the west division 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: Doivn v. Steeky 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 458. Orders of Local Government Board under the JDivided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, and the Poor Law Act, 1879, held not to have the effect of altering boundaries of counties in their relation to the parliamentary franchise {a). NoKTH 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. 408 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. 1 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 Oakthorp 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 Grovemment 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 Kmits 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 pp. 403 — 405), and he therefore refused to expunge the name of the voter from the register of voters for the said parish or township of Seals. The court afiirraed the decision, Jones V. Reeve. (Not reported.) ( 409 ) PEACTICE. Due transmission of statement and notice to the masters, a condition precedent to the courfs jurisdiction to entertain an appeal. An appellant had neglected to transmit to the masters within the fii'st four days of Michaelmas term (o), the statement and notice, pursuant to 6 Viet. 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 com]3lied with, the court had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, or allow it to be entered: Autey v. Topham, 5 M. e^ 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, 61. The court (in accordance with Autey 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. E. 406 ; 1 Lutw. 5 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 39 ; 7 Jur. 995 ; B. & Arn. 3, note. (a) Although the Michaehnas 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 m force. 410 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. No formal orde?' of the court required for correction of 7^egister under section 67 of 6 Vict. c. 18, The court having reversed the decision of a revising banister, it became necessary to correct the register by inserting the appellant's name therein under 6 Yict. 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. E. 494, 495 ; S. C, nom. Peek v. Sinton, 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. E. 435 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 57. Material omission in statement of case cannot be icaived 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 Yict. c. 18 {a) : Webb v. Aston, near Birmingham, 5 M. & Gr. 14 ; 7 Scott, N. E. 435 ; 13 L. J. C. P. 57. (a) In Whithorn v. Thomas, 7 M. & Gr. 3, 4, the court, adhermg 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 coiu-t, that he might at once make the proposed alterations. This was accordingly done. PRACTICE. 411 Where, on a ease being called on, it appeared that respondent had delivered paper boohs (a) to the two junior picisne Judges, but that none had been delivered to the Lord Chief Justice and senion puisne judge, the court ordered that the case should stand over. By 6 Vict. e. 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 ease 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 dehvered 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, imder 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 E,ules 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 maybe 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." 412 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. cumstances, the case must stand over {a) ; Allan v. Wafer/iome, 7 Scott, N. E. 485 ; 1 Lutw. 93, note ; S. C, nom. Coo2}er v. Coates, 5 M. & Gr. 98. Ko power to remit case for insertion therein of a fact deemed material by the parties, hut 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 banister, 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. c. 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 : Hinton v. Wenlock,7 M. & G. 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 Shcddon v. Butt, 11 C. B. 27, post, p. 432, the appeal was, under similar circumstances, ordered to be struck out. {b) Per Maule, J. — "Possibly the revising barrister might be liable to a mandamus." 14 L. J. C. P. 37. PRACTICE. 413 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 he heard on each side. Tindal, C. J.—" By the 60th section of 6 Yict. 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" : Gadshij v. Warburton, 1 Lutw. 136; 7 M. & G. 11, 13, note; B. & Am. 272, 274, )iotc. 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 retm'ned the statement to the parties, with a recommendation to draw it up according to a 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. («) See note («), ante, on p. 411. 414 DIGEST OF TARLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Shortly afterwards the revising barrister died, and the case was found, after his death, among his papers, unsigned by him. The court held, that in the absence of proof that the barrister finaUy 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. & G. 35 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 738 ; 1 Lutw. 157; 14 L. J. C. P. 37; 2 D. & L. 598 ; 8 Jur. 1033 ; B. & Arn. 297. The court can deal loith tJiose qiiedions only, 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. & G. 66 ; 1 Lutw. 178 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 794; 14 L. J. C. P. 43 («). Appellant not entitled to judgment tvithout 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. Lees, 2 C. B. 31, 39, 40, and West v. Itobson, 3 0. B. N. S. 422, 431, 434, post, pp. 432, 433 ; see also Gregory v. Turner, 1 H. & C. 43, post, p. 438. {b) The rule above laid down was followed in Colville v. MocJiestcr, 1 Lutw. 380, note, and Fox v. Shastoii St. Feier, Shaftes- bury, 2 Lutw. 97. It was apparently departed from in Foioell v. Caswell, 8 C. B. 14, post, p. 429 ; but that case was probably deemed too clear for argument : see the facts (not reported) ante, pp. 274, 275, and per Matjle, J., 8 C. B. 15, post, note (a) on p. 429. The rule was again followed in Foicnall v. Hood, 11 C. B. 1, post, pp. 430, 431, and may be considered as generally governing the x^ractice of the court. PRACTICE. 415 Cooper V. Harris (Austin's case), 8 Scott, N. R. 921 ; 7 M. & G. 97 ; 1 Lutw. 207 ; 14 L. J. C. P. 72 ; B. & Am. 357. Case remitted on the ground that, instead of facts, it set forth the evidence given to prove them. A case wMch found that the claimant " stated" certain matters was remitted, under 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 65, on the ground that it set forth evidence (a) and not facts : Pitts v. Smedlei/, 7 M. & Gr. 85, 7iote ; 8 Scott, N. R. 907 ; B. & Arn. 344, note. Case struck out in default of appearance of either party not alloiced to he restored on application i^n- opposed) of appellant. Upon a case being called on, no-one appeared on either side. The court ordered it to he 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, The court refused to grant the application : Wansey V. The Overseers of St. Feter-le-Foor, 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. {a) Subsequent cases, apparently open to the same objection as the above, have been allowed to be argued without being remitted : see Burton v. Gery, 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. 416 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. They involved the same point as Wansey v. Perkins (HiU's case), 8 Scott, N. II. 978, ante, p. 106. The court, without argument, affirmed {a) the decisions with costs : Bagc v. Perkins ; Crocker v. Lambeth, 8 Scott, N. E. 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 tcith ^yractice in special cases, tcere jwrmitted, under circum- stances 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. Broicne, 1 Lutw. 303; 9 Jur. 976. [a) See White x. Fring, and note {b) to that case, post, pp. 429, 430. [h) This term is now obsolete ; see note {a), ante, on p. 411. (c) The court also granted on the same day a similar application, made on behalf of the respondent in Ash more v. Lees, for leave to deliver his paper books to the two junior puisne judges of the court. The respondent's counsel rehed 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. WatcrJiouse, ante, pp. 411, 412; Elliott v. St. Mari/^s JFithin, post, p. 420 ; Fring v. Estcourt, post, pp. 421, 422 ; Xicks v. Field, post, p. 423 ; Falmer v. Allen, post, pp. 425, 426, and Benesh v. Booth, post, p. 434. But see Shcddon v. Butt, post, p. 432. PRACTICE. 417 No power to remit a consolidated appeal, if, aWiough the qualifications of each voter he 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 Yict. c. 18, on the ground that the revising barrister had neglected to state the quahfications of the ten other voters whose cases were consolidated with the principal case. Held, that the barrister having found that the con- sohdated 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 : Hitchins v. Broun, 1 Lutw. 328 ; B. & Am. 547. If respondent apjjears, he cannot object to form of notice of ap2)eal, or to sujficiencr/ 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 insufii- cient, and consequently, that there was no proof that " due notice " had been given, as required by 6 Vict. 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 : Raidins v. West Derby, 2 C. B. 72, 73 ; 1 Lutw. 373, 374 ; 15 L. J. C. P. 70 ; B. & Am. 599. S. E E 418 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where respondent did not appear, the court {having heard appellant) snapended judgment, for produc- tion of affidavit of service on resjjondent of notice required by the statute. After hearing counsel for the appellant, tlie 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 coui't reversed the re\dsing barrister's decision : Colvill v. Letvis, 2 C. B. 60 ; 1 Lutw. 380, note; B. & Am. 608. A waiver by respondent of the notice to him, required hy sections 62 and 64: of 6 Vict. c. 18, does not give the court jurisdiction to hear appealin his absence. Such waiver, a ground for postponement under 2Jroviso 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 Viet. 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. The court intimated, that they had no power to dispense with the notice ; but, 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 : ^^eu•fon v. Mohherley, 2 C. B. 203 ; 1 Lutw. 335 : 15 L. J. C. P. 154 ; 9 Jur. 995. PRACTICE. 419 Consolidated appeal tendered in proper time, hut rejected by master for icant of barrister^s signature to indorsement, allowed to be entered de bene esse on 5th daij of term [a), on jj roof of diligence to obtain signature icithin 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 («) for leave to enter ; the affidavit on which the application was made, showed that the appellant's agent had iised 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 Yict. c. 18, was directory only as to the signature of the indorsement [h), and 2. That the regulations as to indorsements enacted in that section did not apply to consolidated ap- peals {b). 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 : Prinq v. Estcourt, 4 C. B. 71 ; 1 Lutw. 505 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 10 ; 10 Jur. 928. {a) See note (a), ante, on p. 409. \b) But see Wanklyn v. Woollctt, 4 C. B. 8G, post, pp. 424, 425. EE2 420 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Paper hooks (a) not tendered four clear days before day appointed for argument^ in accordance with practice in special cases, were permitted to be delivered mine 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 ajDpeals, 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 [h) : Elliott v. St. Mary Within, 1 Lutw. 508 ; 8 L. T. 120. (ff) See note {b), ante, on p. 416. [b] The coiirt on the same day granted a similar application in Basher v. Thompson, I 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 argximent, which was not likely to be Thursday the 12th, as the appeal stood ninth on the list. Ignorance of the practice of the court, althoiigh a ground for indulgence for a short time after the passing of the Registration Act, 1843, as shown by the above case, and by C'olvill v. Leicis, 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 Talmer 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. 434), 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. 421 Notice to master of appellanfs intention to ^^rosccute appeal., signed by appellant., must be tendered within the time prescribed by section 62 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 Yict. c. 18, the officer declined to receive it. It v^as thereupon sent back; and the appellant's signature thereto having been procured, it was again tendered to the officer on the fifth day 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 (h) ; 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:" Petherbridfje v. Ash, 4 C. B. 74 ; 1 Lutw. 507 ; 10 Jur. 950. Resptondenf s paper boolis (c) 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. 419), having neglected to deliver paper books (c) to the two junior puisne judges, pursuant to the practice laid do'wn in Allan V. Waterhouse, 7 Scott, N. E. 485, ante, pp. 411, 412, 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 (a), ante, on p. 409. (b) See Autc'j v. Topham, 5 M. & G. 1, ante, p. 409, (f) See note [b), ante, on p. 416. 422 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTAR"? REGISTRATION CASES. hearing, but the judge's 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) : Priiuj v. Estcourt, 4 C. B. 73. Ten clear days' notice to i'espo7ident under section 64 of 6 Vict. c. 18, a condition 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 aiB&davit of service on 2nd November, upon the respondent of the notice required by section 62 of 6 Vict. c. 18. The date of the revising barrister's decision was 16th October, and the day ajDpointed 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 drri/s 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. (ff) See note {b), ante, on p. 416. [b) See Scg. v. The Justices of Salop, 3 N. & P. 286. (c) The decisions in the two following cases are to the same effect: Adcy 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. 423 Salisbiinj, 4 0. B. 32 ; 1 Lutw. 538 ; 16 L. J. C. P. 9 ; 10 Jur. 970. Where respondent had not delivered paper books {a) in due time, the court aUoived him to deliver them nunc ])yo tunc. The first day appointed for hearing the appeals was Thursday, 12th November. The respondent not having delivered his paper hooks {a), application was made on his behalf on Monday, 16th November, for leave to deliver them nunc jiro tunc. 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. Fields 1 Lutw. 509, note. There must he a reasonable protnptitude in giving notice to respondent under section 64 of 6 Vict. 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 pro"\aso 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 heaiing. (a) See note {b), ante; on p. 416. 424 DIGEST OF PAIUJAMENTAHY REGISTEATION CASES. The appeal was, consequently, struck out : Pring V. Edcourt, 4 C. B. 73 ; 1 Lutw. 543 ; 10 Jur. 971 ; 16 L. J. C. P. G3, 64. Respondent s application for leave to deliver paper books («), and t/ie fact of his having instructed counsel, do not disjmise with the necessity of appel- lant proving service on respondent of notice required by section 62 o/" 6 Vict. c. 18. In this case the notice required by section 62 of 6 Vict. 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 («) 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^ signature to in- dorsement on tender 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 {h) ), 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 [h) (ft) See note {h), ante, on p. 416. {b) See note («), ante, on p. 409. PRACTICE. 425 (the defect having been supplied on the previous day), obtained leave to enter, subject as in Pring v. JEsf court, ante, p. 419. 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 Vict. c. 18, are made applicable by section 45 to consolidated appeals : Wanklyn v. WooUett (a), 4 C. B. 86 ; 1 Lutw. 597; 16 L. J. C. P. 144. CoiD^t refused to permit pajjer books (b) to be delivered after proper time, uithout an affidavit assigning sufficient excuse for delay. No paper books (6) having been delivered four days before the day appointed for the hearing, in accordance with the practice of the court in special cases (c), the counsel for the appellant on the first («) Wanklyn and Woollett signed, the declarations respectively simply as agents, 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. & C. 738, post, p. 440. Wankhjn 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 jiuisdiction to hear an appeal: see Da-vis on Registration and Elections (1869), 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. Camphell, 4 Ir. Jur., 0. S. 120. (J) See note (i) ante, on p. 416. (c) 6 Vict. 0. 18, s. 60, ileg. Gen. Hil. Term, 4 Will. IV. s. 7 : see now Rules of the Supreme Court, 1883, Ord'i'r XXXIV. 426 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. 65, 66 ; 11 Jur. 977, and note. Where case was signed on 80fh October, and the first day for hearing apjyeals 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, that 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 Vict. 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 {/>), ante, on p. 416. [b] The first day appointed for hearing the appeals was llth November. PRACTICE. 427 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 ; but 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 coui't held, that the case was within the proviso to section 64 of 6 Yict. c. 18, and they postponed the hearing : Palmer v. Alkn, 5 0. B. 5. The court has no Jurisdiction to hear consolidated apjjeal, 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 Vict. 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 Yict. 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 Jui-. 1086. If respondent does not appear, there must he an affidavit, either of service of the notice upon him required by sections 62 and 64 o/" 6 Vict. c. 18, or of circum- stances of excuse within iwoviso 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 Vict. c. 18. 428 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 ease 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 barris- ter 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 aflBdavit further stated, that the statement of the case was not received by the appellant's soHcitor 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 : Aldtcorth 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) -R-hether, if the respondent had agreed to waive the notice required by section 62 to be served upon him, such waiver wotdd have availed the appellant ; see Ncwtoti V. Mobbcrloj, 2 C. B. 203, ante, p. 418. PRACTICE. 429 Reversing barrister's decision icithout 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. Earrk (Austin's case), 7 M. & Gr. 97 {ante, p. 414), The court refused the application {a) : PoiceU v. Casicell, 8 C. B. 14; 2 Lutw. 141. Affirming harristerh decision loithout argument. Upon a case being called on, the appellant did not appear. Counsel for the respondent thereupon prayed judgment, with costs, citing Bage v. Perkins, 1 Lutw. 255 ; 7 M. & G. 156 ; 8 Scott, N. E. 983 ; and Crocker v. Lambeth, 1 Lutw. 255, note ; 7 M. & G. 156, note ; 8 Scott, N. E. 985. The court affirmed the decision ^ith costs (b) : («) " It must be assumed," observed Maule, 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. lo. (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 wiU 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. Pring, which are given ante, on pp. 116, 117, 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 430 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. White V. Pring, 2 Lutw. 141 ; 8 0. B. 13 ; 14 L. T. 156. Reversing barrister's decision ivithout argument. Where botli 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) : Jar vis v. Feele, 11 0. B. 15 ; S. C, nom. Jarvis v. The Toicn Clerk of Shreicsbtiri/, 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 Bagc v. Perl-ins {ante, pp. 415, 416) and Croclcer v. Lambeth {ibid.), the facts of which will be foTind in 8 Scott, N. E. 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. 106), 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 («) 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. IS, 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 ban-ister's decision ; but the relevancy of such comment seems questionable ; see note {a) on the preceding page. PRACTICE. 431 V. Harris (Austin's case), 7 M. & Gr. 97 [ante, p. 414), 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. 414) : PoicnaU V. Hood, 11 C. B. 1 ; 2 Lutw. 170; 21 L. J. C. P. 12 ; 16 Jur. 618. An unsigned statement of case permitted, tcith respon- denfs consent, to be sighted nunc pro tunc. The "written statement of a case was indorsed with the re\ising 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 tunc. The court thereupon allowed the appeal to be argued : Burton v. Brooks, 2 Lutw. 197 ; 11 0. B. 41; 21 L.J. C. P. 7; 16 Jur. 569. If statement of case he 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 requii'ed 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 Y. 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: Agnew v. Fowler, 1 Ir. C. L. R. 462. 432 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Where on a case being called on, it appeared that although appellant had delivered paper booh {a) to the Lord Chief Justice and senior puisne judge, none had been delivered to the tivo junior puisne judges, the court ordered case to be struck out. Upon a case being called on, it appeared that tlie 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. Butt, 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 law ; 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. Wari)ig, 5 C. B. 56. {ante, p. 427), that they had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal: Eobson v. Brown, 1 C. B., N. S. 34 ; K. & G. 67 ; 26 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 28 L. T. 103 ; 3 Jur., N. S. 674. Qucere, whether respondent [objector) may rely on objections which tvere overruled, but against the decision on ichich there is no appeal. Before the revising barrister, five objections were taken to a party's right to vote : three of them he (rt) See note (b) ante, on p. 416. PRACTICE. 433 overruled ; but the others he 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 CocKBURX, C. J., said (3 C. B., N. S. 434), that the point raised was of sufficient impoi-tance 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. Bobso)i, 3 C. B., N. S. 422, 431 ; K. & G. 141, 153. Where case was signed on 11th October, and first day for hearing appeals teas 11th November, service on respondent of notice required by section 62 of 6 Vict. c. 18, on Qth November [the day on which case icas {duty) lodged tcith 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 day (6th November) the appellant gave a similar notice to each of the respondents ; but the court ha\ing 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. F F 434 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. revising barrister's decision, and tlie day appointed for hearing the appeals, for service of the notice on the respondents : Lnclictt v. Gilder, Luckett v. Voller, Luckett V. Gollop, K. & G. 371 ; 31 L. J. C. P. 43 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 676 ; 11 C. B., N. S. 1 ; 5 L. T., N. S. 312 ; 10 W. E. 105. Where no paper hooks {a) had been delivered by either party, and appellant did not appear, the court, refusing to give judgment for resptondent, 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 £age 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. WJiere, on a case being called on, respondent had not delivered his paper books (a) , but was then prepared ivith his cojnes, the court directed the case to stand in the p)aper 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 (i) ante, on p. 416. \h) But see note (li) to White v. Tring, ante, pp. 429, 430. (c) The learned reporter intimates tluit the appellant, if he had duly Rupplicd the reRpondciit's (miission, would have been entitled to ask for judgment ; but see note (r) to Allan v. IVatcrhotise, ante, p. 411, PRACTICE. 435 The court, without deckling ichether strict compliance loith sections 42, 43, and 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18, may he tcaived, declined, in the absence of clear proof of such waiver (a), to entertain a consolidated appeal, which teas not signed hij respondent, and which revising barrister had not signed tmtil after 31st 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 Vict. 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 sis others being retained on the list of voters for the borough of New Windsor. («) 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 hi point of foi-m should be waived. As to the existence of such an understanding, it will be observed that the affida^'its 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 statutoiy 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 jimsdiction to hear such an appeal : Agncw 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, Ac/new v. Campbell, 4 Ir. Jur. O. S. 120, referred to in the note to Wankhjti v, Woollett, ante, p. 425. F F 2 436 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 ease, and PRACTICE. 437 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 par- ties 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 aflBdavits 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 R. 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 438 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. by the barrister, and sent to tlie respondent, tlie 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. Dumnt, 18 0. B., N. S. 205 ; H. & P. 269 ; 34 L. J. C. P. 81 ; 11 Jur., N. S. 115; 13 W. E. 316; 11 L. T., N. S. 676. . On a registration apjieal 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 con- fined to the points reserved, and accordingly dismissed the appeal : Gregory v. Turner^ 1 H. & C. 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 (Tvithout 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 eectiou 1 of 48 Vict. c. 15. PRACTICE. 439 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 Yict. c. 18 : TFilson v. Saiford, L. R. 4 C. P. 398 ; 1 H. & C. 44 ; 38 L. J. 0. P. 35 ; 17 W. R. 161 ; S. C, nom. Moore v. The Town Clerk of Saiford, 19 L. T., N. S. 483. Appeals cannot he consolidated unless the piarties resjjon- dent thereto have the same 2JcrsoJial 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 hst. His decision being appealed from, he consolidated the appeals. The court held that the appeal had been improperly consoHdated, and, consequently, they had no jurisdic- tion to hear it (b) : Bennett v. Brumfitt (Ashcroft's case), L. R. 4 C. P. 399 ; 1 H. & C. 48 ; 38 L. J. C. P. 72 ; 17 W. R. 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. 440 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. he 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, 1 H. & C. 387 ; L. E. 5 C. P. 224 ; 39 L. J. C. P. 95 ; 22 L. T., N. S. 301. Objector witJwut 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 greivance, and therefore could not appeal : Jones v. Marshall, 1 H. & C. 738. The court cannot consider any circumstances to excuse the not giving the ten days' notice to respondent, required by section 64 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. Tlio first day appointed for hearing registration appeals was 13th November, when the appeal in question was called on in its turn. PRACTICE. 441 The appellant did not 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 Kegistration 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 : Bronii v. Tamplin, L. R. 8 C. P. 241 ; 2 H. & C. 17 ; 42 L. J. 0. P. 37 ; 21 W. R. 125 ; 27 L. T., N. S. 610. Indorsement of case in consolidated appeal need not contain the names o/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 : Slierwin v. Wlniman, L. R. 9 C. P. 243 ; 2 H. & C. 185 ; 43 L. J. C. P. 36 ; 22 W. R. 127. Affidavits by revising barrister in opposition to rule granted under section 37 o/41 Sf 42 Vict. c. 26. Notice in writing of " desire to ajjpeal" (6 Vict. c. 18, s. 42), condition p)recedcnt to case being stated. A rule having been granted under section 37 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, calling upon a revising barris- ter and certain voters to show cause why an appeal 442 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. 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 (Gtrove and Lopes, J J.), 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 Yict. 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 shoiving cause against a rule obtained under section 37 o/41 ^ 42 Vict. e. 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 sliowing cause against the rule, counsel for the revising barrister, proposing to read such state- PRACTICE. 443 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, pp. 441, 442), respecting affidavits by revising bar- risters; GrRovE, 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 Yict. 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]. WJiere a case pifrporting hy its indorsement to he a con- solidated appeal was defective hy reason of there heing no statement that any person ^Hnterested'^ had consented to answer the appeal on hehalf of Jtim- selfsind the persons named in the schedule : held, that such defect was fatal to the case as a consoli- dated appeal under section 4A of ^ Vict. c. 18, hut 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 fi-anchise 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) Coimsel for the applicant oLjected iii the first instance to the reading of the revising barrister's statement, but subse- quently 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 " 27tc Times,'' ^ Dec. 10th, 1879. 444 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. The court lield that, in the absence of any such statement, the appeal could not he entertained as a consolidated appeal under section 44 of 6 Vict. c. 18, but must be dealt with as a single appeal only under section 42 : Dniitt v. Lane, 1 Colt. Eeg. Gas. 307. It is not nccesmry that a person, appearing at the revision court on behalf of a voter, should have been piersonally instructed by the voter for ichoni he 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. Smedon, 2 Times Law Eeports, 13. ( 445 ) 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 sucli 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 Eegistration 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 446 DIGEST OF PARLIAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. in any case may, name sucli clerk of tlie peace or town clerk, as tlie case may be, to be respondent in an appeal, either alone or in addition to any other ]Derson 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 : — JFehb V. Aston, 5 M. & Gc. 14, 32. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Simpson V. WilMnson, 7 M. & Gr. 50, 65. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Allen V. House («), 7 M. & G-. 157, 162. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Bage v. Perkins (b), 8 Scott, N. R. 983, 984. De- cision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Daniel v. Campliu, 8 Scott, N. R. 999, 1013. De- cision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Wood v. WiUcsdcn, 1 Lutw. 314, 323. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. {<() lu 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. 447 Walker v. Paijne {a), 1 Lutw, 324, 327. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, witliout costs. Croucher v. Browne {a), 2 C. B. 97, 111. Decision (in favour of tlie vote) affirmed, "without costs. Bishop V. SmecUey {a), 2 C. B. 90, 96. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Gale V. C/it(bb {a), 4 C. B. 41. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Birch V. Echcards, 5 C. B. 45, 51. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson V. Cotton (a), 5 0. B. 51, 55. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Onions v. Boicdler, 5 C. B. 65, 75. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson V. Pitt, 5 C. 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. Smedleij, 12 0. 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. 8t. Thomas, New Sarum (b), 2 Lutw. 222. Decision (against the vote) afEinied, with costs. Beeson 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. 448 DIGEST OF PARLTAMENTARY REGISTRATION CASES. Fassingham v. Pitfi/ («), 17 C. B. 299, 314, 315. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, vs^ith costs. De Boinville v. Arnold, 1 0. B., N. S. 3, 22. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs Clarke v. Bury St. Edmunds, 1 0. B., N. S. 23, 33. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs Rannaford v. Whitcway (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). Powell Y. Bradley, 18 C. B., N. S. 65, 71. Deci- sion (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Tep2)er v. NicJioUs, 18 C. B., N. S. 121, 141. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without COSTS Flatcher 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 C. P. 150, 158. Deci- sion (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs Pickar'd V. Baylis, L. E. 5 C. P. D. 235. Decision (against the Vote) affirmed, without costs [h). {a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. (b) Per Lord CoLEEinaE, C. J., " As counsel for the respondent has been instructed at tlie request of the coui't, we do not consider it a case in which the appellant should pay costs." I COSTS OF APPEAL. 449 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. Barclai/ v. Parrott, 1 C. B., N. S. 49, 52. Smith V. Euggett, K. & G. 434, 437. Heelis V. Blain, 18 C. B., N. S. 90, 110. But the Legislatm^e 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. 445. 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. Maillanl, L. R. 4 C. 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 Sj^eighf, Ex parte Brooks, L. R. 13 Q. B. D. 42. S. G G INDEX. Abode, objector's place of, must be sufficiently stated in notice of objection without reference to register, 237 ; objector's actual place of, must be stated in notice of objection, 243, 252, 279; voter's place of , must be stated in notice of objection as it is stated in list of voters ivhen transmitted by clerk of tbe peace, 255 ; sufficiency of description of objector's place of, in notice of objection, 270 ; voter's jjlace of, need not appear on tbe face of notice of objection, 278 ; sufficiency of description of objector's place of, a question of fact for barrister, 288 ; objector's place of, when, if omitted from notice of objec- tion, may be supplied by revising barrister, 300 ; wholly untrue statement of voter's place of, amendable, 310. AcTTJAii POSSESSION, of rent-charge for six months necessary to satisfy section 26 of Eeform Act, 1832. . .70. Address of Landlord omitted from new lodger claim, revising barrister has a discretion as to inserting, 231. Affidavits. See Eevising Barrister. After Grass (rights of). See Chipping Sodhury. Agent, declarations in a consolidated appeal signed by, 151, 152, notes, 232, 233, note, 297, note, 304, note. Allowance or deduction from poor rate, 364, and note {a) on p. 365. Alms, what not a receipt of, 381 — 383 ; what a receipt of, 387. Almsmen. See Hospital. Amendment. See Abode, Claim, Description, Declaration, Dtvellivg-liouse, List, Neiu Lodger, Occupation, Qualifica- tion, Revising Barrister, Of descriiDtion of qualification in fourth column by striking out surplusage, 63 ; by substitution of right number of house for wrong one, when permissible, 318. G g2 452 INDEX. Annuity charged on lands in different occupations, appor- tionment of, 41 ; derived from land, but not charged thereon, insuflB.cient to qualify, 44. Appeal. See Practice. Declarations in a consolidated, signed by agent, see Agent; notice in writing of "desire to appeal" [semhle) a condition precedent to a case being stated, 441 ; im- perfectly consolidated, maybe sufficient as a single appeal, 443. Apportionment. See Rent-charge. Of interest on mortgage upon several freeholds, 16; of rents and profits issuing out of laud in more counties than one, 21 ; of annuity charged on land in different occupations, 41. Articled Clerk. See Exeter, Residence [hreah of). Assessed Taxes, 366. Assignee has no vote in respect of equitable life interest in a term, 86. Assistant Overseer, 272, 293, 342. Barracks. See Officers, Soldiers. Barrister. See Revising Barrister. Beadsmen op Daventry, appointment as, iiot a "promotion to an office," 20. Benefice, emoluments annexed to freehold, when do not qualify for vote, 40 ; when divisible so as to give vote for county and borough, 55. BoROTTGH, 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. ..08. Borough of Stafford, allottee of corporation land of, under bye-law of 1830, has no freehold interest therein, 53. Bottesford Hospital, inmates of, have no freehold interest in the hospital lands, 32. Boundaries, 403—408. Boundary Acts, 114—116, note {h) on pp. 114, 115, and note («) on pp. 115, 116; 169, 170, 350. Break of Eesidence. See Residence, Cambridge Uniuersity, Oxford University. INDEX. 453 Beibery, held not to disqualify for the franchise, imless found conclusively bj- judge's reiDort to have been com- mitted by or with knowledge and consent of candidate, 388. Building, cowhouse, when a, within section 27 of Eeform. Act, 1832. ..99; distinct portion of cotton factory, when a, within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. ..101 ; coach- house and stable, when a, within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. . .113 ; continuous buildings may constitute a, within section 27 of Eefonn Act, 1832, though without internal communication, or continuity of roof, 117 ; vote conferred by granary forming upper floor of, 151. Building and Land, need not be contiguous, in order to qualify under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. ..118; when sufficient to qualify under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832... 131, 132, 133, 134. Building Society, payments to, 10, 13, 30, 51. Burgage tenure, vote conferred by, 8, 9. Burleigh Hospital, beadsmen of, have a freehold interest in their rooms, 2, 34. Cambridge University, members of, held (before Eegistra- tion Act, 1885) not entitled to vote for the borough in respect of their college rooms, 177 ; 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, 209. Cestui que trust, bare equitable right of, to possession of land, insufficient to qualify, 20 ; when may have a free- hold interest in rent-charge notwithstanding absolute power of sale in trustee, 59. Cestui que use, of rent-charge, when in actual possession thereof, 35, 58 ; of chattel rent-charge not entitled to vote in respect thereof, 90. 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, 64. Chambers in the Temple, exclusive occupation of a room in a set of. 137, and notes; occupier, as tenant, of a' set of, not disqualified by sub-letting some of the rooms therein, 139. 454 INDEX. Chandos Clause, repealed, save in respect of rights exist- ing on 6tli December, 1884. ..93, note (a); qualification under, was not acquired by joining diiferent rents pay- able to different landlords to make up £oO rental, 93 ; nor by joining rents of joint and single tenancies, 95; wliat was sufficient description of qualification under, 312, 314, 315. Change of Qualification, in counties, required new claim, 93. Charity, military knights of Windsor mere objects of, and not entitled to vote, 121 ; objects of, not necessarily in- capacitated for voting, 137. Chipping Sodbuey, holder of an "acre" in, according to custom, entitled to vote, notwithstanding rights of after- grass and pasture granted to others, 44. Claim, declaration annexed to new as well as old lodger's notice of, is prima facie evidence of qualification, 180 ; notice of, when not invalidated by defective address, 218 ; insufficiency or absence of notice of, in what cases cured by publication, 221 and note (a), 223; what are "mistakes" in a, within section 28 (sub-section 2) of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26. ..231 ; to be rated, 333 and note (a), 351 and note {h), 353 and note (6). Clebgyman. See Benefice, Perpetual Curate. Collector of Poor Eate discharging the duties of over- seer, 293. College. See Cambridge University ; Oxford University. Fellows of, entitled as such under a will to i^ayment from realty profits do not acquire an " estate by devise," 21. College Fellowship, appointment to, not " promotion to an office," 21. Committee of Lunatic's Estate, occupation by, 94. Condition Precedent. See Appeal, Notice in Writing, Writing. CoNINQSBY. See Lord Coningsby's Hospital. Consolidated Appeal. See Appeal. INDEX. 455 Control of landlord over entii'e house prevents inmates of rooms therein from being inhabitant occupiers, as tenants, 152 — 157, and note (a) on pp. 154, 155. Convey AxcryG axd Law of PEorERXY Act, 1881, held not to apply to a conveyance by wife to husband of her sepa- rate real estate, 71 — 73, last paragraph of note (a). Corporation Aggregate, members of, not entitled to county votes in respect of real property owned by, 24 ; members of, not entitled to borough votes in respect of rooms occupied by them as members of the corporation, 119. Corrections in Eeqister, 397. Costs of Appeal, 445—449. Cotton Factory, distinct portions of, when each a " build- ing" within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. ..101. Counting-House, tenant's interest in, not limited by land- lord's clerk residing in house of which counting-house formed part, 112; a building without severance from rest of house of which it formed part, 142. Cowhouse, when a "building" within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832. ..99. Creating Votes. See SpUtUnfj Ad. Curate, ^qq Perpetual Curate. Customary Freehold, vote conferred by, 8, 9. Customajry Tenure, vote conferred by, 82. Date of notices of objection, 257, 269. Daventry, appointment as beadsman of, not a ' ' promotion to an office," 20. Declaration, annexed to lodger claim \s prima facie evidence of qualification in the case of ne^o lodger as well as old, 180 ; 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 ujoon it, 305 ; under sec- tion 24 of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, essential for amendment, in list, of description of nature of qualification, 324. Declarations in a consolidated appeal signed by agent, 151, 152, notes, 232, note [h], 297, note (a), 304, note (6). 456 INDEX. Deduction or Allowance from poor rate, 364, 365, and note (a) on 365. Deed by wHcli wife's separate real estate is expressed to be conveyed by ber to ber busband, effect of, in equity, 72, note (a). Description, of qualification in fourtb column may_ be amended by striking out surplusage, 63 ; of occupier's quaUfication (in a borougb) as "bouse," sufficient, altbougb tbere be a list of freebolders as well as a list of occupiers, 230 ; of freebold premises situate in a " street, lane, or otber like i^lace," wbat sufficient, 307 ; of nature of occupier's qualifying property sufficient, witbout stating tbe extent of bis interest, 308 ; of rent- cbarge, wbat sufficient, 319; of qualification as " bouse" may be altered to "dwelling-bouse" under section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.. .320. Devise, of land on trust for sale. See Cestuis que trustenf, College. Disqualification by parocbial relief or insufficient occupa- tion, not an incapacity witbin section 28, sub -section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.. .390. Dissenting Minister, wbetber bolds appointment for life, a question of fact for revising barrister on the evidence, 25 ; wbetber or not bolds appointment for life, principle for determining, 26, note (a). Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, orders of Local Government Board made under. See Boundaries, Frandiise. Duplicate Notice, production of stamped, a sufficient sub- stitute for proof of service, 217, 236, 242 ; production of stamped, duly signed by objector, sufficient evidence of original baving been also signed by bim, 244 ; may be produ.ced by objector bimself, altbougb notice was posted by bis clerk, 260 ; not tbe less a duplicate be- cause it has the word "copy " at the bead of it, 285. Dwelling-house. See Severance, House. Building calculated for, though not used as such, a "bouse" within section 27 of Reform Act, 1832. ..105; an inhabitant occupier of a, witbin 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, is necessarily rateable as an occupier under 43 Eliz. c. 2. ..152 — 157 ; description of INDEX. 457 Dwelling-house — continued. qualification as, may not, without a declaration, be altered to dwelliug-liouses in succession, 324, 325 ; amended description of qualification as, in substitution for "tenement and garden," 326, 328. Earl Leicester's Hospital, bretliren of, not entitled to borougb votes in resjiect of their dwellings, 119. Equity, cases in, relating to yniB's,jus disimnendi o\ev her separate real estate, 71, 72, note («). Estate, Equitable Freehold, when not possessed by cestuis que trustent in respect of land devised on trust for sale, but remaining unsold, 64. Evidence, declaration annexed to lodger claim is prima facie, of qualification, in the case of new as well as old lodger, 180. Excusal. See Poor Rate. Exeter, freeholder of the city of, does not "reside" in Exeter within section 31 of Eeform Act, 1832, if, during part of statutory six months, he is serving articles to a solicitor in London, 174. Exeter Cathedral, residentiary canons of, entitled to city votes in respect of their dwellings, 140, 171. Expense voluntarily incui-red by landlord, when not to be deducted in ascertaining net annual value of freehold, 52. Fact. See Questions of Fact. Farming, a " business " within section 4 of the Companies Act, 1862 .. . 135. Fee Farm Rent, description of, in list of voters, 313. Fellows. See College, College Felhivship. Fines and Eecoveries Act, equitable doctrine as to power of married woman to convey separate real estate by deed not acknowledged under, 72, note (o). Franchise, Municipal, in respect of parts of houses occupied as dwellings, 162. 458 INDEX. Franchise, Parliamentary, may be established by teuant- occupier -(jvitbout proof of landlord's title, 150; under ■vrhat circumstances conferred by a granary, 151 ; beld (before Eedistiibution of Seats Act, 1885) not affected by orders of Local Government Board made under tbe Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876.. 403, 407. Feeehold. See Cestuis que frustent. Fkeehold, Customary, vote conferred by, 8, 19; land in borough occupied with house in same borough, when gives vote for county, 11 ; what an estate of, 16. Fbeemen, right of voting as, 170. Gaol, confinement in, when a break of residence, 128. Granaky, held to be a " building" conferring the franchise within section 27 of the Reform Act, 1832... 151. Guardians, Poor Law. See Parochial Belief. Hospital, inmates of, when may not vote as freeholders, 1, 5, 27, 32; bedesmen of, when may vote as freeholders, 2, 34 ; brethren of, when may not vote as £10 occupiers, 119. House. See Severance. Cannot give vote for both county and borough, 82 ; part of, used as a cowhouse and part as a dwelling for man, 103 ; exclusive occupation of part of, 104, 105, 106, 111, 127; calculated for a dwelling, though not used as such, within section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832.. 105; part of, when occupied as a dwelling-house and when as lodgings, 154, 155, note (a) ; part of, may {semble), for the purposes of the dwelling-house franchise, consist of rooms on different floors, 159, note (o) ; 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 aft'ect status of remaining tenants in relation to the franchise, 160 ; part of, separately occupied, gives muni- cipal vote, although used for a dwelling only, 162 ; quahfication described as, may be altered to " dwelling- house " under section 28, sub-section 12, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.. 320. INDEX. 459 Houses m Succession. See List, Occupation. Incapacity. See Disqualification, Occupation, Parochial Relief. To acquii-e county franchise in respect of premises qualifying for a borough vote not affected by section 28, sub-section 14, of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26. .68. Incorporeax Tenements, section 18 of 2 Will. 4, c. 45, held to apply to, I'd. Incumbent, absence of, when (before 41 Vict. c. 3) a break of residence, 146 — 148. Independence of landlord's control essential for the status of an inhabitant occupier, as tenant, 152 — 157, and note (a) on pp. 154, 155. Industrial Trainee, of workhouse, when entitled to ser- vice franchise, 205. 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.. 109. Interest. See Building Society. On loan secured by mortgage of land, 1 2 ; on mort- gage of several freeholds, apportionable, 16 ; freehold, acquired in respect of estate of uncertain tenure, 16; in land, not created by receipt of stipend paid from revenues derived from land, 29 ; in land devised on trust for sale, when not a freehold estate therein, 64. Irish Peers, who are not members of the House of Com- mons, not entitled to be registered, 386. Jesus Hospital, Eothwell, inmates of, have no freehold interest therein, 1. Joint Stock Company. See Shareholders. 460 l^'DEX. King James' Hospital, Gateshead, younger brethren of, have no equitable interest in land or rent-cbarge by reason of tbe payments to wbich tbey are entitled, 56. Land. See Interest. Owned and occupied witb bouse in borougb, under wbat circumstances beld to entitle to county vote, 1 1 ; was not required to be contiguous to bouse, in order to give vote for borougb under section 27 of Eeform Act, 1832.. 118. Landlord, title of, need not be proved by tenant-occupier, 150; tbe rating of, and repairing by, do not prevent separate occupier, as tenant, of part of bouse (wboUy let out in similar tenancies) from being an inhabitant occu- pier of a dwelling-bouse witbin tbe statutes, 157 ; omis- sion of address of, from new lodger claim, a mistake wbicb revising barrister is not hound to correct, 231. Leasehold, equitable, quaere if sufficient to qualify, 87, note (rt), 90, note (a); sufficiently describes a lease for life, 315. Leicester. See Earl Leicester's Hospital. Lessee, for lives, of part of waste of a manor, wben bas a freehold interest in land demised, 61 ; when interest of, divisible so as to entitle to vote for both county and borough, 86. Life Interest, sufficiency of evidence to prove, a question of fact for revising barrister, 12, 25; equitable, in a term, does not give vote, 86 ; legal, in a term, qucere if sufficient to qualify, 87, note (a). Liskeaed, municipal borough of, properly described as a parish, 298. List, what are not mistakes in a, within section 28, sub- section 1, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.. 231; parochial, to which objection refers, need not be specified in notice of objection to borough voter, 294 ; omission of " par- liamentary " from description of list to which parlia- mentary objector belongs, an amendable mistake, 297 ; may not, in the absence of a declaration, be amended by substituting a successive for a single occupation, 324, 325. Loan. See Building Society. Interest on, when a charge diminishing value of land, 12. Local Government Board. See Boundaries, Franchise. INDEX. 461 Lodger. See New Lodger. Not being rateable under 43 Eliz. c. 2, is not an in- habitant occupier of a dwelling-house within the sta- tutes, notwithstanding that he occupies rooms in a house " separately as a dwelling," 152 — 156; may {semhle)\>Q converted into a tenant by act of landlord, 161, note (o) ; declaration of, annexed to claim is prima, facie evidence of qualification in the case of new lodger as well as old, 180; duty of revising barrister as to unopposed claim of, 181, note (a) ; notice of claim of, part of lodger's qualification to vote, and cannot be waived hj overseers publishing name in Hst of lodgers, 182. Lord Conixgsby's Hospitax, servitors of, have a freehold interest in their tenements, 137, 138. Malmesbuey, right of voting by burgesses of, 168. Manchester Corn Exchange, shareholders in, have no votes in respect of their shares, 31. Married Woman, power of, in equity, to devise and convey separate real estate to husband, 72, 73, note (a). " Medical or Surgical Assistance," meaning of the words in sections 2 and -1 of the Medical Eehef Disquali- fication Eemoval Act, 1885 . . 394. Midwife. See " Medical or Surgical Assistance," Military Service. See Officers, Soldiers. Misdescription. See Declaration. 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.. 300. Mistakes. See List, New Lodger ^ Omission. What are, in a "claim," 231; what are not, in a "Ust," 231. Municipal. See Franchise. Name. See Signature. Objector's, misspelt in list, when need not be adopted by objector in notice of objection, 262. New Lodger, amendment of mistakes in claim of, discre- tionary, 231. Notice in writing of "desire to appeal" {semhle) a con- dition precedent to a case being stated, 441, 442. 462 INDEX. Objection, to freeholder (already on register) cannot be entertained unless stated in notice of objection, 63 ; notice of, when sufficiently states objector's place of abode, 234 ; notice of, mnst of itself give sufficient in- formation of objector's place of abode, without reference to register, 237 ; notice of, to overseers may be sent by post, otherwise than in accordance with the statutory mode, 245 ; separate notice of, need not be given to overseers in respect of each voter objected to, 247 ; notice of, need not be dated the day on which signed, 247 ; notice of (in counties), when essential to em- power barrister to expunge name, 248 ; notice of, to overseers in counties need not specifj' list on which voter's name appears, 249; notice of, to £I2 occupier held bad for not specifying ground or grounds of ob- jection, 249 ; notice of, when may be shown by evi- dence to give requisite information of objector's place of abode, 250 ; original notice of, if produced by voter, available to objector in proof of service, in default of his production of a proper duplicate, 251 ; under a notice of, to third column in freeholders' list in counties, ob- jector may prove property to be such as to give borough vote, 254 ; notice of, must be dated with the year of our Lord, 257, 2G9; notice of, when invalid, although in strict compliance with statutory form, 259, 2S9 ; notice of, must be signed by objector himself, 2G1 ; notice of, to borough voter and to overseers in the City of London, not required (before 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26) to specify list to which objection referred, 263, and note («) ; notice of, when not vitiated by insertion of superfluous words, 264 ; notice of, by freeman, insufficient for not specify- ing list in which his name appeared, 268 ; service of notice of, on parish officer who had not signed list, a good service, 269 ; service of notice of, at voter's qualifying jjremises (not his abode) insufficient, 269 ; service of notice of, at voter's abode, when insufficient, 271 ; service of notice of, at overseer's abode, when suf- ficient, notwithstanding lateness of hour, 272 ; notice of, sent by post (in the statutory mode) not vitiated by the fact of postmaster having received it out of ajipointed hours, 276 ; notice of, to voter, sent by post (in the statutory mode) need not show voter's abode on the face of it, 278 ; notice of, when in- sufficient for not stating list wherein objector's name was to be found, 282 ; 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," 285; withdrawal of, 287, and note (a); notice of, sufficient withoiit specifying in terms the list on I INDEX. 463 Objection — continued. whicli objector's name is to be found, if description be such as to be " commonly understood" to refer to that list, 292 ; notice of (to borougb voter), need not si^ecify the particular parochial list to wliich objection refers, 294 ; need not specify the particular qualification list to which objector belongs, 297 ; not invalidated by omis- sion of "parliamentary" from descrijDtion of list to which parliamentary objector belongs, 297 ; notice of, when amendable by supplj'ing omitted jjlace of abode of objector, 300; notice of, where more than one franchise list, 301 ; in the absence of, revising barrister may not expunge voters on the ground of their receipt of l^arochial relief, or of their insufficient occupation, 390. Occupation, single may be substituted for successive, 323 ; successive may not be substituted for single, without a declaration as to misdescription, 324 ; insufficient, not an incapacity within section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26 . . 390. Occupier. See DiveUing-house, House. As tenant, of dwelling-house does not occupy the same the less exclusivelj^ as such, by reason of his taking in a lodger with whom he shares one of the rooms, 139; as tenant, need not prove landlord's title, 150; of rooms in a house separately as a dwelling is, if rateable, an inhabitant occupier of a dwelling-house — if not rateable, a lodger, 152 — 157, and note (a) on pp. 154, 155. Office. See Beadsmen of Daventry, College Felloivship, Parish Clerk. Officer, public, when does not occupy as owner or tenant, 102. Officers, commissioned and non-commissioned, in the army, entitled to service franchise in respect of their rooms in barracks, 184 — 203. Oldiiam Parish Church, proprietors of pews in, not en- titled to vote in respect thereof, 42. Omission of the word "parliamentary" in describing par- liamentary list to which objector belongs, an amendable mistake, 297. Over-rule, power of court to, previous decisions, 253, note (a). Overseers' "place of transacting parochial business," 293. Owner, when a public officer does not occupy as, 102. 464 INDEX. 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, 212. Parish. See Polling District. Parish Clerk, has no vote in respect of his office, 28 ; nor in respect of ancient burial fee, 28 ; if possessed of free- hold land by virtue of his office, he is within the excep- tion in section IS of Reform Act, 1832 . . 33 ; appointment to office of, need not be by deed, 33. Parish list, to which objection refers, need not be specified in notice of objection to borough voter, 294. Parliamentary. See List, Omission. Parochial relief, excusal from payment of rates, not a receipt of, 378 ; to father, not relief to son, 380 ; receipt of, during qualifying period, not an incapacity within section 28, sub-section 7, of 41 & 42 Yict. c. 26 .. 390 ; where money paid by guardians for work done, con- stitutes, 391. Partnership, members of, when entitled to vote, 3, 120 ; members of illegal, when not entitled to be registered, 135 ; rating of members of, by name of firm, 359. Peers of Parliament not entitled to be registered, 385; Irish peers, when not entitled to be registered, 386. Perpetfal Curate, when entitled to vote in respect of land attached to perpetual curacy, 47. Pews, proprietors of, in Oldham Parish Church, have no freehold interest in soil of the church, 42 ; proprietors of, in St. Mark's Chui'ch, Liverpool, have no freehold in- terest in soil of the church, 48 ; proprietors of, in St. George's Chapel, Stonehouse, have no freehold interest in soil of chapel, 50. 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 . . 393 ; disability of, to vote at parliamentary elections, removed by statute, 394, note {a). Polling District, where parish 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 toivnshiii, notwithstanding sect. 22 of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 58 . . 253. INDEX, 465 Poor Eate, paid by Government on behalf of its servants, 330; paid by landlord on behalf of his tenant, 331, 337 ; what not sufficient evidence of tender of, 335 ; -when a nullity, 338 ; when payable, although not signed by a majority of parish officers, 341 ; proportion of, payable by incoming tenant, 344, and note (c) on pp. 345, 346 ; when "made" and "deemed to be made," within the statutes, 346, and note (a), 351 ; excusal from payment of, 356, 359, note {