« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
Occupation “as Tenant,” or “as Owner.” An officer, in the service of the Government, occupying, as such, a house, rent free, in part remuneration for his services, is a tenant of such house. Hughes and The Overseers of Chatham. Lut. I. p. 51. B. & A. 61.
The Surgeon of Greenwich Hospital is not entitled to be registered, in respect of the occupation of the apartments assigned to him, either as owner or tenant. Dobson and Jones. Lut. I. p. 103. B. & A. 243.
Nor are the Military Knights of Windsor, in respect of their residences. Heartley and Banks. K. G. p. 219.
Nor the Brethren of Leicester Hospital, in respect of their chambers. Heuth and Haynes. K. & G. p. 99.
The lay clerks of Windsor have not the right of voting upon the facts stated in the case, as they do not shew an occupation either as owners or as tenants of the houses they have the option of occupying under their appointments. Bridgewater and Durrant. K. & G. p. 377.
If the occupation is as servant, it is not an occupation as tenant, though rent be paid. The hall-keeper of the Guildhall of B. is a servant of the Corporation, occupying premises belonging to the Corporation, for which he pays no rent, but pays the rates and taxes, residence being necessary to the discharge of his duties. Held, That he did not occupy
Clarke and The Overseers of St. Mary, Bury St. Edmunds. K. & G. p. 90.
Six persons, members of a political association, were joint lessees of a house, for which they alone were liable for the rent. There was no mention in the lease of the purposes for which the premises were to be used, but they were used by all the members of the Association, and the rent and servants' wages were paid out of its common funds. Held, That the lessees occupied the premises as tenants, and that the other members of the association were not in joint occupation of the premises. Luckett and Bright. Lut. I. p. 456. B. & A. p. 737.
A. being the lessee of a house and mill, took into partnership three persons, all of whom resided with A. upon the premises. Each paid one fourth of the expenses, and received one fourth of the profits, the rent to the lessor being paid out of the partnership funds. Held, That each was entitled to be registered in respect of the occupation, as tenant, of one undivided fourth part of the premises. Rogers and Harvey. K. & G. p. 169.
The Rating of Lodgers. A house in Queen-street, Sunderland, contains six rooms, and each room is letto a separate tenant. Neither the landlord nor any one representing bim resides on the premises. Previonsly to the passing of the Reform Act of 1867, the owner paid all rates ; but since then the overseers have rated each occupier separately. The question was, whether this was right, and it depended upon the construction of the seventh section of the Act, which is in effect that where any dwelling. house or tenement shall be wholly let out in apartments or lodgings, not separately rated, then the owner shall be rated. The court unanimously held that the occupiers were not entitled to be severally rated, and that the rate should be made out in the name of the landlord.
The Claims of Women to Vote. The revising barrister had expunged the names of 5,346 female claimants from the list, and the leading counsel for the appellant, contended that women had a right to the franchise, which they exercised in ancient times, and which modern legislatiou had not taken from them. The Lord Chief Justice and the other juilges delivered separate judgments, and they all agreed that there was not sufficient authority for saying that by the common law women had had a right to vote for menibers of Parliament. In his (the Chief Justice's) opinion, the Reform Act of 1867, in saying that men should vote although considered in conjunction with Sir John Romilly's Act, did not entitle women to vote. The term men in the Reform Act did not include women : and even if it did, then women would come wiihin the term “ incapacitated.” The decision of the revising barrister refusing the vote should be affirmed. Mr Justice Byles said that he hoped that their unanimous decision, coupled with the unanimous decision of the Court of Session in Scotland, would for ever exercise and lay this ghost of a doubt which ought never to have risen.
Holding under the same Landlord. The landlord of premises, demised from year to year to the claimant, during the demise, and before the 31st of July, sells a part of them to a
This does not destroy the claimant's right to vote, as holding under the same landlord during the period required. Smerdon and Tucker. K. & G. p. 305.
Meaning of “ Other Building." A room in a factory, being a distinct and separate portion thereof, is a building," within the meaning of the statute 2nd William IV., cap. 45. Wright and The Town Clerk of Stockport. Lut. I. p. 32. B. & A. p. 39. Šo, also, two rooms in a house, over which the occupier had exclusive control. Toms and Luckett. Lut. II. p. 19.
A cow-house, substantially built of stone, with a tiled roof, having a door, with lock and key, and suitable for the purposes for which it is used, is a building within the meaning of the words, “other building.” Whitmore and Town Clerk of Wenlock. Lut. I. p. 10.
A building, containing a ground floor used as a cow-house, and an upper chamber, having a fire-place and a window, furnished with a bed and chairs where a party resided and slept, is a “house" within the statute. Nunn and Denton. Lut. I. p. 178. B. & A. p. 324.
A shed, standing against the wooden paling of a wharf, but not fastened thereto, having a tarpauling roof supported by six posts put into the ground, and one of its sides boarded up, used for putting barrows, boops, &c. into, is a " building." Watson and Cottull. Lut. II. p. 53.
A claimant cannot join together two separate buildings, in order to make up the value required to confer a vote for a city or borough under the 27th section of the Reform Act. Dewhurst and Fielden. Lut. S. p. 274. B. & A. p. 439.
A house and shop, not within the same curtilage, cannot be joined together so as to make one entire qualification. Powell and Price. Lut. I. p. 586.
A two-stalled stable with hay-loft over, annexed to which but at a lower elevation, is another brick building, to which again is annexed å wooden building divided into three compartments, all wbieh, and the two brick buildings, open into the same yard, form one continuous structure under the same roof, and, therefore, constitute a building." Pownall and Dawson. Lut. II. p. 177. See also Joliffe and Rice. Lut II. p. 90.
Part of a house without any actual severance used and occupied as id residence does not confer a title to vote, as the subject of the oceupation is not “ a house," but only " part of a house.” Cook and Humber. K. & G. p. 413, and Wilson and Roberts, K. & G. p. 340.
Where the facts shewed an “actual severance,” the premises constitated
a house" within the meaning of the Reform Act. Henrette and Booth, H. & P. vol. I. p. 23.
Building, and Land occupied " therewith." “ Therewith” refers to time and not to locality. Consequently, land at a distance from a building, if both be occupied during the qualifying period, by the same person as owner, or as tenant under the same land. lord, may be valued with the building for the purpose of making up & borough qualification. Collins and Tewkesbury. Lut. II. p. 217.
“ Clear yeurly value." Whether premises are of the “clear yearly value of £.10” is a question of fact for the determination of the Revising Barrister. Per Erle, J. the fair principle in ascertaining the value is to inquire what the premises would let for to a tenant, and deduct therefrom what a tenant would ordinarily have to pay. Coogan and Luckett. Lut. I. p. 447. B. & A. p. 716.
The fair annual rent of premises is the proper criterion of their “clear yearly value," without making any deductions for landlord's repairs or insurance. Colville and Wood. Lut. I. p. 483. B. & A. p. 721.
Residing within seven miles. A freeman resided with his wife and family, and carried on business at Gloucester, more than seven miles from Tewkesbury, but in order to obtain a vote for the borough, he paid 9d. per week for the use of a furnished bedroom and a closet at a friend's bouse at Tewkesbury. He had the key between January and Jnly, during which time he slept in the bedroom twelve times, and in the course of the year between fifteen and twenty times, but he never took his meals in the house, except as a guest. Held, That he had not resided in Tewkesbury within the meaning of the statute. Whithorn and Thomas. Lut. I. p. 125. B. & A. p. 259.
Place of abode no part of qualification. The place of abode of a voter is no part of his qualification. Per Maule, J.-Luckett and Knowles. Lut. I. p. 451. B. & A: 370.
Parochial Relief. A Freeman excused from payment of poor rate on the ground of poverty, is not disqualified as having received parochial relief or alms, within the meaning of the 36th section of the Reform Act. Mashiter and Town Clerk of Lancaster. Lut. II. p. 113.
M. S., on the list of voters for the borough of Northallerton, was called upon to shew cause before the Board of Guardians why he should not be ordered to maintain his father, a pauper in the workhouse, and he arranged 10 contribute Is. 6d. per week towards his support, the parish bearing what other cost was entailed. Objected, that, is the son was legally bound to maintain his father, the cost borne by the parish was
parochial relief” to the son. The Revising Barrister held that the voter was not disqualified by the provisions of the 36th section of the Reform Act, and the Court confirmed the decision, without argument.Trotter and Trevor. K. & G. p. 531.
To take the benefits of an Incorporated Charity as one entitled permanently to share in its revenues and advantages, is not a receiving of alms so as to disqualify from voting. Smith and Hall. H. & P. vol. I. p. 11.
Freemen and Liverymen of London. Freemen and Liverymen of the City of London admitted to their freedom by purchase since the 1st of March, 1831, are entitled to be registered, notwithstanding the proviso in the 32nd section of the Reform Act, which applies only to Burgesses or Freemen in other cities or boroughs. Croucher and Browne. Lut. I. p. 388. B. & A. p. 621.
Voters in respect of reserved rights of voting. To entitle a person to vote as an inhabitant householder, potwaller, or scot and lot voter under the Reform Act, he must retain the identical qualification which he had when that statute passed. Jeffrey and Kitchener. Lut. I. p. 210. B. & A. p. 359.
III. ON THE REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS.
Notice of Claim,-Signature of Claimant. A notice of claim need not necessarily bear the personal signature of the claimant, if it be signed in his name; and should the Overseers accept the notice, by ablishing the name in the list of claimants, no objectiori can be raised before the Revising Barrister as to the validity of the notice. Davis and Hopkins. K. & G. p. 118.
Signature of Overseers to List. A list duly made by the Overseers and delivered to the Revising Barrister, but not signed by all, or a majority, of the Overseers, is not invalidated by such want of signature. Morgan and Parry. K. & G. p. 57.
Voter's descı iption in Lists. A qualification in respect of the fifty-first part of a fee-farm rent is sufficiently described in the third column by the words “freehold feefarm.” Cooper and Ashfield. K. & G. p. 200.
Whether the description of a qualification in the register is sufficient for the purpose of being identified, is a question of fact for the determination of the Revising Barrister, and his decision thereon conclusive. Wood and Overseers of Willesden. Lut. I. p. 314. B. & A. p. 527.
A claimant, having no fixed place of abode, and for several years having been travelling abroad, stated his “place of abode” as “ travelling abroad :" Held sufficient. Walker and Payne. Lut. I. p. 324. B. & A. p. 541.
The place of abode of a voter is no part of his qualification, and can be amended by the Revising Barrister under the 40th section of the Registration Act. Borough Case. Luckett and Knowles.
Lut. I. p. 451. B. & A. p. 730.
The nature of a qualification described as “ £.50 occupier,” should have been corrected by the Revising Barrister to "farm as occupier," and the claimant's name not expunged from the list. Howitt and Stephens. K. & G. p. 183.
The qualification of W. B., the occupier of a farm for which he was liable to a rent of £.50, was described in the register as “tenant" only. Held, that the Revising Barrister had power to correct the description, as the word “tenant" sufficiently pointed out the class of qualification intended. Birks and Allison. K. & G. 507.
The word “or," in the heading to the fourth column of a notice of claim is disjunctive, and creates three different descriptions ; in giving the situation of a qualifying property it is sufficient that it be brought within any one of them, viz. “If the house is situate in a street, lane, or other like place, the street or lane should be mentioned, and if the houses are numbered, the number also should be given ; but that if the house and premises are not in a street or lane, or other like place, but in a road, or on a common, or the like, then the name of the property should be given, if known by any, or the name of the occupying tenant." Eckersley and Barker. Lut. I. p. 190. B. & A. p. 334.
A county voter whose right to vote depends upon the successive occupation of land, must send in a new claim describing the lands occupied in immediate succession. A. was described on the register as the “ occupier of land above £.50,”—“own occupation;" within the qualifying period he changed his occupation for other land within the same parish: Held, That he did not retain the same qualification. Burton and Grey. Lut. II. p. 4.
When the qualification is in respect of the occupation of two houses in immediate succession, the situation of both must be set forth in the list. The Barrister cannot supply an omission herein under the 40th section. Bartlett and Gibbs. Lut. I. p. 73. B. & A. p. 98 ; and Onions and Bowdler. Lut. II. . 59.
If the houses occupied in immediate succession be numbered the numbers must be given. Per Erle, J. That if the numbers had been supplied the Barrister ought to have inserted them. Flounders and Donner. Lut. I. p. 365.
Where a borough qualification was in respect of the occupation of two houses in succession, and described in the third column as "house,” the situation of both the houses being given in the fourth, it was held to be a sufficient description, or, at all events, one that the Revising Barrister could correct to "houses occupied in immediate succession." Hitchins and Brown. Lut. I. p. 328. B. & A. p. 545.
In stating the nature of a voter's qualification in a city or borough, when the right of voting depends on property, it is only necessary to