Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

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 to contribute ls. 6d. per week towards his support, the parish bearing what other cost was entailed. Objected, that, as 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. ll.

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 publishing the name in the list of claimants, no objection 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 description 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 fee. farm."

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. 814. B. & A. p. 627.

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, mhen the right of voting "depends on property, it is only necessary to

a

describe the property which gives the qualification, and not its incidents. Where, therefore, a party occupied a house and shop, jointly with another person, Held, That it was not necessary to state the fact of the joint occupation. Daniel and Camplin. Lut. 'I. p. 264. B. & A. 425.

A building, calculated for and once used as a dwelling-house, occupied by a tenant partly for warehousing goods, partly as a sale room, and the up-stairs apartments being used as workshops, is properly described as 6 house" Daniel and Coulsting. Lut. I. p. 230. B. & A. 380.

"Part of a house,” is a sufficient description of the nature of qualification of a borough voter, claiming in respect of the occupation of a portion of a house. Judson and Luckett. Lut. I. p. 490. B. & A. p. 707. See Cook and Humber. K. & G. p. 413.

A lessee was possessed of a leasehold interest for more than sixty years in two houses in Manchester, and previous to the Act of 1867 he had voted for South-east Lancashire, because neither of his tenants being rated at so much as £.10 could vote for the city. Under the Act of 1867, however, the tenants were entitled to vote as householders, and the question was whether the consequence of this was that the lessee's name should be struck off the county list. The revising barrister decided that he had no right to a county vote. The court affirmed the decision of the barrister. C. v. J.

Service of Notice of Claim on the Overseers of a District. The parish of St. M. was divided into four districts, popularly, but improperly, called townships,” each district having an Overseer, who made out a separate list of voters. A Notice of Claim was directed “ to the Overseers of the Township of S. S." Held sufficient, and that service upon one overseer was service upon all the overseers of the parish of St. M. Elliott and The Overseers of St. Mary Within. Lut. I. p. 573.

“ of

Service of Notice of Claim on Sunday. If the 20th of July falls upon a Sunday, service on that day of a Notice of Claim is sufficient. Rawlins and The Overseers of West Derby. Lut. I. p. 373. B. & A. 599.

REGISTER OF VOTERS, The signed lists delivered by the Clerk of the Peace to the Sheriff are the true “ Register of Voters," and lists sold by the Clerk of the Peace, purporting to be copies of the register, are not necessarily copies the register in force." Therefore, where the name of an elector who had signed notices of objection did not appear upon the latter but was upon the former, such notices were good. Brumfitt and Bremner K. & G. p. 352.

Notice OF OBJECTION. orm of. A notice in the following form is a sufficient notice to a person that his vote for the County would be objected to :—“Take notice, that I object to your name being retained on the list of voters for the parish of St. Thomas, New Sarum, in the Southern Division of the County of Wilts.'' Lambert and The Overseers of St. Thomas, New Sarum. Lut. II. p. 222.

Specification of List to which Objection refers. Where in cities and boroughs the Overseers make out two lists of voters, a notice of objection to the Overseers must specify the particular list to which it refers, even when the name of the party objected to appears on one list only. Barton and Ashley. Lut. I. p. 304. B. & A. p.518.

The note at the foot of the Form, No. 8, Schedule B, applies only where the Overseers make out two lists, and does not apply to Form, No. 9. (Forms, Nos. 8 & 9, p. 211.) Therefore, in the City of London, where the Overseers make out one list of voters, and other lists are forined and published, it is not necessary to specify the list to which a notice of objection refers, either to the Overseers or to the party objectisito. Wansey and Perkins (Quigley's case). Lut. I. p. 235. B. & A. p. 386.

Where the Overseers make out two lists, one of 101. rated occupiers, the other of potwallers, a notice of objection in the following form was held sufficient:~" I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote as householders in the election," &c. Allen and House. Lut. I. p. 257. B. & A. p. 415.

When a voter's name is on the 101. rated occupiers' list only, in a city or borough, a notice of objection sufficiently specifies the list by the description, “On the list of persons entitled, under the Reform Act, to vote,” &c. Huggett and Lewis.

K. & G. p. 1. Voter's description in Notice of Objection. A county voter, whose name was inserted in the list for the parish of Pudsey, described his place of abode as of “ Lidget Hill" only, and was so described in a notice of objection : Held, A good notice. Flint and Sharp. K. & G. p. 13.

Where in the body of the notice the voter's Surname and Christian names were substituted for the words "6

your name :" Held, that the notice was in substance according to the form required. Force and Floud. H. & P. vol. I. 56.

p.

Date of Notice of Objection. Notice of objection to the Overseers and to the party objected to, must state the year of our Lord. Beenlen and Hockin. Lut. I. p. 526.

Signature of Objector. An original notice of objection must be signed by the objector himself; and su, likewise, must the duplicate, if the notice be served by post, under the 100 s. of the Registration Act. Toms and Cuming. Lut. I. p. 200. B. & A. p. 347.

To prove that the original duplicate notice sent by the post was signed by the hand of the objector, it is sufficient to sbew that the stamped duplicate notice was so signed by him. Lewis and Roberts. K. & G.

An objector, described upon the register as “William Nickless," signed his notice of objection in his proper name, William Nicholas". Held, A sufficient notice, and that the description was such a misnomer as to be commonly understood. Hinton and Hinton. Lut. I, p. 259. B. & A. p. 421.

p. 402.

case.

Notices of objection were signed by an objector with his usual signature, but the surname was so illegibly written, that an ordinary person unacquainted with the signature could not, by perusing it with ordinary diligence and skill, arrive at any reasonable conclusion what name it was intended to designate. By comparison of the notice, however, with the entry in the register it could be easily understood. Hallam's case. The same, where the post-office stamped duplicate only was produced. Aylan's

Held that the signature was sufficient. Trotter and Walker. K. & G. p. 534.

Ohjector's description in Notice. The place of abode of an objector, as described on the register, was “ Cheltenham” only, while that given in his notice of objection was “ 398, High Street, Cheltenham,” his true place of abode: Held, A sufficient notice. Pruen and Cox. Lut. I p. 304. B. & A. p. 514.

A notice of objection was signed J. F. of 5, Sherborne Street, on the list of voters for the parish of Cheltenham:" Held, That “5, Sherborne Street," in the notice, meant “5, Sherborne Street, Cheltenham," and was sufficient. Sheldon and Flatcher. Lut. II. p. 11.

It is sufficient if the place of abode, given by an objector in his notice, is the same as that given on the register, if it be his true place of abode. Gadsby and Warburton. Lut. I. p. 136. B. & A. p. 272.

A notice of objection, containing the true place of abode of the objector, though differing from that stated in the register, is a good notice. Knowles and Brooking. Lut. I. p. 461. B. & A. p. 755. And Wills and Adey, Lur. I. p. 481. B. & A. p. 782.

An objector, described upon the register as of “St. Woollas," gave his place of abode, in his notice, as “The Oaks,"_"on the register of voters for the parish of St. Woollas”—Held, That the notice and register could not be coupled to supply the true place of abode, and that the notice was therefore insufficient. Woollett and Davis. Lut. I. p. 607.

Where an objector has removed since registration, he must give his true place of abode in his notice of objection, and not that appearing on the register. Melbourne and Greenfield. K. & G. p. 261.

An objector is bound to give in his notice of objection, his true place of abode, if he have two bona fide places of abode he may give either; whether that given in a notice is the true place of abode is a guestion of fact. Courtis and Blight. K. & G. p. 475.

The place of abode of the objector was so written as to be partly illegible (as was also part of his signature), but by a reference to the entry in the register the place intended could be reasonably inferred. Held, a sufficient notice. Sedgwick and Trevor. K. & G. p. 544.

An objector, whose name appeared on the alphabetical list of Freemen of the city of Bristol, and described as “ of the parish of Clifton,” stated, in his notice of objection, that his name was “on the list of voters for the parish of Clifton;" Held, An insufficient notice. Tudball and The Town Clerk of Bristol. Lut. I. p. 7. B. & A. p. 8.

The register of voters for the borough of Lancaster is composed of four separate lists,—three of 101. householders, and one a list of freemen. An objectur, whose name appeared on the list of freemen, described himself as "on the list of voters for the borough of Lancaster :" Held,

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »