Gambar halaman

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 a“ 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 “. the Overseers of the Township of 8. 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. Lur. I. p. 573.



[ocr errors]

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 “ of 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. Form 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 l.ondon, where the Overseers make out one list of voters and other lists are formed 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 objected to. Wansey and Perkins (Quigley's case). Lut. I. p. 235. B. & A. p. 356.

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:~" 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. p. 56.

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. Lur. 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.

p. 402.

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.


[ocr errors]


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. & 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 (5 398, 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 ame as that given 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. Lut. 1. 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 question 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,



insufficient, and that the defect was not such an “inaccurate description as to come within 101st section. Edsworth and Farrer. Lut. I. p. 517.

An objector on the “ list of freemen entitled to vote in the election of Members for the city of Carlisle,” described himself, in his notice, as being on the list of voters for the city” only. It was objected, that as there was also a list, called the Freemen's roll for the city, used for municipal purposes, the notice was insufficient. Held, That the notice sufficiently complied with the requirements of the statute. Fedàon and Sawyers. Lut. II. p. 246.

In the borough of Bedford two lists are made out for the parish of St. Paul—“The €.10 List, or New Qualification List,” and “The Reserved “ Right List.” An objector, whose name appeared on the .10 List, described himself in a notice of objection as “ on the list of voters for “ the parish of St. Paul.Held to be sufficient, " as he claims to be on " the list of voters in respect of a parish qualification.” Samuel and Hitchmough. K. & G. p. 522.

Where at Kidderminster there were separate lists with distinctive names and Overseers for distinct parts of the borough, and the objector described hiinself as “ on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the Borough of Kidderminster in respect of property occupied within the Parish of Kidderminster.Held, an invalid notice. Crowther and Bradney. H. & P. vol. 1. 63.

An objector described himself simply as “of Bony Cwryg," and the barrister held that the notice was bad on the face of it, and that it could not be made good by evidence or the fact that under the particular circumstance the notice gave sufficient information as to the objector's address. The Court beld that they could not say that the notice was bad on the face of it, especially as it might be implied from the case that it gave sufficient information. J. v. B.

In a consolidated appeal from Lancashire, the question was raised whether, when objecting to a county vote, it must be stated in the notice, which was the list wbich it was objected to the same being on. The barrister held that this was not necessary, and he struck out the names objected to. T'he decision of the barrister confirmed. C. v. J.

A name was inserted in the list of £.12 occupiers in respect of a house occupied in Derby Road, in the Liverpool district of Lancashire. The appellant gave him the following notice :—“I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on the South-West Division of the County of Lancaster." On behalf of the claimant it was contended that the notice was bad because it did not set out the ground of objection. On the other side it was argued that it was only the old voters already upon the register who were entitled to a notice of the nature of the objection taken ; but that the £.12 occupiers who were placed on the list under the act of 1867 were there in the nature of * claimants” only; and that as to them a general notice not stating the nature of the objection was sufficient. The barrister decided that the general notice was not sufficient, and he retained the name on the list. This was the decision now appealed against. The Lord Chief Justice said he was of opinion that the revising barrister was right in holding that the general notice was insufficient, inasmuch as the ground of objection was not specifically stated. By the Registration Act of 1805 persons


on the register were entitled to have the objections against them specifically stated, and the only exception to this rule was in the case of persons described as “claimants.” Looking at the general scope of the enactments upon this subject, it seemed to him that the appellant could not be considered to be a “claimant,” and therefore he was entitled to have the objection against him specifically stated. B. v. B.

Service of Notice of Objection. A notice of objection to a county voter, addressed to “ The Overseers of the Parish or Township of Bethersden," was duly received by post and published by the Overseers: Held, To be a good notice without naming the county according to the directions of the 101st section. Jones and Innons. K. & G. p. 21; and Goodsell and Innons. K. & G. p. 24.

Service of a notice of objection upon one of the Overseers who had not signed the list, is a sufficient service upon all the Overseers of the parish. Beenlen and Hockin. Lut. I. p.

526. Service upon an Assistant Overseer, though he did not sign or take any part in making out the lists, is sufficient, if appointed to perform all the duties of an Overseer. Points and Attwood. Lut. II. p. 177.

If the Overseers publish the name of a person objected to against whom they had received a notice of objection, must be assumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary, that the notice was received in due time. Goodsell and Innons. K. & G. p. 25.

An agent on behalf of an objector went to a voter's place of abode as described in the list, between nine and ten o'clock in the evening of the 25th of August, but being unsuccessful in his endeavours to make himself heard, he left the notice inside the door of the house. The Revising Barrister considered the service to be sufficient. Held, That the sufficiency of service of a notice is a question of fact for the Revising Barrister. Watson and Pitt. Lut. II. p. 73.

Post-Office service of Notice of Objection. A notice of objection sent by the post under the provisions of the 100th section of the 6th Vic. cap. 18, must have an "address" on the face, and a " direction” on the back, and the “ duplicate” must correspond with the original in every particular required. Birch and Edwards. Lut. II. p. 37.

But where a notice and duplicate to a borough voter had no address on the face, but was directed on the back, it was held to be a sufficient notice. Barclay and Parrott. K. & G. p. 59.

A notice of objection was delivered open and in duplicate to a managing clerk at the post-office, and not to the post-master : Held, Sufficient service, and that a clerk to the post-master might execute all the duties of the post-master under the 100th section. Allan and Waterhouse. Lut. I. p. 92.

Cooper and Coutes. B. & A. p. 229. If the post-master chose to receive a notice of objection after the hours appointed by the regulations of the post-office, and to go through the rest of the forms required, service of such notice is not thereby invalidated. Hannaford and Whiteway. K. & G. p. 65.

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »