c. 57.; and in Rex v. Gosforth (a), that a house and
stable might be joined, though separated at a distance
from each other. In Rex v. Iver (b), where the pauper
rented two houses under one continuous roof, the court
came up to the point at which they had stopped in Rex
v. Macclesfield, and determined that the renting of two
houses did confer a settlement under the 6 G. 4. c. 57.
Finally, in Rex v. Newtown (c) they decided that the
taking of two dwelling-houses, in different parts of the
parish, was sufficient, under the 6 G. 4. c. 57. From
these cases, Mr. Rogers, in his work on Election Law,
draws the following conclusion: "If, under the words,
'a separate and distinct dwelling-house, or building, or
land or both,' two houses may be joined; it would
seem that under 2 W. 4. c. 45. s. 27., which requires
the occupation to be of any house, warehouse,' &c., two
houses, or a house and a warehouse, or any other two
members of the sentence may be joined, to complete
the value." (d) In Webb, app., and The Overseers of
Aston, &c. resp. (e), the point in question was not
argued, and the decision turned upon another ground;
though it may perhaps, incidentally, involve the present
point. Sweetman's case is not very pointed. The deci-
sion in that case seems to have turned upon the suffi-
ciency of the notice of claim. No reliance is to be
placed upon the word "separately" in the twenty-
seventh section of the reform act. It means nothing
more than this, that the house, &c. may be occupied
with or without land; not that it must be a separate or
single house, &c. that is to be occupied. The legis-
lature, at the time of passing that act, evidently had the
old scot and lot right of voting in view.

(a) 1 A. & E. 226., 3 N.

& M. 303.

(d) Page 179., 6th ed.

(e) Ante, Vol. V. p. 14.

(b) Ib. 228., 3 N. & M. 28. (c) Ib. 238., 3 N. & M. 306.

1845.

DEWHURST,
App.
FEILDEN,

Resp.

1845.

DEWHURST,
App.
FEILDEN,
Resp.

Cockburn was not called upon in reply.

The

TINDAL C. J. I think the revising barrister was wrong in the decision he came to in this case. twenty-seventh section of the 2 W. 4. c. 45. gives the right of voting in boroughs to every person who occupies certain premises, either as owner or tenant. The subject matter of such occupation is "any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building." The first observation- and one which lies on the very surface,-is, that these words are all in the singular number, and that it would have been just as easy to have used the plural. But the section does not stop there. The subject matter of the occupation is required to be, "either separately, or jointly with any land within such city or borough, occupied therewith by him the same landlord, of the clear yearly value of not less than 10%." So that if the house or building be not of that value, the amount may be made up by the conjunction of land. The rule expressio unius exclusio est alterius is, I think, applicable here; and I cannot see why the legislature should have provided for the joint occupation of a building and land, and not for that of two different buildings, if it had been intended that the latter should confer the franchise. This view is aided by the form of the list of voters to be published by the overseers, as given in the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18., schedule (B), No. 3, where, in the fourth column, the "number of house (if any)" is required to be stated which points more to a single definite building than to two or more united together. And it may very well be, that the occupier of a 101. house might be considered in a fit condition to exercise the franchise, without its being intended that a party might eke out the value, by joining together several small tenements.

MAULE J. I am of the same opinion. The occupation of a 10%. house was probably intended as a test of the capacity and rank of the party to be entrusted with the franchise. Such a description of persons would be likely to be very different from those who occupied a number of tenements of smaller value. Suppose the legislature had given the franchise to a man who kept a horse of a certain value, taking that as a test of his rank and capacity. It would not have been the same thing if he kept a number of inferior horses to make up the value. I think we should not, in these appeals, involve ourselves with the decisions on settlement cases. We ought to be spared discussions upon the tenement acts, which are not at all upon the same subject as the reform and registration acts. The same reasons are therefore not applicable in the construction of them. In the present case the plain words of the act ought to prevail.

CRESSWELL J. I think the case is really too clear for argument. In the very ingenious argument on the part of the appellant in Webb, app., and The Overseers of Aston, &c., resp., this point was not argued; and it is not probable that it was omitted from any oversight.

ERLE J. I am of the same opinion. The twentyseventh section requires that one building, of a certain value, shall be occupied, in order to obtain the franchise, or land may be joined to the building; but if the land is occupied by the party as tenant, it must be held under the same landlord. It is not every species of land that may be joined to a building for that purpose. It is not correct, therefore, to say that the value alone was the criterion contemplated by the legislature.

Decision reversed. (a)

(a) And see Mann. Prác. in Courts of Revision, 90. 115.

1845.

DEWHURST,
App.
FEILDEN,
Resp.

1845.

Feb. 13.

A. having contracted

for the purchase of B.'s

house for
a valuable

consideration,
sold it to
C., D., E.,
F., G.,
and
H. in equal
shares; and

caused a con-
veyance to be
executed from

B. to the sub

vendees, as tenants in

common. A.

was not

stated to have been a party to the conveyance, the purchase

money was paid to B. by

HILARY VACATION.

City of LICHFIELD.

MARSHALL, Appellant; Bown, Respondent.

CASE.

WILLIAM MARSHALL objected to the name of

John Bown, and to those of five others, being retained on the second list of voters for the parish of St. Michael, in the city of Lichfield. I retained all the names subject to the opinion of this court upon the following case:

The parliamentary borough of the city of Lichfield is a county of itself, and, prior to the passing of stat. 2 W. 4. c. 45., freeholders had the right to vote in the election of members for the said city. In the second list of voters, duly made out by the overseers of the parish of St. Michael in the said city, the following six names appeared:

the hands of A., but was the proper money of the sub-vendees. The house was let, and the sub-vendees received the rents for their own use respectively. The object of A. in proposing the purchase to the sub-vendees, was to increase the number of voters; but the purchase on the part of the sub-vendees was a bonâ fide investment of their money; they expected that the possession of the property would entitle each of them to vote, but there was no understanding before or at the conveyance, that they should vote, or for what party they should vote.

Held, that the conveyance was not void under the 7 & 8 W. 3. c. 25. s. 7., and that the sub-vendees were entitled to be registered.

Quære, if the conveyance would have been void if the increasing the number of voters had been the object of B. in conveying.

(The other five names were inserted with the same qualification.)

Objections were duly made to each of the above names being retained in the said list in respect of the above qualification; and upon their appearing to support their title to have their names retained in the said list, it was proved that the names of Bown and of the other five, were inserted in the said list in respect of the same freehold house in St. John Street, and that they became and were the joint owners of it, under the following circumstances:

Prior to Lady-day 1843, one William Gorton contracted, in his own name, with the then proprietors of the house, for the purchase of it at the price of 2921. 5s. Od.; and having, after such contract, boná fide sold the house to Bown and the five other persons above named in equal shares, he caused a conveyance of it, from his vendors to Bown and the five others, to be prepared by their solicitor. By this conveyance, which was afterwards duly executed by the vendors, the said house was, in consideration of the said sum of 292l. 5s. Od., absolutely conveyed to Bown and the five other persons, to hold to them in undivided sixth parts, as tenants in common, in fee. The purchase money was paid to the vendors by the hands of Gorton, but was the proper money of Born and the five others contributed by them in equal shares. The house was let to a respectable tenant at 15. a year, and was worth, at least, that rent. The object of Gorton in proposing the purchase to Bown and the five others was, to increase the number of the voters for the city of Lichfield; but the purchase on the part of Bown and each of the above named persons, was a bonâ fide investment of their money, which they would not have made unless they had been satisfied with the value of the premises and the income they were to receive from the investment. They also all expected that

1845.

MARSHALL, App.

Bown,

Resp.