COLTMAN J. concurred. 1844. The ordi SIMPSON, MAULE J. I am of the same opinion. nances of 1597 were made, it appears, before the 39 Elix. c. 5. In these ordinances "the feoffees" are mentioned. We may fairly presume that the hospital was endowed by a licence from the Crown. Lord Burleigh, it is to be observed, would not have had much. difficulty in getting such a licence. The only question in the case is, whether these bedesmen have an equitable estate. (a) I think they have; as they are not liable to arbitrary amotion. (b) ERLE J. concurred. Hildyard applied for costs. MAULE J. I think it is a case for costs, upon the ground that the successful party ought always to have his costs, unless there be some particular reason to prevent it. TINDAL C. J. It seems to me that this was a reasonable case for argument, and therefore that costs ought not to be given. App. WILKINSON, Resp. 1844. Nov. 21. A building, and stable, and the upper part, consist Borough of BURY ST. EDMUNDS. GEORGE NUNN, Appellant; and WILLIAM DEN- THE CASE. HE respondent's name appeared in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the borough of Bury, in respect of the occupation of property in the parish of St. Mary, as follows: Christian Name Place of Abode. Nature of Name of Street, &c. where situate. ing of a properly described as a house, within the 2 W. 4. c. 45. s. 27. The court refused to allow an objection to be argued which had not been raised before the revising barrister. Semble, that the revising barris The respondent also duly claimed to be inserted in the said list, in respect of the occupation of the same property, as follows: The respondent, who was duly objected to in both cases by the appellant, appeared in support of his claim to be retained, or to be inserted, in the said list. At Michaelmas 1838, the respondent and John ter has power Frederick Denton, Henry John Hasted, and John Thomas Ord, jointly hired a piece of pasture land in the said parish, for seven years, at a rent of 637. per annum. to amend a notice of claim. (a) (a) Vide tamen, 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18. s. 40. Shortly afterwards they erected a building on the said land at an expense of 45.; the building was substantially built of brick and stone, with a tiled roof. The lower part consisted of a cowhouse and stable; over the stable was a chamber about twelve feet square, in which were a fireplace and window. There was a staircase from the stable to the chamber; and the only entrance to the building was by folding doors, opening into the cowhouse. The chamber was furnished with a bed and chairs by the respondent and his co-lessees. The pasture was used for taking in the cattle of persons in the neighbourhood to agist, at a certain price per head per week. Some cattle belonging to the respondent were also agisted there. When the parties hired the land, they employed a person named Clarke to collect the money paid for agistment; and it was arranged between them that Clarke should find some person to reside in the building in question to keep the keys of the gate of the pasture, and look after the cattle, he, Clarke, residing too far off to do so himself. Clarke accordingly put his brother-in-law, Betts, into the building; he maintained Betts, but paid him no wages. Betts resided and slept in the chamber in the building, kept the key of the gate of the pasture, looked after the cattle, and occasionally received the agistment money. The lower part of the building was sometimes used by the cattle when ill; the cows were occasionally milked there; and the respondent and some of his co-lessees, put their horses in the stable. Each of the four lessees had a key to the doors of the building. The building was suitable for the purposes for which it was used; it was conveniently placed for the occupation of the pasture; and it was necessary that some person should reside on, or near to the gate of, the pasture, to look after the cattle, and to prevent the owners from taking them away without paying for the agistment. 1844. NUNN, App. DENTON, Resp. 1844. NUNN, App. DENTON, Resp. The building continued in the same state until December 1843, when part of the stable was converted into a room having a fireplace, with a door opening into the pasture; and Betts continued to reside in the building, and the pasture was occupied, as before. The respondent was duly qualified to vote for the said borough, subject to the questions hereinafter mentioned. I expunged his name from the list of voters, in respect of the qualification "Building and land," on the ground that the building was a house, and should have been so described. And I inserted his name in respect of his qualification "House and land," as claimed by him. If the court are of opinion that the said building and land were not occupied by the respondent and his co-lessees, within the twenty-seventh section of the 2 W. 4. c. 45., the register is to be amended by expunging the name of the respondent therefrom. If the court are of opinion that the building and land were occupied by the respondent and his co-lessees, and that his qualification was properly described as "building and land," the register is to be amended by expunging the name of the respondent in respect of the qualification "house and land," and inserting his name as it originally stood on the list in respect of the qualification “building and land." If the court are of opinion that the building and land were occupied by the respondent and his co-lessees, and that his qualification was properly described in his claim as "house and land;" the register is not to be amended. The cases of Hasted and Ord were consolidated with the principal case. Manning Serjt. for the appellant. Three questions have been submitted by the revising barrister for the opinion of the court; but he had no authority to submit any particular questions. The only question with which the court has to deal is, whether the building mentioned in the case is to be considered as being a "building," within the meaning of the twenty-seventh section of the reform act, or whether it did not cease to exist as a building in December 1843, and then become a "house." Under that section a party is required to occupy a house, or some building other than a house, for twelve months. The clause as to successive occupations (a) does not apply to this case; nor is there, indeed, any statement or claim in respect of successive occupation. The court has decided that a substantial agricultural erection, held with land, is sufficient to confer the franchise (b); but that was because it came within the term "building;" it was not considered to be a "house." [Maule J. Are we not bound to presume, in favour of the decision, that every thing existed which should induce the revising barrister to hold as he has done, that the building in question was a house? Why should not a house consist of a chamber, and a cowhouse under it? Tindal C. J. Was it not a house, if a man was put in for the purpose of sleeping there?] There was no sufficient occupation to make it a house. The party put in was a mere agent to receive agistment money, not a domestic servant. [Maule J. Will not an occupation by a non-domestic servant be sufficient?] It is submitted that it will not. [Erle J. Are you not confounding residence with occupation? Tindal C. J. The occupation of the land was by agisting it, of the house, by putting a person in to receive the money. In the case of a mews or stable, with rooms above, the occupation of the servant would be that of the master. Coliman J. If a man were put into a cottage as a Bedford, resp. Ante, Vol. V. (a) 2 Will. 4. c. 45. s. 28. 1844. NUNN, App. DENTON, Resp. |