1832.

Cheadle, and had resided at Stone. There are se- Northern Division of veral villages and hamlets in Stone, with different Staffordnames. Walton is distinguished from Stone, and shire, is one of those villages. A person residing at Walton, is not usually described in legal instruments, as of Stone. Walton is not a post town, but Stone is. On this evidence it was objected, 1st., That the notice of objection was not signed by the objector; and 2ndly., That if Mr. Hales was to be taken to be the objector, his place of abode was not stated.

Mr. Hales said he made the objection for himself, as a claimant. He had no instructions from Mr. Russell, to make that objection. He had not told any one that these notices were given by Mr. Russell, nor any thing to that effect. He had not received a retainer from Mr. Russell. He was employed by Mr. Meeke.

Mr. Lumley decided that the notice was valid.

notice on

William Bailey was objected to. The notice Service of of objection was served on the claimant, on Sun- Sunday, day the 25th of August.

Mr. Cruso said, that the service of the notice on Sunday, was void; and cited Roberts v. Monkhouse, 8 East, 547; wherein it was decided, that service of a notice of plea filed on a Sunday is void, by 29 Chas. 2, c. 7, § 6; which avoids all process served on that day.

Mr. Gaunt contended, that ministerial acts

1833.

88

NOTICES OF OBJECTION TO COUNTY VOTERS.

Northern might lawfully be executed on Sunday, and this Division of was not a judicial act. In

Stafford

shire,

1832.

support

of the notice, he cited Drury v. Defontaine, 1 Taunt. 131; and Bloxsome v. Williams, 5 D. and R. 82.

The Court decided, that the service of the notice on Sunday was good. (a)

John Millward was objected to. In attempting to prove the service of the notice of objection, it appeared that the notice was put under the claimant's door, before 12 o'clock at night, on the 25th of September, but the witness did not hear the clock strike. The Court decided, that there was not sufficient proof of the service of the notice.

A notice of objection to the name of John Meevis being retained, was served upon John Oxford, who occupied a house under the claimant. It was also proved, that Mr. Fisher occupied "The Holme," part of the land, in right of which the claim was made.

Mr. Lumley thought the notice insufficient: that notice ought to have been served upon both the tenants.

(a) The Court decided, that a claimant transmitting his notice of claim by post, would have until the last moment of the 20th of August, for putting his letter in the office, although the post may have left at an earlier hour of the day;-Manning's Notes of Revision, 112.

Division of

A notice of objection was given to the name Northern of John James being retained in the list of voters Stafford"for the sub-division of Pirchill North, in the shire, county of Stafford," instead of for the sub division

of Pirchill, in the Northern Division of the county of Stafford.

It was objected, that the notice did not comply with the form in the Act.

The Court, on reference to section 54, decided that it was sufficient.

1832.

1833.

authorised

The name of a claimant was expunged in 1832, Berkshire, but continued in the list of 1833 by mistake of Barristers the overseer, who re-published the last year's list, are not with merely an alteration of the date. The over- to expunge seer stated, that the individual had not made any new claim, and was not qualified.

Mr. Corbett considered that he was not authorised to expunge the name, as it had not been objected to.

BOROUGH QUALIFICATIONS.

names not

objected to.

Mr. Keene said the question of residence was City of London, raised by the claim of Mr. Hoggart, which was a 1832. case of some importance. The claimant was Occupancy occupier of a house, at the yearly rental of 2001. and resior 3007., in the parish of St. Gabriel, Fenchurch- § 27, 2 W. street, and had paid all rates for twelve months 4, c. 45. preceding the 31st of July, but had not slept in

dence.

City of London, 1832.

his house for six months previous to that date. Two servants slept in the house. Several cases had been referred to, with a view to determine the nature of the residence required for a qualification. After referring to those cases, in one of which it was laid down that "the word 'resi"dence' denoted the place where a man, or his

66

family and servants, ate, drank, and slept,” the barrister observed that the Court was bound, in the present instance, to decide upon the terms of the Reform Act. By the 27th clause of the Act it was provided, that every person who should occupy any house, warehouse, counting-house, shop, or other building, of the yearly value of 10., should, if duly registered, be entitled to vote for the city or borough in which the house was situated. It was enacted, that a party should not be registered unless he had occupied for twelve months previous to the 31st of July in each year, and had been rated to the poor and assessed taxes, and had paid, by the 20th of July, all such rates and taxes which should have become payable previously to the 6th of April. The Act also provided (and this was the material part, in reference to the present claim), that an individual should not be registered unless he had "resided "for six calendar months next previous to the "last day of July, within the city or borough, or "within the place sharing in the election for the

66

London,

city or borough, in respect of which city, bo- City of "rough, or place, respectively, he should be 1832. "entitled to vote, or within seven statute miles "thereof, or any part thereof." It appeared, therefore, that, in addition to being an occupier for twelve months, and having paid all rates as described, a party must have resided for six calendar months in the way required, in order to entitle him to vote. The Act required actual residence, as well as occupation, and, such being the case, the Court was bound to decide against Mr. Hoggart, who it was not pretended had resided.

Mr. Hoggart thought it was a great hardship to be deprived of his vote, and stated that the opinion of the city law officers was favourable to him.

Mr. Thompson concurred with his learned colleague that the Act required bonâ fide residence, and that the claimant, who was only an occupier, could not vote. (a)

(a) It is not necessary, in order to make a man an occupier, that he should actually sleep, or take his meals, in a house, or that his family should actually dwell in the whole house; but the law considers him, for this purpose, an occupier, if he hold the whole, and, by himself or family, occupy a part. The word occupation of a house implies personal residence: but if a lessee of a house dwell in any part of it, though he let the other part, he, in point of law, is to be considered as occupier of the whole; -Littledale J. Rex. v. Ditcheat, 9 B. and C. 135.