time need only be fixed so as to allow every person qualified to tender and record his vote, without any reference as to what may be done by persons not already qualified. It is no part of the purpose for which a poll is demanded, that it should give time for the payment of the rates, but only to allow persons already qualified sufficient time to tender and record their votes. The question is, was the time sufficient to allow all persons qualified to vote?" The learned judge thought that sufficient time had been allowed, and consequently that the rate was valid. Time of Polling according to a Custom.] In R. v. The Commissary of Winchester, (7 East, 574) it was held, that where there is a custom to determine the period of polling, the custom must be abided by, provided such a time be reasonable. It was also said that the electors cannot abridge the time. It is conceived, however, that few ancient customs, though reasonable at the time they were established, would suit the increased numbers of some of our populous parishes. Elections by show of Hands.] Election by show of hands is a rude and imperfect mode of election; and where two or more candidates are put up together, such a mode of election is impracticable and illegal. (Cowp. 539.) In Campbell v. Maund, (1 Nev. & Per. 564) Alderson, B., said, "It appears that Maund and Hobbs were put up together, and Goodhind and Hill together, suppose a person to be desirous to vote for Hobbs and Goodhind he could not do it, whereas by a poll he could. So also a show of hands would be no criterion of the number of votes under 58 Geo. 3, c. 69, which gives to voters a plurality of votes in proportion to the amount of their assessment. (7 Ad. and Ell. 259.) An election by show of hands alone, therefore, is necessarily inconsistent with the allowance of a plurality of votes in any one person. (1 Nev. and Per. 571, and vide 2 Nev. and Mann. 464.) Poll without a show of Hands.] It is no valid objection to the proceedings at an election that the chairman directed a poll without first taking a show of hands, although a show of hands was demanded, and a poll not demanded, but objected to. (7 Ad. and Ell. 254.) Persons not present at show of Hands may Vote at a Poll.] Nor is there any objection to a person not present at the show of hands voting afterwards, if a poll be granted. (5 *Ad. and Ell. 874.)* WILLS. WITH regard to wills made subsequenly to the 1st of January, 1838, it is enacted by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, that "no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing, and executed in manner hereafter mentioned, that is to say, it shall be signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator, or by some other person in his presence, and by his direction; and such signature shall be made, or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and such witnesses shall attest and subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary. * Roger's Ecclesiastical Law. A very valuable publication.-Ed. C. M. By s. 13. Every will executed in manner hereinbefore mentioned shall be valid, without any other publication thereof. By the statute of frauds, (29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 5) it was not required that the will should be signed "at the foot or end of the same," but it was only generally required that the signature of the testator should be "made" in the presence of witnesses; the late statute requires that it shall be made " or acknowledged" in the presence of witnesses present at the same time. Almost immediately after the statute of frauds, it was decided that where a man wrote a will with his own hand, and his name appeared in it written by himself, it was a sufficient signing within the statute, whether the name appeared at the top or bottom, or any other part of the will; since the statute 29 Car. 2, c. 3, had not appropriated any particular place in the will for that purpose. (3 Lev. 1; Freem. 538; 9 Ves. 248.) But now the signature must be "at the foot or end." Sealing is not a sufficient signing. (1 Wils. 313; 2 Ves. sen. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 11.) But a mark is a sufficient signing, whether the person, making his mark, can write or not. (8 Ad. and Ell. 94.) Execution of a codicil, which is on the same sheet of paper with the will, referring to and confirming it, has been considered as a sufficient execution of the whole. (16 Ves. 167; and vide 2 B. and B. 650.) Where the will is written on separate sheets, each must be signed; a signature of the two first sheets is insufficient, especially if there was an intention that the whole should be signed. (Doug. 241.) But where the will was written on one sheet only, the last page of which was signed and attested, it was held sufficient, although the will itself stated that the testator had signed the two first sides, which, however, had not been done. (2 Brod. and Bing. 650.) 66 It was held, under the statute of frauds, that it was not necessary for the testator actually to sign his will in the presence of witnesses, (3 P. Wms. 254; 2 Tyrw. 73) therefore it was held sufficient for the testator to own his signature in their presence; (ib.; 1 Ves. and Bea. 362, and the cases there cited; 2 Ves. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 10; 8 Ves. 504; 18 Ves. 183) and it is expressly provided by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, that acknowledging shall be sufficient ;" it was also held, under the statute of frauds, that the witnesses need not be present at the same time, when either the testator signed or owned his signature; thus, where a devisor published his will in the presence of two witnesses, who attested it in his presence, and some time after sent for a third, and again published it in his presence, the attestation was held to be sufficient; (contrà, 1 P. Wms. 740) this doctrine was established in conformity to the weight of authority, though it seems unwillingly. (1 Ves. jun. 14; vide also Prec. Chan. 184; 3 Burr. 1773; 1 Ves. and B. 362.) But the statute, (1 Vict. c. 26) as to future wills, requires that the signature of the testator "shall be made or acknowledged by the testator, in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time.” The words in the recent statute * as to the attestation, are the same as those in the earlier statute; it is not necessary that a devisor should * Both statutes in this have adopted the rule of the civil law, as reformed by the Code in the Novels. (Gilb. Rep. 261.) time need only be fixed so as to allow every person qualified to tender and record his vote, without any reference as to what may be done by persons not already qualified. It is no part of the purpose for which a poll is demanded, that it should give time for the payment of the rates, but only to allow persons already qualified sufficient time to tender and record their votes. Tne question is, was the time sufficient to allow all persons qualified to vote?" The learned judge thought that sufficient time had been allowed, and consequently that the rate was valid. Time of Polling according to a Custom.] In R. v. The Commissary of Winchester, (7 East, 574) it was held, that where there is a custom to determine the period of polling, the custom must be abided by, provided such a time be reasonable. It was also said that the electors cannot abridge the time. It is conceived, however, that few ancient customs, though reasonable at the time they were established, would suit the increased numbers of some of our populous parishes. Elections by show of Hands.] Election by show of hands is a rude and imperfect mode of election; and where two or more candidates are put up together, such a mode of election is impracticable and illegal. (Cowp. 539.) In Campbell v. Maund, (1 Nev. & Per. 564) Alderson, B., said, "It appears that Maund and Hobbs were put up together, and Goodhind and Hill together, suppose a person to be desirous to vote for Hobbs and Goodhind he could not do it, whereas by a poll he could. So also a show of hands would be no criterion of the number of votes under 58 Geo. 3, c. 69, which gives to voters a plurality of votes in proportion to the amount of their assessment. (7 Ad. and Ell. 259.) An election by show of hands alone, therefore, is necessarily inconsistent with the allowance of a plurality of votes in any one person. (1 Nev. and Per. 571, and vide 2 Nev. and Mann. 464.) Poll without a show of Hands.] It is no valid objection to the proceedings at an election that the chairman directed a poll without first taking a show of hands, although a show of hands was demanded, and a poll not demanded, but objected to. (7 Ad. and Ell. 254.) Persons not present at show of Hands may Vote at a Poll.] Nor is there any objection to a person not present at the show of hands voting afterwards, if a poll be granted. (5 ̊Ad. and Ell. 874.)* WILLS. WITH regard to wills made subsequenly to the 1st of January, 1838, it is enacted by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, that "no will shall be valid unless it shall be in writing, and executed in manner hereafter mentioned, that is to say, it shall be signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator, or by some other person in his presence, and by his direction; and such signature shall be made, or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, and such witnesses shall attest and subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation shall be necessary. * Roger's Ecclesiastical Law. A very valuable publication.—Ed. C. M. By s. 13. Every will executed in manner hereinbefore mentioned shall be valid, without any other publication thereof. By the statute of frauds, (29 Car. 2, c. 3, s. 5) it was not required that the will should be signed "at the foot or end of the same," but it was only generally required that the signature of the testator should be "made" in the presence of witnesses; the late statute requires that it shall be made or acknowledged" in the presence of witnesses present at the same time. " Almost immediately after the statute of frauds, it was decided that where a man wrote a will with his own hand, and his name appeared in it written by himself, it was a sufficient signing within the statute, whether the name appeared at the top or bottom, or any other part of the will; since the statute 29 Car. 2, c. 3, had not appropriated any particular place in the will for that purpose. (3 Lev. 1; Freem. 538; 9 Ves. 248.) But now the signature must be "at the foot or end." Sealing is not a sufficient signing. (1 Wils. 313; 2 Ves. sen. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 11.) But a mark is a sufficient signing, whether the making his mark, can write or not. (8 Ad. and Ell. 94.) person, Execution of a codicil, which is on the same sheet of paper with the will, referring to and confirming it, has been considered as a sufficient execution of the whole. (16 Ves. 167; and vide 2 B. and B. 650.) Where the will is written on separate sheets, each must be signed; a signature of the two first sheets is insufficient, especially if there was an intention that the whole should be signed. (Doug. 241.) But where the will was written on one sheet only, the last page of which was signed and attested, it was held sufficient, although the will itself stated that the testator had signed the two first sides, which, however, had not been done. (2 Brod, and Bing. 650.) 66 It was held, under the statute of frauds, that it was not necessary for the testator actually to sign his will in the presence of witnesses, (3 P. Wms. 254; 2 Tyrw. 73) therefore it was held sufficient for the testator to own his signature in their presence; (ib.; 1 Ves. and Bea. 362, and the cases there cited; 2 Ves. 454; 1 Ves. jun. 10; 8 Ves. 504; 18 Ves. 183) and it is expressly provided by 1 Vict. c. 26, s. 9, that acknowledging shall be sufficient ;" it was also held, under the statute of frauds, that the witnesses need not be present at the same time, when either the testator signed or owned his signature; thus, where a devisor published his will in the presence of two witnesses, who attested it in his presence, and some time after sent for a third, and again published it in his presence, the attestation was held to be sufficient; (contrà, 1 P. Wms. 740) this doctrine was established in conformity to the weight of authority, though it seems unwillingly. (1 Ves. jun. 14; vide also Prec. Chan. 184; 3 Burr. 1773; 1 Ves. and B. 362.) But the statute, (1 Vict. c. 26) as to future wills, requires that the signature of the testator "shall be made or acknowledged by the testator, in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time." * The words in the recent statute as to the attestation, are the same as those in the earlier statute; it is not necessary that a devisor should * Both statutes in this have adopted the rule of the civil law, as reformed by the Code in the Novels. (Gilb. Rep. 261.) be consecrated without the consent of the incumbent. (Carr. v. Marsh, Phill. R. ii. p. 201.) The performance of baptism, marriage, and burials, in a chapel, existing from time immemorial, might possibly be presumptive evidence of consecration and of a composition; aliter, as to the chapel, the origin of which is ascertained. (Moysey v. Hillcoat, Hagg. R. ii. p. 50.) The herbage of a chapel-yard, and the lopping of trees in it, by law belong to the incumbent. If a person be proceeded against for cutting down timber, under 35 Ed. I., it must be by indictment at common law. (Cox v. Ricraft, Lee's R. ii. p. 373.) 66 CHANCELLOR, as now understood, includes the two offices of "official principal," and "vicar general." He is an ordinary. The proper work of an official" is, to hear causes between party and party, concerning wills, legacies, marriages, and the like, which are matters of temporal cognizance, but have been granted to the ecclesiastical court by the commission of princes. The proper work of a "vicar general" is, the exercise and administration of jurisdiction purely spiritual, by the authority and under the direction of the bishop; as visitation, correction of nuisances, granting institutions, and the like, with a general inspection of men and things, in order to the preserving of discipline and good government in the church. (Mant. xx. n. e.) CHURCHWARDENS. Their election is, generally, regulated by the canon. The parishioners, however, may have a right, by immemorial custom, of electing both. (Commissioners on jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Courts, p. 118.) Where the incumbent has the right to nominate one, the curate, in his absence, stands in his place, and may make the presentment; (2 Stra. 1246) but where the incumbent is under the sentence of deprivation, the right to choose both results to the parishioners. (Carth_118.) The mode of election is first by a show of hands, and if this be not acquiesced in, then by a recourse to a poll. (Anthong v. Seager, 1 Hag. Can. 10.) Where the original notice for convening a meeting to elect churchwardens stated that such meeting would be held in the church, and if a poll were demanded, would be adjourned to a specified place, it was held that the chairman might make such adjournment, though against the sense of the majority; but where business at a meeting is in progress, without such notice, the meeting, and not the chairman, has the power to adjourn. (R. v. Archdeacon of Chester, 1 Add. and Ell. 342.) As to the mode of election, see R. v. Bishop of Winchester, 7 East. 573; 4 B. and C. 449. Closing the vestry doors to exclude voters is illegal. When elected, the ordinary cannot refuse to swear them. When two sets appear, each bearing a colourable title, both must be sworn. (5 Nev. and Mann. 494, 3 Add. and Ell. 615.) fee can be demanded for administering the oath. (1 Salk. 330.) Churchwardens cannot interfere in the administration of divine service, their duty being one of observation and complaint only. (1 Hag. Con. 170.) When a strange minister is about to preach, on his presenting his letters of orders, their duty ceases, they cannot prevent him. They have the keys of the belfry, and are to take care that the bells be not rung without proper cause. (Canon lxxxviii. See above, article BELLS.) They have only the custody of the church under the minister; if he refuse access to the church on fitting occasions, complaint must be made to a higher No |