The first and fatal objection to the appellant's contention is this:-There must, in order to give effect to the notice evidencing the desire to select the entry for voting, in fact be, at the time the notice is given, a name appearing twice on the list. Here the appellant's name, at the time the notice was given, appeared only once on the list of voters, and once among the list of claimants. That point is sufficient to dispose of this appeal.

There is another point we ought to notice. Is the question raised by this case the subject-matter of appeal at all? That depends upon the true construction of section 42 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (a). It is conceded that the present case was not at the time of the passing of that Act in the view of the Legislature, for the right to select an entry for voting did not then exist. But the learned counsel for the appellant properly argues that this does not conclude the question, for it is sufficient if the words of the Act are wide enough to apply to subsequent legislation. Now, in that view, is the right of appeal given by this section? The words that are material are these: "it shall be lawful for any person who . . . . shall have made any claim to have his name inserted in any list

or whose name shall have been expunged from any list." Here the appellant did make a claim to have his name inserted in a list, and his claim was allowed. Then we come to the words " and who in any such case shall be aggrieved by or dissatisfied with any decision.

Here the decision was in favour of his claim.

It seems impossible to bring the present case within the words of that section. The learned counsel argues that

(a) 6 Vict. cap. 18.










the appellant's claim was to be inserted effectively in
the list, and to have, as part of that claim, the right to
select an entry for voting, and that he is aggrieved
because in that respect his claim has not been given
effect to. That is not the case. His claim was to be
put on the list. A decision upon that claim was given,
and his name was put upon the list. He is therefore
not within the language or meaning of the Act. After
all, what does it come to? The voter is not disfran-
chised. For this year he must exercise his franchise in
respect of his residence qualification, the entry of which
the Revising Barrister retained for voting, as he was
bound to do under section 5, sub-section 1 (b) of the
Registration Act, 1885 (a). Next year the claim of
the appellant to be on the list for his other qualification
will be set right by the overseers. Then by giving the
notice he can have the entries of his name starred
as he wishes. I agree that the circumstances of the
case of Reg. v. McConnell (b) differ from the present,
but that case is an authority to show that we are not at
liberty to give a wide or extended meaning to section 42
of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (c). The
right of appeal conferred by that section is limited to
the matters there specified. The present may be a case
that has been overlooked, but, as I have said, there is
no real hardship. The appeal must therefore be dis-

WILLS, J. I am of the same opinion. I do not wish to add anything on the question of the notice of selection. But on the question whether an appeal lies,

(a) 48 Vict. cap. 15. (b) Fox & Smith, 375; (1895) 1 Q. B. 155. (e) 6 Vict. cap. 18.

it may be that this is a case in which a set of circumstances has arisen the possibility of which has escaped the notice of the Legislature. That, however, is a matter which can only be dealt with by legislation.

LAWRANCE, J. I am of the same opinion.

Appeal dismissed.

Solicitors-For the Appellant, H. Mear, for Dunn &
Baker, Exeter.

For the Respondents, Preston, Stow & Co.,
for Friend, Beal & Tarbet, Exeter, and
The Town Clerk of Exeter.





1898. Nov. 10.

LINFORTH, Appellant; BUTLER, Respondent.

In a notice of AT a Court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the Pudsey Division in the West Riding of the county of York, James Henry Linforth, the appellant,

objection to a person on the Ownership portion of the register,

Form No. 5 (a) Reg. Order, 1895, the ob

objected to the name of the Rev. Henry Alexander Butler, the respondent, being retained on the list of jector, to save voters for the said Division of the said county. The facts of the case were as follows:

extra postage, intentionally omitted to add in the body of the notice the

The name of the respondent appeared on the Ownerplace of abode ship portion of the register of electors then in force for the Pudsey Division of the Eastern part of the West Riding Division of the county of York as relates to the

of the person objected to. On the back of the notice, for transmission by post, was the name and full address of the

person, who in

fact received


[blocks in formation]

Held, that the Butler, Rev. Henry 17, Virginia

form was


complied with

and the notice



Description of

Road, Leeds.

[blocks in formation]

The notice of objection to the retention of the name of the respondent was sent through the post to the voter in accordance with section 100 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843 (a). To prove service of the notice the objector produced the duplicate which was annexed to the case afterwards stated by the Revising Barrister, and was a printed copy of the form provided by the Registration Order, 1895, Form 5 (a).

(a) 6 Vict. cap. 18.

In filling up the form the objector had omitted to insert
in the form the place of abode of the person objected to
as described in the register. Thus :-

"Pudsey Parliamentary Division of the Eastern
part of the West Riding of the county of

"NOTICE OF OBJECTION to be given to a person
whose name is in the Ownership portion of
the Register.

"To Rev. Henry Alexander Butler, of

"TAKE NOTICE, That I Object to your name being retained in the Parliamentary List of Ownership Electors for the parish [or township] of Leeds in the Pudsey Division of the Eastern part of the West Riding of the county of York; and I ground my objection," &c.

On the back of the notice the name and address of the voter were for postal purposes correctly written. The objector stated that he had intentionally omitted inserting in the notice the place of abode of the person objected to as described in the register in order to avoid having to pay the extra half-penny postage required by some postal regulation.

The names of eighteen other persons, whose names and qualifications were set out in a schedule to the case afterwards stated by the Revising Barrister, were objected to under similar circumstances.

The appellant relied on section 18 of the Registration Act, 1885 (a), and contended that this omission was not such a disregard of the form and instructions as to invalidate the said notice, and he further contended that the voter could not be misled.

(a) 48 & 49 Vict. cap. 15 (repealed by the Stat. Law Rev. Act, 1898).





« ElőzőTovább »