Oldalképek
PDF
ePub

1895.

SOUTTER

V.

RODERICK.

LE BLONDE'S
CASE.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. Suppose, in the fourth column in this claim, the word "afterwards" appeared between the houses described.]

That would be a different case. But it seems doubtful whether, in view of the decisions of the Court of Appeal, even then the third column could be amended. The qualification must be distinctly and appropriately described. If you describe in the third column a qualification of a nature different from that which you are going to prove, that is not a mistake which can be amended.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. The question is, what would any one reading this claim suppose it to Would he not understand it to be a claim for

mean.

houses in succession ?]

Not necessarily. In practice, it is often found that the second house is merely added as denoting the address of the claimant at the time of making his claim, and not as being any part of his qualification.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. Is not the position on the authorities this? If a man makes a claim for a qualification which, though not correctly described, is substantially indicated, his claim may be amended by correcting the description ?]

It is submitted not; but that the description must be of the qualification he intends to prove. In Plant v. Potts (a) the Court of Appeal decided that a Revising Barrister can only amend an insufficient description of

(a) Fox & Smith, 206; (1891) 1 Q. B. 256.

the qualification, but cannot alter the description into a description of another qualification. Lord Esher, M.R., there said (a): "In the case of occupation lists, he would have no power to amend the description of qualification in the third column in the absence of a declaration under section 24 (b); and in revising the ownership lists, he has no power to alter the qualification in the third column at all." And Foskett v. Kaufmann (c) has decided that "successive occupation" and the " occupation of a single dwelling-house" are separate and distinct qualifications.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. Why is not Hitchins v. Brown (d) applicable ?]

It is submitted that case is in the position of Lynch V. Wheatley (e) and Ford v. Hoar (ƒ), and impliedly overruled by Foskett v. Kaufmann (c) and Plant v. Potts (g).

[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J. Hitchins v. Brown (d) is really in two parts. The first part affirms that "dwelling-houses in succession" is part of the qualification "house." That is gone, I agree. The second part puts this view, that the claim as there stated, even if it is necessary to have a statement that it is for "houses in succession," is sufficiently stated if the third column be read in the light of the fourth column, for anyone so reading it would so understand it.]

(a) (1891) 1 Q. B. at p. 264. (b) 41 & 42 Vict. cap. 26.

(c) Colt. 466; 16 Q. B. D. at

P. 286.

(d) 1 Lutw. 328; 2 C. B. 25.

(e) Colt. 364, sub nom. Blosse V. Wheatley; 14 Q. B. D. 504.

(f) Colt. 354; 14 Q. B. D. 507. (g) Fox & Smith, 206; (1891) 1 Q. B. 256.

1895.

SOUTTER

V.

RODERICK.

LE BLONDE'S
CASE.

1895.

SOUTTER

V.

RODERICK.

LE BLONDE'S
CASE.

Even if that be so, in that case the words "and previously" appear in the fourth column.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. You say those words make a distinction. There is the strong passage in the judgment of Lord Esher, M.R., in Plant v. Potts (a), that there is no power to amend the description of qualification in the third column in the absence of a declaration. Does that mean that without a declaration the Revising Barrister cannot amend the third column at all, or that he cannot amend the third column so as to alter the qualification which is in fact shown on the claim? Lopes, L.J., says (a), "I have come to the conclusion that they (the words of sub-sects. 12 and 13 of 41 & 42 Vict. cap. 26, section 28) empower a Revising Barrister to correct an insufficient or inaccurate statement of qualification in the third column, provided such correction does not involve a change or alteration of the qualification as it appears in the list."]

The character of the description in the third column ought to be considered standing alone.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. The case seems to show that if you have to amend the fourth column in such a way as to change the qualification there stated, you cannot then alter the description of the qualification in the third column. It does not go the length of saying that if you have a sufficient statement of the qualification in the fourth column you cannot then amend the third.]

[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J. You are mixing up two

(a) Fox & Smith, 206; (1891) 1 Q. B. at p. 264.

things, insufficiency of qualification and insufficiency of description. The first cannot be amended, the second can. Can you in no case avail yourself of the information in the fourth column ?]

The cases seem to go nearly that length.

[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J. fourth column several houses succession" added ?]

That might be sufficient.

Suppose you have in the stated with the words "in

[VAUGHAN WILLIAMS, J. Then is it not a question what the fourth column states or means?]

Mann v. Johnson and Hurcum v. Hilleary (a) follow Foskett v. Kaufmann (b), and support the appellant's contention.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. The voter there claimed to alter the qualification as stated in the fourth column.]

Heber Jones for the respondent.

[Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. The difficulty is this. "House" and "houses in succession" are different qualifications. Suppose it had turned out that the claimant had occupied one house only for the whole time. Would this then be a good claim ?]

That might fall within the decision of Mann v. Johnson and Hurcum v. Hilleary (a). But in this case, on

(a) Fox & Smith, 345; (1894) 1 Q. B. 579.

(b) Colt. 466; 16 Q. B. D. 279.

1895.

SOUTTER
V.

RODERICK.

LE BLONDE'S
CASE.

1895.

SOUTTER

V.

RODERICK.

LE BLONDE'S
CASE.

the face of the claim, there is a qualification stated for the successive occupation of the two houses. You must read the third column in the light of the fourth, and the reasonable construction of the fourth column is that there is a claim for the occupation of two houses in succession.

Costelloe replied.

Cur. adv. vult.

Dec. 7.

Lord RUSSELL OF KILLOWEN, L.C.J. This is an appeal from the Revising Barrister of Southwark who allowed the claim of Alfred George Le Blonde to have his name inserted in the list of occupiers for the borough. His claim was in the following form:

(His Lordship read the notice of claim set out above, and continued)—

It was proved that the claimant had occupied the two dwelling-houses, set out in the fourth column, in immediate succession and for the qualifying period. It was objected by the appellant that the claim was invalid by reason of the omission of the word "successive" in the third column, and that the Revising Barrister had no power to amend the claim by inserting the word "successive," because, it was contended, it gave another and a different qualification. The Revising Barrister overruled both objections, and from that decision this appeal is brought.

The first question, therefore, is whether the claim as it originally stood was sufficient. The appellant contended that by reason of the instructions to overseers in the Registration Order, 1895, Schedule III., Part I., section 17 (i) (b), the qualification should have been stated as "dwelling-house (successive)." The respondent

« ElőzőTovább »