he might be examined on oath as to the validity of his claim. He did not attend at the hearing.

The objector declined an offer by the Sheriff to grant an adjournment and a further citation, contending that the non-appearance of the claimant was an admission that the objection was good, and he moved that the claim should therefore be disallowed.

Held, that it is a question of fact for the Sheriff whether a claimant's conduct amounts to an admission that the objection is a good one, and that in the circumstances of the case the Sheriff was justified in coming to the conclusion that the prima facie evidence of the declaration was not rebutted by the objector, and allowing the claim. (Stirling v. Fletcher, 23 R. 120 (a), and Andrews v. Armstrong, 25 R. 95 (6), explained); Conolly v. Kyle, Sc. L. R. 1903, p. 102.

(a) Ante, p. iii.

(b) Ante, p. ix.

THE YEAR 1904.

Lodger-Evidence of value of lodgings-Declaration—
Payment for lodging and board.

Burgh of St. Andrews. A. claimed a lodger vote in
respect of a bedroom which he occupied separately.
He had also the joint use of a public room.
He paid
20s. weekly for his lodging as above and board com-
bined. There was no evidence of the rental value of
the house, nor as to the value of the bedroom separately.
The declaration annexed to his claim stated the lodgings
to be of the clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of
107. and upwards.

Held, that as there was no evidence of the letting value of the bedroom separately, A. was not entitled to a vote. Barr v. Ireland, 7 F. 153.

Inhabitant occupier-As tenant of house of employer.

County of Peebles. D. D. A. claimed to be registered in respect of an occupation as tenant under the following circumstances:-He had agreed to serve an employer as foreman joiner. When the amount of his wages had been fixed, it was further agreed that he should occupy a dwelling-house belonging to his employer, that five shillings a week should be deducted from his wages as rent and the price of coal to be supplied to him, and that he should vacate the house on the termination of the contract of employment. The contract was terminable by either at pleasure. He had in fact occupied the house for the qualifying period.

Held, that he had a qualification as inhabitant occupier as tenant, and was entitled to have his name inserted on the register of voters. Urquhart v. Adam, 7 F. 157.




APPENDIX. Separate dwelling-Bedrooms separately occupied by teachers and lay brothers in the college of a religious community.

Dublin County. The teachers and lay brothers in the French College at Blackrock, an educational establishment of the body called La Communauté du Saint Esprit, of which they were members, had each a separate bedroom for his exclusive use in the college. All the inmates of the college, teachers, lay brothers, and students, were under the general supervision and control of the president or resident principal, who dealt with any case of breach of discipline, but the supreme control was in the Superior-General of the Community, who lived in Paris. Their rooms were allotted to the members, who might be ordered to change them under the direction of the president. Their meals were taken in the dining-hall or refectory. The furniture of their rooms was provided by the Community. The members were not allowed to receive guests in their rooms. No member had any special servant.

Held, by the full Court of Appeal, refusing to follow the former decision of the Court in respect of the same premises and some of the same members (Alexander v. Burke (1887), 22 L. R. Ir. 443), that the members of the college did not occupy their bedrooms as their separate dwellings, and were not entitled to the franchise. (Stribling v. Halse, Colt. 409; 16 Q. B. D. 246; and Hasson v. Chambers, 18 L. R. Ir. 68, disapproved.) Ladd v. O'Toole (1904), 2 Ir. R. 389; 3 Lawson's Notes, 61.

Separate dwelling-Bedroom-Gardener.

North Tyrone. R. H., a gardener, as a term of his contract of service and as part of his remuneration, occupied a bedroom assigned to him by his employer's steward in a house in which some of his co-employés also resided. He had the key and exclusive occupation of the room, but he was liable at the discretion of the steward to be removed to another room at any time. No change was in fact made during the qualifying period. He took his meals in a room common to the other residents in the house. The Revising Barrister found that R. H. was not entitled to the service franchise.

Held, that the decision of the Revising Barrister was a matter of fact, namely, that the claimant had not a separate dwelling, and the Court had no power to review it. Hamilton v. Torish, 3 Lawson's Notes, 84.

THE YEARS 1904 AND 1905.

Service franchise-Particular service rendered by person in general employ of another master.

South Tyrone. W. C. S. claimed a service franchise vote under the following circumstances. He was a clerk in the employ of W. C., an auctioneer, agent and farmer, who was engaged by P., a landowner, to manage his demesne in his absence. It was arranged between P., W. C., and W. C. S. that W. C. S. should oversee the general work at the demesne at seven o'clock each morning when the labourers had to begin work, and that for the purpose of doing this work he should occupy a house belonging to P. in the demesne. He was paid by W. O., who could dismiss him.

Held, that W. C. S. occupied the house in consideration of the services he rendered to P., and was his servant ad hoc, and was therefore entitled to a vote. Donnelly v. Stockdale, 3 Lawson's Notes, 107.

Mistake-List-Misdescription of townland in which qualifying premises situate-Amendment.

South Tyrone. The name of J. M. appeared on the register in respect of a house which was therein described as in the townland of K. It was proved or admitted that the said house was in fact situate in the adjoining townland of A., and that the voter was duly qualified in respect of it. The Revising Barrister amended by correcting the description of the townland upon the ground that it was a mistake repeated on the register from an original misdescription in a claim.

Held, following Short v. Daly (1 Lawson, 310), that this was a mistake which the Revising Barrister had




APPENDIX. power and was right to correct (a). Donnelly v. Moore, 3 Lawson's Notes, 125.

Qualification-Twelve calendar months next preceding the last day of July-Entry on 1st August.

County of Roxburgh. G. E. claimed a vote as inhabitant occupier. He had entered on his tenancy of the house in respect of which he claimed to be qualified on 1st August, 1904, and continued in occupation thereof to the end of the qualifying period. There was no lease in writing. The 31st July, 1904, was a Sunday.

Held, that, not having entered on his tenancy till the 1st August, his occupation was one day short of "twelve calendar months next preceding the last day of July," as required by the Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 Vict. cap. 3), sect. 7 (4), and the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868 (31 & 32 Vict. cap. 48), sect. 3 (b), and he was therefore not qualified for a vote. Emmerson v. Oliver, 43 Sc. L. R. 291.

Lodger claim-Failure of claimant to appear on citation-
Adjournment-Rebuttal of primâ facie evidence of


Burgh of Port Glasgow. Objection was taken to the name of a person claiming a vote under the lodger franchise, and he was duly cited, by warrant of the Sheriff, to appear at the Registration Court. The claimant failed to appear, and an application by the agent appearing on his behalf for an adjournment in order that he might be again cited was refused by the Sheriff. The assessor stated that the annual value of the house as appearing in the valuation roll was 81. There was no evidence in support of the claim other than the claimant's declaration. The Sheriff found as a fact that the primâ facie evidence afforded by the declaration was rebutted.

Held, (1) that it was a question for the consideration

(a) See Kitchen v. Johnson, ante, p. 171.-ED.

(b) See the corresponding English statutes and sections, 30 & 31 Vict. cap. 102, sect. 3; 41 & 42 Vict. cap. 26, sect. 7; and 48 Vict. cap. 3, sect. 7 (1).-ED.

« ElőzőTovább »