"Annuity or rent-charge arising out of lands and buildings, held for a term over sixty years, determinable on lives."

L., the settlor, being seised in fee of certain lands and hereditaments in Denton, conveyed them, after certain prior limitations since determined, to trustees for one hundred years, if S. (the claimant) and certain other persons named in the deed should so long live, to the use (inter alia), that S., his executors and administrators, should, during the said term of one hundred years, receive out of the rents and profits one annuity or yearly rent-charge of £10.

Held, that the words "lessee or assignee," in section 5 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, should be construed by reference to section 20 of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, and that being so construed, they mean the lessee, or assignee of the lease, of tenements capable of occupation; that S. was not entitled, either as lessee or assignee, to any such tenement, and therefore was not entitled to be registered: Warburton v. Denton, L. R. 6 C. P. 267; I H. & C. 432; 40 L. J. C. P. 49; 19 W. R. 210; 23 L. T., N. S. 729.

Sub-lessee of term over sixty years is a lessee within 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, s. 5.

SOUTH-EAST LANCASHIRE. S. claimed in respect of "leasehold houses," term over sixty years.

He was sub-lessee for a period of not less than sixty years of, and was in actual occupation of (a), a

(a) It is remarkable that the proviso to section 20 of the Reform Act, 1832, whereby sub-lessees were prohibited from voting, unless they were in actual occupation, is not repeated in section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. However, in the event of a claim under that section by a sub-lessee not in occupation, it may, perhaps, be held that, by virtue of sections 56 and 59 of the Act of 1867, the proviso to section 20 of the Act of 1832 should be read into section 5 of the later Act: see per WILLES and BRETT, JJ., 1 H. & C. 716, 717; and per BRETT, J., L. R. 7 C. P. 201.

Should the contrary be held, the following anomaly will ensue

house, the clear yearly value of which was £5, but under £10, over and above all rents and charges.

Held, that S. was a "lessee" within section 5 of 30 & 31 Vict. c. 102, and therefore entitled to the franchise Chorlton v. Stretford, L. R. 7 C. P. 198; 1 H. & C. 712; 41 L. J. C. P. 37; 20 W. R. 236; 25 L. T., N. S. 810.

that, whereas a sub-lessee of a term over twenty years is, by virtue of the above-mentioned proviso, incapable of voting as such unless in actual occupation, a sub-lessee of a term originally created for not less than sixty years will be under no such restriction.

COUNTY FRANCHISE-OCCUPATION
(£50 RENTAL) (a).

Different rents payable to different landlords cannot be joined so as to qualify under Chandos Clause.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE. The respondent claimed a vote in respect of the "occupation of lands and buildings at a rental of £50 and upwards.'

He occupied the above-mentioned premises as tenant under two different landlords, and was bonâ fide liable to two distinct yearly rents, one to each landlord, in respect of the premises so occupied by him.

Each of such yearly rents was less than, but together they exceeded, £50.

Held, that the respondent was not "bonâ fide liable to a yearly rent of not less than £50," within the meaning of 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20, and was, therefore, not entitled to be registered: Gadsby v. Barrow, 7 M. & G. 21; 8. Scott, N. R. 799; 1 Lutw. 142; 14 L. J. C. P. 51; 8 Jur. 1031; B. & Arn. 283.

On change of qualification, voter must send in a fresh claim, notwithstanding that the description (in the register) of old qualification may be equally applicable to new.

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. A voter was described on the register (revised in 1847) as follows:

David Attfield | Cold Ashby. | Occupier of land | Own occupation. above £50.

(a) This franchise, enacted by the Chandos Clause of the Reform Act, 1832, was practically superseded by the £12 rateable occupation franchise enacted by the Representation of the People Act, 1867, s. 6. The £12 rateable occupation franchise is now superseded by the £10 (annual value) occupation franchise enacted by s. 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. That Act repeals the Chandos Clause, but saves the rights of persons on the register at the date of the passing of the Act (6th December, 1884). For the new provisions relating to the registration of £50 rental voters, see s. 11 of the Registration Act, 1885, and the second schedule thereto.

Attfield had occupied a farm (of sufficient rental) in the parish of Cold Ashby, as tenant to L., for several years up to Lady-day, 1847, when he left it. At Michaelmas, 1846, he took another farm of W. (likewise of sufficient rental) situate in the same. parish, and continued to hold it up to October, 1847. He had not made any new claim.

Held, that Attfield, not having retained the same qualification, should have sent in a new claim under section 4 of 6 Vict. c. 18, and that, as he had not done so, his name must be expunged from the register: Burton v. Gery, 5 C. B. 7; 2 Lutw. 4; 17 L. J. C. P. 66; 11 Jur. 948; 10 L. T. 135.

The committee of a lunatic's estate under letters patent, in actual possession of part of such estate, and rendering accounts to the court of chancery which were allowed, wherein he described himself as tenant, and debited himself with rent, held not to occupy as tenant.

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. The respondent was on the list of voters in respect of his occupation of house and land.

His vote was objected to on the ground that he did not occupy as tenant.

He was appointed committee of a lunatic's estate under letters patent (21st June, 1 Vict.) whereby were granted to him the custody, regulation, occupation, disposition, and receipt, of all lands, tenements, houses, &c., belonging to the lunatic, with the rents and profits thereof, during the pleasure of the crown, and the continuance of the lunacy.

After this grant, some of the tenants of the lunatic quitted their farms, and the respondent entered upon the occupation of them, together with a house; received the produce to his own use and benefit; and in his annual accounts allowed by the court of chancery described himself as tenant, debiting himself with the rent.

Held, that the respondent acquired no estate in the property under the letters patent, but merely the custody thereof, that he could not make himself a tenant by entering his name as such in the accounts, nor become one by the court of chancery allowing them, and consequently that he did not occupy as tenant, within 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20: Burton v. Langham, 5 C. B. 92; 2 Lutw. 78; 17 L. J. C. P. 253; 12 Jur. 631.

Rents of joint and single tenancies respectively cannot be joined to make up amount of rental necessary to qualify under section 20 of Reform Act, 1832, or section 73 of Registration Act, 1843, although both holdings are under same landlord.

EAST KENT. R. was on the list of voters as an occupier of "house and land." He had for several years occupied, as sole tenant, a house with land, for which he was bonâ fide liable to an annual rent of £40. He had also occupied for several years, as joint-tenant with another, under the same landlord, other lands, for which he and his co-tenant were bona fide jointly liable to an annual rent of £64. The hiring of the two properties took place at different periods.

Held, that R.'s separate rent and his share of the joint rent could not be added together, so as to give him a qualification under either 2 Will. IV. c. 45, s. 20, or 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 73: Smith v. Foreman, 18 C. B., N. S. 144; H. & P. 231; 34 L. J. C. P. 93; 13 W. R. 291; 11 Jur., N. S. 42; 11 L. T., N. S. 673.