The claim was opposed on the ground that the declaration of the attesting witness was not dated in accordance with form H. No. 2, Sched. III. to 48 Vict. c. 15. The revising barrister decided that the date of the declaration by the attesting witness was an essential part of the declaration, and that its omission was fatal to the validity of the notice of claim; he accordingly disallowed the appellant's claim, and the claims of 260 other persons whose appeals were consolidated herewith. The court (on the authority of Jones v. Kent, ante, p. 194) affirmed the decision: Smith v. Chandler, L. R. 22 Q. B. D., p. 208; 58 L. J. Q. B. D. 103; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 129; 60 L. T., N. S. 327; 37 W. R. 351. The declaration annexed to a lodger's claim and the claim itself are parts of an integral whole, and a mistake in such declaration may therefore be amendable under the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 26), s. 28, sub-s. 2. MIDDLESEX (HORNSEY DIVISION). The appellant claimed to have his name inserted in the lodgers' list. The declaration (on a printed form) annexed to his claim was in the following terms:-"I hereby declare that I have during the twelve calendar months immediately preceding the 15th day of July in this year occupied as sole tenant (or as joint tenant with -), and resided in the above-mentioned lodgings, and that those lodgings are of a clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of ten pounds or upwards." The words or as joint tenant with" were not struck out, nor was the blank after such words filled up. The revising barrister disallowed the claim (also the claims of 125 other persons whose claims were similarly defective) on the ground that the declaration did not show whether the claimant was a sole or a joint tenant, and he declined to amend, as he held that sub-section 2 of section 28 of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, did not apply to the case. The court (reversing the decision) held that the claim and declaration annexed thereto were parts of an integral whole, and that the power of amendment extended to the whole by virtue of 41 & 42 Vict. c. 26, s. 28, sub-s. 2: Ainsley v. Nicholson, L. R. 24 Q. B. D. 144; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 146; 59 L. J. Q. B. D. 102. It is essential to the validity of a lodger claim that the witness should have been an eye-witness of the claimant's signature thereto. BOROUGH OF ST. PANCRAS (WEST DIVISION). The appellant was objected to on the old lodger-list. The ground of objection was in the following terms: "Your lodger claim has not been legally attested." The appellant had made and signed a claim bearing date the 16th day of July, 1891. The attestation (in accordance with the form given in the Registration Order, 1889) was as follows: "I, the undersigned, hereby declare that I have witnessed the above signature of the above-named claimant at the date stated above, and that I believe the above claim to be correct." The signature of the witness, which was dated the same day as the claim, followed. At the time when the appellant signed the claim, the witness (a person who well knew the claimant, and was acquainted with the facts stated in the claim) was not present, but the appellant himself, subsequently on the same day, handed the claim to the witness, who then, at the request of the appellant, subscribed the attestation. The revising barrister held that it was a necessary condition to the validity of a lodger claim that the witness should be present at the time of signature by the claimant, and that, this condition not having been fulfilled, the appellant's claim was invalid. He accordingly expunged the name of the appellant, and the names of 29 other persons (similarly circumstanced, and to whom like objections were made) from the list of voters. The court affirmed the decision: Body v. Halse, 61 L. J. Q. B. D. 57; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 240; 40 W. R. 206 (a). (a) Hunt v. Halse and Fenning v. Halse were argued together with the above case, the facts being similar, except that in Hunt v. Halse the claimant had, after signing the claim, taken it to the witness on the next day for attestation, and that in Fenning v. Halse the claimant's wife had on the same day taken the claim, when signed, to the witness for attestation. OCCUPATION FRANCHISE UNDER Non-commissioned officers occupying rooms in the cavalry barracks, Canterbury, held, in respect of such occupation to be inhabitant occupiers of dwelling-houses within section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. CITY OF CANTERBURY. Objection was made to the retention of the appellant's name on the list of occupation voters on the ground that his occupation was not as owner or tenant. The entry on the list was as follows: Atkinson, John. | Barracks. Part of house. | Barracks. The appellant was a sergeant in the 7th Dragoon Guards, the depôt of which was attached to the cavalry depôt at Canterbury. As such sergeant he inhabited, by virtue of his service in the army, two rooms in a block of buildings in the cavalry barracks, and had inhabited the same two rooms for the qualifying period. The said rooms were used by him as a bedroom and sittingroom respectively. A portion of the furniture was supplied by the government, and not allowed to be removed by the appellant; the remainder was supplied by the appellant himself. The appellant's rooms opened into a passage used in common by himself and other non-commissioned officers, the passage communicating with a staircase, and that again with a passage on the ground floor, which led to the front door. No one had a key of the rooms but the appellant. The appellant was obliged to be in his quarters by a stated hour every evening. The Queen's regulations and certain standing orders of the commanding officer required that the medical officer should inspect the appellant's quarters as well as all other portions of the barracks every week, and report as to the condition thereof. It was the duty of the orderly officer and certain other officers to visit such quarters at stated times, and to report as to their order and condition, and such inspection did in fact from time to time take place, for which purpose the appellant, on receiving notice, was bound to admit such officers to his quarters, and they would have power, if refused admittance, to break open the doors and enter. Non-commissioned officers of superior rank to the appellant lived in the same block. It was the duty of the senior non-commissioned officer for the time being in each block, in case of need, to maintain order, and in case the appellant should be disorderly, it would be the duty of such senior non-commissioned officer, for the time being, to enter the appellant's room to enforce order. The colonel commanding the whole of the depôt lived in a detached house away from the block in which the appellant lived. The colonel's house was within the wall which extended round the barracks and barrack yards. The commanding officer could at any moment enter any part of the barracks (including the appellant's rooms) for any cause which might seem to him reasonable; and he further had the power of closing the barrack gates, and forbidding any person to enter or leave the barracks at any time. The The appellant was liable at any time to be ordered by the commanding officer to move to other quarters, and would be bound to obey such order. revising barrister expunged the name of the appellant, and the names of twenty-eight other persons (whose appeals were consolidated with this), holding that their occupation had not been of such a separate |