The fact of an occupier as tenant of a dwelling-house having been adjudicated a bankrupt during the qualifying year held not to constitute a break in the voter's occupation as tenant, where the trustee in bankruptcy had not interfered, and the landlord continued to accept rent from the occupier, as before the adjudication. CITY OF YORK. W. B. was objected to on the list of voters, wherein his qualification was described as "dwelling-house, Walmgate." The ground of objection was that he had not occupied as tenant the house in question throughout the qualifying period, 1889-1890. He was a yearly tenant; he was adjudicated bankrupt on the 17th of October, 1889. His occupation of the house was never disturbed by the landlord or anyone else, so that from the commencement to the end of the qualifying period it was continuous. For the residue of the period after the adjudication, the landlord on the usual quarter days accepted the rent from the voter. No act of any kind in relation to the bankrupt and his dwellinghouse was ever done or signified by anyone officially connected with the bankruptcy. Under these circumstances, the revising barrister considered this occupation of the dwelling-house to have been always clothed with the legal character of tenancy, at first by contract, then by implication of the common law as a tenancy at will, and subsequently, by acceptance of the rent, as a yearly tenancy. He therefore disallowed the objection, and retained the name of W. B., and three other names objected to on the same ground, on the list of voters. The court affirmed the decision: Mackay v. McGuire, L. R. (1891) 1 Q. B. 250; Fox and Smith's Reg. Cas. 201; 39 W. R. 109; 55 J. P. 214. The occupation of "stands" in Spitalfields Market, at annual payments of more than £10 for each stand, held to be an occupation of "land or tenement," so as to qualify under section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. BOROUGH OF THE TOWER HAMLETS (WHITECHAPEL DIVISION). Two voters-Charles Allen and Jabez Charles Abbott-were objected to on the list of occupiers, wherein their names appeared as follows:Allen, Charles..... Abbott, Jabez Charles Spitalfields Stand. Spitalfields The grounds of objection relied on in each case were: That the voter had not occupied as tenant the premises described on the overseers' list continuously for twelve months to July 15, 1891, and that he had no land or tenement within the meaning of section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884. The facts of the case were substantially as follows: : Spitalfields Market comprised an area of land situate on the west side of Commercial Street, and was owned by H. as lessee from the freeholder, and was used for the sale of vegetables and fruit. The market was bounded on the east side thereof by the back walls of the houses in Commercial Street, and was covered with a glass roof supported by columns to protect it from the weather, and, except on the east side thereof, there were no walls or other erections beyond iron railings separating the market from the adjoining streets or property. The site of the market was let by H. in separate plots or pieces of land, commonly called "stands, stands," to numerous persons, and two of these stands, which were respectively of more than £10 annual value, were let by H., as to one of them, to the said Charles Allen, and as to the other, to the said Jabez Charles Abbott, who had for the qualifying period respectively occupied the same stands. The market was rated as one property, and the rates had been duly paid by H. The practice was to let these stands to the occupiers for specified periods arranged between them and the owner of the market, according to the requirements of the occupier, and for the tenancies to continue until determined by notice to quit. There was no fixed time for which such notice had to be given, but it was usual for H., when he desired to remove a tenant, to give a notice which was generally, but not invariably, in writing. The stands were not numbered, nor had they any distinguishing marks on them, but the precise position in the market of the stand or piece of land which each occupier was entitled to, though not enclosed by H., was defined and well known to him and to the occupier of such stand, and to the occupiers of all the other stands in the market, and any person desiring to find the stand of a particular occupier could readily do so by inquiring of any of the porters at the market, or Each stand occuof any person acquainted with it. pier paid a fixed rent for his stand, which was, in the respective cases of the persons objected to, more than £10 per annum, and this rent was payable by the occupier, whether the stand was actually used by him or not. In addition to the fixed rent, each stand occupier had to pay toll to the owner in respect of the goods which he (the stand occupier) sold. In a considerable part of the market, the stands were boarded over or paved, and stalls were placed thereon by the occupiers for the purpose of exposing their goods for view and sale, and these stalls were in almost every instance separated from the adjoining stands by wooden or other movable partitions, and in most cases the name of the occupier was placed by him on a board within the stall, and the goods often re mained in the stalls during the night. The said Charles Allen occupied a stall of this description. The remaining part of the market consisted of an open space paved with stone, and each occupier of a stand or piece of land on this part of the market occupied and used the same for the purpose of bringing thereon his carts and waggons, from which, and from the piece of ground occupied by him, his goods were offered for sale. The said Jabez Charles Abbott occupied a stand of this description. Upon proof of the facts above stated, the revising barrister disallowed the objections, and retained in the list the names of Charles Allen and Jabez Charles Abbott; also the names of twenty-two persons occupying stands upon which stalls had been placed as mentioned in the case, and the names of twenty-four other persons occupying stands on the said open piece of ground. The court, considering that the revising barrister's conclusions were not inconsistent with the facts found by him, affirmed the decision: Hall v. Metcalfe, L. R. (1892) 1 Q. B. 208; 61 L. J. Q. B. D. 53; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 227. MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE. The municipal franchise is unaffected by section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, which operates as an extension of the parliamentary franchise only. BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON. Appellant's name was objected to on Division 1 of the Occupiers' List for the parish of Brighthelmstone. The qualifying premises were a coffee-house (22, Carlton Hill), let by the owner to a committee, who put in appellant to live there and manage the place as their servant. The premises were rated in the name of appellant as occupier, and the receipts for rates were made out in his name. The occupation was such as to render appellant an inhabitant occupier by virtue of office service or employment under section 3 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, and he was therefore entitled to be on Division 2. The revising barrister held that appellant did not possess a municipal as well as a parliamentary qualification, and transferred accordingly his name from Division 1 to Division 2. The court affirmed the decision: Maclean v. Prichard, L. R. 20 Q. B. D. 285; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 94; 58 L. T., N. S. 337; 36 W. R. 508. |