King, 11 C. B., N. S. 14; K. & G. 385; 31 L. J.. C. P. 80; 8 Jur., N. S. 676; 5 L. T., N. S. 674.

Inmates of Shrewsbury Hospital, Sheffield, have no votes in respect of the rooms they occupy therein.

WEST RIDING OF YORKSHIRE. B. claimed a vote in respect of a "freehold house."

He was an inmate of Shrewsbury Hospital, Sheffield, and occupied rooms therein under the trusts and constitutions of the hospital. The annual value of the rooms thus occupied by B. exceeded 40s., and they had been in his possession for the requisite period.

The hospital was founded in 1625, under the will of Gilbert, Earl of Shrewsbury. Its lands and revenues were vested in trustees, on trust, among other things, to maintain and keep the hospital buildings in repair, and pay certain stipends and allowances to the officers and inmates of the institution.

The constitutions required, as a qualification for admission, that the inmates should be poor, indigent people, and such as by persons of honest repute should be judged fit objects of the charity.

They further ordained that each inmate should be

majority of the trustees concurred in this resolution. G. claimed to hold his office for life, in the absence of immorality or preaching contrary to the tenets of the denomination, neither of which was charged. It was held, that G. was duly dismissed: Cooper v. Gordon, L. R., 8 Eq. Cas. 249.

STUART, V.-C., in giving judgment in the above case, said :"It is scarcely necessary to notice the argument that the tenure of his" (G.'s) "ministry for life must be implied from the terms of the invitation and acceptance mentioning no shorter period. Nothing that involves an absurdity can by implication be made part of a contract. If it is to be implied that he was made minister for his lifetime, then the unanimous vote of the congregation would not displace him; and if he could not be displaced, there would be the absurdity of his being the officiating minister of a congregation unanimously recusant of his services.' See also Perry v. Shipway, 1 Giff. 1.

provided with separate accommodation in the hospital for life, but it did not appear that each was not removable from one set of rooms to another at the will of the governors.

By virtue of the same authority the inmates were prevented from underletting, assigning, or jointly occupying with others, the rooms appropriated to them respectively.

Any inmate failing to satisfy the conditions of membership, or committing certain breaches of the rules and constitutions, was liable to expulsion, but no member had ever been expelled.

Held, in accordance with Heartley v. Banks (5 C. B., N. S. 40, post, pp. 132, 133), that B. had no estate of freehold, legal or equitable, in the rooms in which he resided, and was consequently not entitled to be registered: Freeman v. Gainsford (re Shrewsbury Hospital), 11 C. B., N. S. 68; K. & G. 448; 31 L. J. C. P. 33; 8 Jur., N. S. 717; 5 L. T., N. S. 611.

Parish clerk has no vote in respect of his office; nor, if entitled by ancient custom to a burial fee on the opening of every grave in parish churchyard, does he thereby acquire a freehold interest in land.

EAST KENT. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of a "freehold office." He was in 1826 duly appointed parish clerk of the parish of St. James, Dover, and held the appointment for life. He received, as part of the emoluments of the office, the clerk's share of an ancient due, which was payable to the clerk and sexton on the opening of every grave in the parish churchyard.

The clerk had nothing to do with the opening of the graves, a duty which was performed entirely by the sexton, who was paid for making each grave independently of the fee which he shared with the clerk. The clerk's share of the fees thus received by the appellant amounted to 40s. a year.

Held, that the appellant was not entitled to the franchise, either in respect of his office, or as having a freehold interest in land: Bushell v. Eastes, 11 C. B., N. S. 106; K. & G. 484; 31 L. J. C. P. 44; 8 Jur., N. S. 645; 10 W. R. 153; 5 L. T., N. S. 580.

Emoluments of an office, paid out of revenues derived from land, do not create in holder of such office an interest in land entitling to vote.

EAST KENT. H., one of the six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral, B., one of its lay-clerks, and P., one of the cathedral bell-ringers, claimed to be registered, each in respect of a freehold office in the parish of C. They held their respective offices for life, or during good behaviour, and severally received certain stipends, of not less than £20 a year, in payment for the discharge of their duties.

These stipends were paid to them annually by the dean and chapter out of the chapter revenues, which were derived either wholly or in part from lands vested in the dean and chapter, and situate (a) in the parish of C. and other parishes in East Kent, and elsewhere out of the county.

Held, that the claimants had no equitable interest in land entitling them to vote: Hall v. Lewis, 11 C. B., N. S. 114; K. & G. 499; 31 L. J. C. P. 45 ; 8 Jur., N. S. 646; 10 W. R. 151; 5 L. T., N. S. 491.

Member of building society entitled to vote, although his periodical payments exceed annual value of mortgaged premises, provided he has a beneficial interest therein of 40s. per annum.

SOUTH NORTHAMPTONSHIRE. At the revision of 1863, D. was objected to on the list of freehold voters

(a) The case does not state that the profits of the land in East Kent were sufficient to give each claimant 40s. a year. The question of value, however, proved to be immaterial, as the decision turned upon the question of equitable interest.

for the parish of St. Sepulchre. He was a member of, and held a share in, a building society.

Some years before the revision, the society advanced to him £73, wherewith he purchased some freehold land of the annual value of £3. He then mortgaged the land to the society to secure the monthly payments due upon his share, amounting to £4 per annum.

In the event of failure by D. to pay his instalments for a certain limited period, the society was empowered to enter and take possession of the land. D. was entitled to redeem the property by the payment of these monthly instalments alone, without any other payment of principal.

He had, without default, paid up £71 before 31st January, 1863, and the remaining £2 between that date and 31st July following.

The revising barrister found, on these facts, that D. had a freehold interest prior to 31st January, 1863, of the annual value of 40s. above all charges, and retained his name on the list.

The court affirmed the decision (a): Robinson v. Dunkley, 15 C. B., N. S. 478; H. & P. 1; 33 L. J. C. P. 57; 9 Jur., N. S. 1342; 12 W. R. 202; 9 L. T., N. S. 481.

Shareholders in Manchester Corn Exchange (an unincorporated joint stock company) held not to possess, as such shareholders, any freehold estate, legal or equitable, in land on which the building stands, but merely a right to participate in the profits.

SOUTH LANCASHIRE. The appellant was on the list of voters in respect of a share (value 40s. a year) in the Manchester Corn Exchange.

(a) This case apparently conflicts with Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18, ante, p. 17, and Beamish v. Stoke, 11 C. B. 29, ante, pp. 21, 22. However, in those cases the value of the equity of redemption was not found: see the judgments of Willes and Montagu Smith, JJ., in Rolleston v. Cope, L. R. 6 C. P. 300 et seq.

The company of proprietors of the exchange was established by deed of settlement in 1837, and was registered under 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, s. 58.

The object for which the company was formed was to provide and maintain in Manchester a building for effecting contracts of sale therein, by sample or otherwise than by bulk, of corn, &c.

The land on which the building was erected was freehold, and was vested in trustees for the purposes of the company.

The affairs of the company were, in accordance with the deed of settlement, under the control of a committee of shareholders.

This committee made a profit out of the exchange by levying payments in respect of its user for the business for which it was built, and by letting it for other purposes; and, after deducting the amount necessary for expenses, they divided the surplus among the shareholders.

The shares were declared by the deed of settlement to be personal property, and were transferable as the committee might appoint.

Held, 1. That the company, having been only provisionally registered under section 58 of 7 & 8 Vict. c. 110, was not a corporation; 2. That the shareholders had no freehold interest in land, either at law or in equity, but merely a right to share the company's profits, and, therefore, that the appellant was not entitled to be registered as a voter: Bennett v. Blain, 15 C. B., N. S. 518; H. & P. 35; 33 L. J. C. P. 63; 12 W. R. 175; 9 L. T., N. S. 506; 10 Jur., N. S. 130.

Equitable right of inmates of Bottesford Hospital to payments under trusts of that institution, not an equitable freehold interest in land.

NORTH LEICESTERSHIRE. The appellant was on the register in respect of a "freehold interest in land."