The revising barrister having allowed the claims, the court affirmed the decision on the ground that there was nothing in the position of the inmates of the institution necessarily showing that they were in receipt of alms such as to disqualify them for the franchise under section 36 of the Reform Act, 1832 : Daniels v. Allard, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 70.

Almspersons of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, in the city of Gloucester, are disqualified for the franchise by reason of their position under the hospital regulations, which make their participation in the benefits of the charity dependent upon the will of the trustees.

CITY OF GLOUCESTER. The appellant was on the list of freemen, and his place of abode was stated to be "St. Bartholomew's Hospital." His name was objected to on the ground that he had received disqualifying alms during the twelve months ending the 15th of July in the year of registration. The appellant had been for thirteen years an almsperson of St. Bartholomew's Hospital, in the city of Gloucester, and had during the whole of that time occupied gratuitously, and resided in, a room in the hospital assigned to him by the trustees, and had received from them a weekly allowance of 10s., and half a ton of coals every Christmas. He had also occupied a separate plot of garden ground behind the hospital assigned to him by the trustees. He had no means of subsistence other than the allowance from the hospital.

Under the scheme (approved by the Charity Commissioners) for the management and regulation of the hospital, its clear yearly income, after the payment of all necessary outgoings and expenses of management, were to be expended and applied by the trustees in the maintenance and support of the almshouses and the payment of the respective allow

ances and stipends of the almspeople and other persons.

The almshouse or hospital buildings belonging to the charity were to be appropriated and used for the occupation of almspeople, to be appointed from time to time by the trustees, subject to such reasonable regulations as the trustees might from time to time prescribe consistently with the provisions of the scheme. The almspeople were to be selected from poor deserving men or women (as the case might be) of good character, either widowers or widows, or unmarried, of not less than sixty years of age at the time of appointment, and who had not, during the period of three years next preceding their appointment, been in receipt of parochial relief. A preference was to be given to candidates having the necessary qualifications who should have become reduced by accident or misfortune from better circumstances, or who should have become incapacitated by illness or otherwise from maintaining themselves by their own exertions, and in any special cases of the latter class the trustees were to be at liberty to elect a candidate exceptionally under the age of sixty years. The trustees were to pay out of the annual income of the charity an allowance at the rate of not less than 7s., or more than 10s., per week to each almsperson. The trustees were to be at liberty to provide each almsperson, in addition to his or her pecuniary allowance, with a reasonable amount of washing, and also with a gift of coals or other necessaries annually, to the value of not more than 20s., and also to allow to each almsperson the use and occupation of a separate plot of garden ground behind the hospital, so long as it should be properly cultivated and kept in neat order at his or her own expense. No almsperson was to be allowed to be absent from the almshouse for more than twenty-four hours without the consent in writing of the trustees, which might, however, for any sufficient

reason, be given retrospectively after the absence had occurred. The almspersons were to be removable by the trustees for insobriety, immorality, breach of rules or other misconduct. Payment of the stipend to the almspersons might be suspended by the trustees if they should think fit. No almsperson was to be permitted to let the room or rooms allotted to him or her, or to suffer any stranger, other than the wife of a married almsman, to occupy the same or any part thereof.

The trustees were to be at liberty to appoint from time to time a master and matron, who were to reside in the hospital, and not to absent themselves except with the permission of the trustees. Subject to the authority of the trustees, the master was to have the immediate superintendence and control of the almsmen, and the matron of the almswomen, and they were to report to the trustees any case of misconduct or breach of rule on the part of any almsperson. The revising barrister held that under the above circumstances the objection to the appellant's vote, and to the votes of three other persons (whose cases were consolidated herewith), was sustained, and he accordingly expunged their names from the list. The court affirmed the decision on the ground that under the regulations of the hospital scheme the position of the almspersons was one of dependence on the goodwill of the trustees: Dix v. Kent, Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 186; 63 L. T., N. S. 641; 55 J. P. 213.

A married woman, owner in her own right of land in a parish, but not an occupier within or within three miles of it, is not entitled to be placed on the parochial electors list.

NORTH DORSETSHIRE. Mrs. D., who claimed to be placed on the parochial electors list, owned in her own right a freehold farm in the parish of Milborne

St. Andrews, but resided more than three miles away with her husband, who was not interested in the farm nor on any register in respect thereof.

The revising barrister rejected her claim. It was contended both before him and in the Divisional Court and in the Court of Appeal, that, as owner, she would, until the Local Government Act of 1894 (56 & 57 Vict. c. 73), have been entitled to vote for guardians or local boards of health, and, these bodies having been now merged in the new councils, it could not have been the intention or the effect of the Act to disfranchise her; that the County Electors Act, 1888, sections 2 and 4, and the Municipal Corporation Act, 1882, section 63, enabled women to be placed on local government registers, and by sections 3 (2) and 43 of the Local Government Act, 1894, all disqualification of sex or marriage for being on the local government register had been removed.

The Court of Appeal, upholding the decision both of the revising barrister and of the Divisional Court, held, that section 43 merely removed disqualification of marriage where a woman was otherwise qualified, but did not give qualification where there was none before. Section 2, sub-section 1, of the Act of 1894, provided that the following persons" and no others " should be parochial electors, namely, the "persons registered in such portion either of the local government register or of the parliamentary register

as related to the parish." Mrs. D. was disqualified by sex from being on the latter; and, by reason of not being an occupier within or within three miles of the parish, from being on the former; not because of either sex or marriage; and (reading together sections 2 and 44, which define the parochial electors' register) being not entitled to be on either of those two registers, she was not entitled to be on the parochial list: Drac v. Ffooks, L. R. [1896]1 Q. B. 238; 65 L. J. R. Q. B. D. 314; 1 Smith's Reg. Cas. 59.

LISTS OF VOTERS.

Signature of overseers not essential to validity of lists of voters.

BOROUGH OF CARDIGAN. An objection was taken before the revising barrister to the list of voters for the town and liberty of Aberystwith that it was not signed by a majority of the overseers. The town and liberty of A. was a chapelry within the parish of Llanbodarn-fawr, and formed a district of the borough of Aberystwith (one of the contributory boroughs of the borough of Cardigan), maintaining its own poor, and having two overseers, two churchwardens, and an assistant overseer.

The list in question was signed by the two overseers only.

Held, reversing the revising barrister's decision, that that part of section 13 of 6 Vict. c. 18, which relates to the signing of lists by the overseers, was merely directory, and, consequently, that the list in question was valid: Morgan v. Parry, 17 C. B. 334; K. & G. 53; 25 L. J. C. P. 141; 26 L. T. 292; 2 Jur., N. S. 285.

The court has no power to order corrections in register, except under section 67 of 6 Vict. c. 18; and that section only applies when there is an appeal from revising barrister.

A., whose name appeared upon the list of voters for the county of Bedford, and also upon the list for the borough, was objected to before the revising barrister in respect of his county qualification only. The objection having been sustained, the barrister,