Held, that the lists were not invalidated by the neglect of the overseers to sign them in due time; and that, regard being had to section 38 of the Registration Act, 1843, and section 18 of the Registration Act, 1885, the revising barrister acted rightly in revising and allowing the said lists; his decision was accordingly affirmed: Wells v. Stanforth, L. R. 16 Q. B. D. 244; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 451; 55 L. J. Q. B. D. 12; 54 L. T., N. S. 183.

BOUNDARIES.

Orders of Local Government Board under the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876, held not to have the effect of altering boundaries of boroughs in their relation to the parliamentary franchise.

BOROUGH OF HORSHAM. The appellants were objected to as not being entitled to have their names retained in the list of occupiers, on the ground that their qualifying properties were not situate within the parliamentary borough of Horsham. By the joint operation of the Reform Act, 1832, and the Boundary Act, 1832, the parliamentary borough of Horsham consists of the parish of Horsham.

The premises, in respect of the occupation of which the appellants claimed to have their names retained, were situated in what was, prior to and until the making of the order of the Local Government Board hereinafter mentioned, an isolated and detached part of the parish of Sullington, known as "Broadbridge Heath."

At the date of such order of the Local Government Board, Broadbridge Heath was within the parliamentary borough of New Shoreham, and not within the parliamentary borough of Horsham.

of

By section 1 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (39 & 40 Vict. c. 61), the Local Government Board was empowered in cases where a parish is divided so as to have any its parts isolated in some other parish or parishes, or otherwise detached, to make an order (after local inquiry and notice to clerks of the peace) either for constituting separate parishes out of the divided parish, or for amalgamating some of the parts

thereof with the parish or parishes in which the same may be locally included, or to which they may be annexed.

By section 3 the several parts of a parish to which the order applied were, from and after 25th March next ensuing the date of its taking effect, to be constituted as directed therein, and the officers of the several parishes affected thereby were required to act as if such parishes had been so constituted prior to the issue of the order.

Section 4 enacts that "for the purposes of the election of members of Parliament and of burgesses in municipal boroughs, of the jury lists, of the action of the justices, and of the police and constables, the parishes shall continue to be deemed unaltered until new lists are made and new constables are appointed.”

By an order of the Local Government Board (being the order hereinbefore referred to) made pursuant to the provisions of the above statute, it was ordered :

"1. All those two isolated and detached parts of the said parish of Sullington, known as

Broadbridge Heath' and 'Broadbridge,' which are locally included within or annexed to the said parish of Horsham, shall cease to be parts of the said parish of Sullington, and shall be amalgamated with the said parish of Horsham.

"2. This order shall take effect on the first day of November, 1878."

New lists of voters had been duly made, and new constables duly appointed for the parish of Horsham subsequently to 25th March, 1879. The revising barrister decided that the properties, in respect of which the appellants claimed to have their names retained on the list, were situate within the parliamentary borough of New Shoreham, and not within the parliamentary borough of Horsham, and that the appellants were not entitled to have their names retained on the Horsham list.

The court held, affirming the decision, that section 4 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876 (whatever might be the precise meaning of that portion of the section which refers to election purposes) (a), did not affect the parliamentary franchise; that the boundary of the borough of Horsham was, for the purpose of electing members of Parliament, unaltered by the order of the Local Government Board, and, consequently, that the premises occupied by the appellants, being respectively situate beyond such boundary, did not entitle them to be registered as voters for the borough: Foster and others v. Medwin, L. R. 5 C. P. D. 87; 1 Colt. Reg. Cas. 118; 49 L. J. C. P. D. 297; 42 L. T., N. S. 254.

(a) Lord COLERIDGE, C. J., in delivering his judgment, said: "It seems to me that what was suggested in argument is at any rate a solution of it" (section 4 of the Divided Parishes and Poor Law Amendment Act, 1876), "viz., that in this case the portion of the parish of Sullington will be, for certain purposes, attached to the parish of Horsham; but that as there is no indication that this is to affect the parliamentary borough or the election of members of Parliament, except as to the preparation of lists, all that will follow will be this, that the names of voters, in respect of the parts of the old parish of Sullington which remain in the parliamentary borough of Shoreham, will have to be put into a list stuck upon churches in the parish of Horsham, and the voters will have to vote, as they have heretofore voted," for New Shoreham. The churchwardens and overseers of Horsham "will have to put upon the doors of the churches in Horsham lists of the persons who vote in that part of the new parish of Horsham which is comprised in the old borough of New Shoreham. That seems to me to give an adequate, or, at all events, one adequate interpretation to this section:" L. R. 5 C. P. D. 93, 94.

Where a voter had occupied a dwelling-house at Beckenham in the county of Kent from before the 15th of July, 1884, to May, 1885, and then moved direct to, and occupied for the remainder of the qualifying year, a dwelling-house at Lower Sydenham, situate in the same county, but which had by the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, become included in the Parliamentary Borough of Lewisham, it was held that he was entitled to be registered as a voter for the borough of Lewisham in 1885 by virtue of section 17 of the Redistribution of Seats Act of that year.

The claim of one

BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM. Frederick Grimwood to be inserted in the list of voters was as follows:

Grimwood,

Frederick.

28, Dillwyn | Dwelling-houses | 29, Yewtree road,

road, Lower
Sydenham.

in succession.

Beckenham, and 28, Dillwyn road, Lower Sydenham.

The claim was opposed in the revising barrister's court by the respondent, when the following facts were established :—

The claimant had in fact occupied in immediate succession the two dwelling-houses mentioned in the fourth column as tenant thereof during the whole of the qualifying year. He had occupied 29, Yewtree road, Beckenham, from a period anterior to the 15th of July, 1884, down to the month of May, 1885, and he had occupied 28, Dillwyn road, Lower Sydenham, from the last-mentioned date down to the revision of 1885.

Before the coming into operation of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, each of the two dwellinghouses was situate in the then west division of the county of Kent, and each gave its inhabitant occupier a vote for the county.

Upon the coming into operation of the Redistribution of Seats Act, 1885, 29, Yewtree road, Beckenham, became included in the new western or Sevenoaks