parliamentary lists of the borough, viz., both for the Kirkdale division in respect of his place of abode, and for the Abercromby division in respect of his place of business. The notice, instead of following the terms of Form P. prescribed by the Registration Act, 1878, and the Registration Order, 1889 (1), was in the following terms: "I, do hereby select the following, viz., for parliamentary voting, Abercromby Division, No. 7, Polling District No. 29, No. on list, 1724. Charles Chadwick, 38, Walton Road, Polling District, No. 3, No. on list, 1906.” The lists for each of the nine divisions were divided into lists of occupiers, lodgers and freemen. The notice was objected to by a party agent as not in compliance with Form P. The revising barrister, having overruled the objection, and declined to state a case, and a rule calling on him to show cause having been argued, The court, affirming the decision, held that no such right of appeal existed, as applicant was not a person who, within the 42nd section of the Registration Act, 1843, had either made a claim or objection, in accordance with the provisions as to notice, &c., of section 17; section 5 of the Registration Act, 1885, had no application to this case, in which no right of appeal was given by the Registration Act, 1878, sub-section 14 of section 28. The matter was one solely for the revising barrister's decision without any appeal: Reg. v. Revising Barrister of Liverpool, [1895] L. R. 1 Q. B. 155; 64 L. J. Q. B. 131; Fox & Smith's Reg. Cas. 375; 71 L. T. 636; 43 W. R. 220. The revising barrister had issued notices that claims and objections would be taken and disposed of at certain fixed sittings, and had disposed of them accordingly. Being satisfied by information from the party representatives and others present that there were no persons present to make further claims and objections, he declared the lists closed, excepting some cases specially adjourned. The next day, while reading out the names of persons affected by the revision, the claimants applied to be heard in support of their claims. He declined to hear them, on the ground that he had publicly announced that the lists were closed, and refused to state a case. Held, that he was right. CITY OF LEEDS. In accordance with his customary practice to prevent confusion, the revising barrister had, in his notices of courts for 1895, given notice that the East Division lists would be taken at evening sittings on September 16 and 17 until completed, and that claims and objections made by those who were not then present, or had not otherwise established them, would be struck out. On On the 18th, while reading out in court the results of the revision thus completed on the 17th, two claimants applied to be heard, and the revising barrister refused to hear them as aforesaid. argument of a rule to show cause why they should. not be heard, and for a mandamus to hear and determine their claims, The court held, affirming the decision, that the revising barrister was right; he had the power to manage the business of his own court, and had arranged it for the public convenience. Having had full notice, and not appearing at the appointed time, until the lists had been declared closed, the applicants were not entitled to be heard then when the revising barrister was merely sitting for the clerical work of formally declaring the results of the revision. The rule was refused on both points: Reg. v. Soden, Times Law Reports, 26, March, 1896; and the decision affirmed by the Court of Appeal. COSTS OF APPEAL. Ir is enacted by section 70 of 6 Vict. c. 18 "that it shall be lawful for the said court" (the Court of Appeal in Registration Cases) "to make such order respecting the payment of the costs of any appeal, or of any part of such costs, as to the said court shall seem meet: Provided always, that it shall not be lawful for the said court in any case to make any order for costs against or in favour of any respondent or person named as respondent as aforesaid, unless he shall appear before the said court in support of the decision of the revising barrister in question." The thirty-eighth section of the Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878, enacts as follows: "The costs of an appellant against a decision of a revising barrister may, if the appeal is successful, be ordered by the court hearing the appeal to be paid by the clerk of the peace or town clerk named as respondent in the said appeal, whether he shall or shall not appear before the said court in support of the decision. "For enabling an appellant to obtain such an order he may at or before the time of making his declaration of appeal under section 42 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843, require the revising barrister to name the clerk of the peace for the county or the town clerk for the parliamentary borough or municipal borough, as the case may be, to which the appeal relates to be respondent in the appeal. "The revising barrister if so required shall, and S. K K in any case may, name such clerk of the peace or town clerk, as the case may be, to be respondent in an appeal, either alone or in addition to any other person referred to in section 43 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843. "The expenses properly incurred by a clerk of the peace or town clerk as respondent, including any costs which he may be ordered to pay to the appellant in any such appeal, shall be allowed to him as part of the expenses incurred by him in respect of the revision of the list to which the appeal relates. The term expenses' in this section shall include all matters mentioned in section 31 of the Representation of the People Act, 1867. "The costs of an appeal against a decision of a revising barrister shall be in the discretion of the court hearing the appeal, subject, except as aforesaid, to the proviso contained in section 70 of the Parliamentary Registration Act, 1843." The following cases may be consulted with reference to the practice of the court in relation to the allowance of costs: Webb v. Aston, 5 M. & G. 14, 32. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Simpson v. Wilkinson, 7 M. & G. 50, 65. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Allen v. House (a), 7 M. & G. 157, 162. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Bage v. Perkins (b), 8 Scott, N. R. 983, 984. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Daniel v. Camplin, 8 Scott, N. R. 999, 1013. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Wood v. Willesden, 1 Lutw. 314, 323. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. (a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. (b) In this case the appellant did not appear, and the respondent's counsel was not called upon. Walker v. Payne (a), 1 Lutw. 324, 327. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Croucher v. Browne (a), 2 C. B. 97, 111. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, without costs. Bishop v. Smedley (a), 2 C. B. 90, 96. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Gale v. Chubb (a), 4 C. B. 41. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Birch v. Edwards, 5 C. B. 45, 51. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson v. Cotton (a), 5 C. B. 51, 55. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Onions v. Bowdler, 5 C. B. 65, 75. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Watson v. Pitt, 5 C. B. 77, 87. Decision Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Copland v. Bartlett, 6 C. B. 18, 29. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, without costs. Mashiter v. Dunn, 6 C. B. 30, 37. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Beamish v. Stoke, 11 C. B. 29, 40. (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Ford v. Smedley, 12 C. B. 622, 630. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Hamilton v. Bass, 12 C. B. 631, 638. (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Collins v. Thomas (a), 12 C. B. 639, 641. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Lambert v. St. Thomas, New Sarum (b), 2 Lutw. 222. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. Decision Beeson v. Burton, 12 C. B. 647, 660. Decision (in favour of the vote) affirmed, with costs. Moorhouse v. Gilbertson (a), 14 C. B. 70, 76. Decision (against the vote) affirmed, with costs. (a) In this case the appellant's counsel only was heard. |