The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1879-04-12 00:00:00

HAMTLEBURY,

KIDDERMINSTER MUNICIPAL ELECTION

PETITION.

In the Common Pleas Division of the High
Court of Justice on Monday, sitting in banco,
before Lord Coleridge, Justices Grove and Lopes,
the case of "Guest aud others v. Boycott and
others" was heatd. This petition related to the
election of councillors for the South Ward of the
borough of Kiddertninster in November, 1877.
The petitioners were Isaac Guest, weaver; William
Gale overlooker ; James Poyner, weaver; and
Isaiah Jordan, carpenter; and the question wa-
raised in a special case stated for the opinion of the
Court under the order of a judge. The " case "
set out that the petitioners were persons who were
entitled to vote at the election referred to. The
borough was divided into two wards; and on the
23rd of October seven candidates were nominated
for the South Waid. One of the candidates after-
wards withdrew. The names of the remaining six
being William Boycott, Edwin Shaw, Henry Dixon,
William Howe Green, Edmund Potter, and John
Rathbone Wood. Boycott and Shaw objected to
the nomination papers of Green, Potter, and Wood,
on the ground that the names of the persons sub-
scribing to them, with their numbers on the bur-
gess roll and the situation of the property in
respect of which they were enrolled, should have
been taken from the burgess ioll completed in
1876 instead of that made out in 1877. The objec-
tion to Potter was heard first, and on proof that
one of the persons assenting to the nomination was
not on the burgess roll for 1876, the Mayor (Mr.
Thomas Radford) allowed the objection. Green
and Wood were both present, and on hearing the
decision in the case of Potter they declined to argue
the validity of their nominations, whereupon the
Mayor ittluived the objections against them also
Puree Councilors were to be elected, and as the
allowance of the objections reduced the candid tes
I to that number. Boycott, .e haw, and Dixon were
declared to be duly elected. Dixon, however,
omitted to make the usual declaration within the
time allowed by law, and after the filing of the
present petition, intimated that he had ceased to
avid office and did not intend to oppose the petition:
:te questious for the opinion of the Court were
whether Boycott, Shaw, and Dixon were dub
elected; whether the decision of the Mayor as to
the obje tions was right; and whether the peti-
tioners were entitled to relief. The Solicitor-
General, Mr. U. Bowen, and Mr. Mure Mackenzie
were counsel for the appellant,. • Mr. Bompas, Q.C.,
aud Mr. E. Pollard appearing for the respondents;
while Mr. Sutton represented the Mayor. After
hearing Mr. blacken zie and Mr. Bompas.
Lord Coleridge, without calling upon the Solici-
tor-General to reply, proceeded to deliver judgment
He was of opinion that the petitioners were entitled
to succeed. He thought it was impossible to look
at Cie reasoning in "Budge v. Andrews" without
coming to the conclusion that it covered the pre-
sent case also, and it was a decision the principle
of which entirely governed the present ease, al-
though the point involved was slightly different.
He was aware that under the old Municipal Cor-
poration Act it was not quite clear that burgess-
list and burgess-roll always meant one and the
same thing In certain eases they assuredly did
not mean the same thing, but here they had only
to deal with the burgess-roll, and the burgess-roll,
at all events, was the roll of the burgesses of the
uorough or ward made in the way pointed out by
tee various Acts and completed on or before October
the 22nd. He would not ,-ay that the language of
the sth section and of the 2nd sub-section of section
1 of the Act of 1875, was absolutely free from
doubt, but he had come to the conclusion that it
meant that the persons nominating must be on the
burgess roll delivered out as complete by the Town
Clerk on or before the 22nd October prior to the
election. Persons were not entitled to nominate or
vote at a municipal election unless their names were
on the burgess-roll for the time being; but, if the
argument for the respondents were to prevail per-
sons might nominate candidates, and yet be unable
to vote when the time for election arrived. He did
not desire to express any definite opinion as to what
the 34th se,tion of the Act 41st and 42nd Victoria
was or was not retropective, by the enactment
fortified him in his view that his interpretation of
t e Municipal Elections Act, 1875, was not only a
possible, but the proper interpretation.
Mr. Justice Grove was of the same opinion.
Mr. Justice Lopes also concurred.
Judgment was therefore given for the petitioners
with costs against all the respondents except Dixon
who gave notice of abandonment.
Mr. Sutton asked that costs might not be awarded
against the Mayor, who had only performed a
judicial duty.
Lord Coleridge: If the Mayor chooses to appear
he must do so with the ordinary iecidents.
Mr. Beinpas : „ire your lord-hips resolved to give
costs against the reepondent s ? They merely came
to uphold the decision of the Mayor.
Lord Coleridge: Oh yes; they have sat in the
Council for eighteen months, and the costs are not
an exces:ive payment for so great an honour—
(laughter).
Judgment accordingly.
On Tuesday, Lord Coleridge stated that he and
his learned brothers thought on reflection that they
had been rather hard on the Mayor in making him
responsible for costa generally. They would so