The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1878-05-21 00:00:00

MCLAIN° Or THE SPECIAL CASS LW THI COUNT r,r

CONNOW PLEAS.

The Poole Municipal Election Petition, in which
Mr. P. E. L. Budge is the petitioner, and Menrs J.
Andrews, T. Buckley, IL T. Trevaaion, and F. T.
Rogers the respondent, came on for hearing at the
Common Pleas Division, Westminster, on Wednesday,
before Mr. Justice Grove, Mr. Justice Lopes, and Mr.
Justice Lindley, sitting in banco.
Sir Harding. Gifford. Q.C. (Solicitor-General), Mr.
Grantham, Ifp., (ix., and Mr. Bowen, instructed
by Messrs Ellis and Mundy, appe tred for the
petitioner, and Mr. Benjamin, Q c , and Mr. Pollard,
instructs,' by Messrs. Peacock and Goddard, for the
respondents.
The Solicitor-General said this was an action to try the
validity of • municipal election held at Poole on theist
clay of November last, and he proceeded to read the
! special case agreed upon for argument. With regard to
! the Mayor's docision at the revision court, that stamped
' dttplicates of notices of objection were a sufficient proof
of 'orrice, be said be did not think tLis was a matter for
. this court, but might be one for another court. He then
read the reinainiue portion of the case, which coneludes
is follows :—" The questions for the opinion of the court
who are to pronounce judgment in such form as they
shall see fit, with or without ante as they shall see
fit, subject, however, to the respondents' objections in
respect of question 3 and 4, as hereinafter &epee:sore :-
I.—Whether the said J•rues Andrews, I)tua
Buckley, and Henry Thomas Turanian were
or any of them was duly elected to the cabs of
Comedian..
2. —Whether if they or one of them were not duly
elected, their or his election is void.
I—Whether the nomination of the said James
Andrews, Thus Buckley, and Henry Thomas
Trevanion were illegal and void or not.
4.—Whether the decision of the Mayor allowing
the objection to the nomination paper of the
said George Frederick Wanhill was wrong or
not.
—Whether the petitioner is entitled to any and
what relief.
The respondents object to questions 3 and 4 being deter-
mined by the court, on the ground that the court has no
jurisdiction to entertain or determine the same.- The
first point to which he wished to draw attention was the
question as to the qualification of Alderman Rosen. He
read the list of pri.perties for which Mr. R.wrs claimed
to be qualified, and he said that the facts appourad to be
that before Michaelmas, 106, Mr. Bogeys had made what
constituted a good equitable treader of his property at
Isonglieet to Mr. Mark Vine. and all that remained to he
clang was the completion of the tit:e. Between Michael-
In&I and the 20th November poeseesion wa. held for Mr.
Roger., and some reliance appeared to be placed on the
fact that • donkey and fowls owned by Yr. Rogers were
kept on the premises. But, he contended that, as a
matter of fact, • bargain had been made that Mr. Mark
Vine was to he entitled to enter the premise' on the 20th
September it
Mr. Juritice Grove asked the Solicitor-General what was
his argument /
The Solicitor-General said his contention was that
Mr. Rogen.ceased to occupy the premises at Michaelmas,

Justice Grove remarked that be remained in
b/phr.is.servant, by the ass, and by the poultry
The Solicitor-General said he submitted that the
premises were in the occupation oi Mr. Mark Vine.
Kr. Justice Grove eat,' it appeared Vine did not take
ioseesaioe till November.

Pr!Falies

7rh. SociTo—rZn.earad this am actual possession.
Mr. Rogers agreed to dispose of his premises at
ltichaelinas, and the rent was paid by Mr. Viii... from
the Silth September.
.14111.1 CS Grove said that as he read the case it
a
ilmt the agreement wita not completed. irtstios Lopes remarked that • man named Pearoey
remained in charge oi the premises for Mr. Rogers wall
Use tad November.
_

TI-17ii;liTcitor:Ji;Seral proceeded to say that his Conten-
tion was that Yr. Rogers waa not on the 1.1 .1 Novembe,.
and he had not been for more than a year previous
qualified jobs on the burgess
Mr. Justice Grove remarked that Vine was not in actual
occupation of the mime till the find November.
Th. Solicilor-ti.usrel replied that the man named
Penney was in physical occupation till then, but he
merely remained to see that the agreement warn carried
Out.
Mr. Justice Lindley remarked that &manilas to the
agreement Vine had no right to occupy till he bad paid the
ass.irml of the.valusitthn. -

-117.-iu;tice Co-issis ask-ad who could eject Palmy except
Hitr.
e ILlkitor-General proceeded to argue that at least
it was clear that on the Sod November, Mr. Rogers cowed
to occupy the premises. On the last day of July, 1817, he
was not entitled to be on the burgess roll, and be was not
&Ape or de Aoki on the burgess roll coming into misteoce
on the Nod October following. The next questioe arose
under the 52nd section of the act 51.11 and (Ith Willlam IV..
chapter 160, and the point was, what was meat by the
words "absent from the borough r Hi learned friend
Would contend that it meant simply physical absence
Rio argument was that, although absolute residence might
not be required, yet the language of the section was not
satisfied by auy more accidental Physical Pretence. fie
far as this was • question of fact it might be stated thus :
—" He stayed in Poole for some days in the and of
October. 1874 and again for two days in November. 1878.
acted as ward alderman on November Ist. 18111, and
attended as alderman at • Conned meeting on November
9th, 1878, in Much, 1877, was for two days in Poole, wee
again on one day in Pools in June, 1877, but did not sleep
their, and stayed in Poole for • week or 10 days in
July. 1877, and attended as alderman at a Council meeting
Ira that month, was again in Pools in October, lgn, and
he also stayed there for some days at the end of the same
month. When at Pools it was for the purpose of transact.
ins business, and when he stared there for more than the
day he stayed either at a friend's house or at an hotel,
but had no dwelling-house of his own." The Solicitor-
Geoeral next drew attention to the act 7th William VI
and tot Victoria, chapter 78, section L, which provides
that no election of any Pomo to • tortoni. body, which
should take place sitar the passing of the Act should be
hallo to he q,eitaom4 by reason of any defect in the
title, or want of title, of the person before whom the
election should be held, provided the person presiding
should be An the actual possession of, or acting in the
al., giving the right to preside at such election. Of
coarse it would be said against him that even it he was
right with regard to Mr. Roger. qualification, yet that as
16. Raprs was in possession of the Aloe, and acted as-
presiding officer, however defective his title might he Me-
*you. eouldgeot be questiousd on this account His
answer to this was that the true meaning of the section
was that if the only act done was to hold the elation, and
If It was in all other respects good, it could not be
questioned on the ground of defective title, but that enact
which decided the election could not be done except there
was a proper qualification.
Mr. Jaskol) Grove remarked that it beemzis of impor-
tance to me what a casting vote meant, as he believed
. there were some corporations in which the =bag
ogler had • casting vote, irrespocUre of hi. an
elector.
The Solicitor General proceeded to maimed that by
an Act weld In the reign of William IV., the mayor and
two ow.woom or any two of than, in the Calla Of an
equality of eetee, had the power of giving what might
be called the casting vote, but hy • later act it was -
vided that the erasion need not extend at the elece.
The Act, however, did sot my that the in respect
of the casting vote, au, might be by the pre-
aiding alderman alone.
Mr. Justice Lindley: You my that if the memos* do
not attend the power mionot be erorsised ssaflg
The Solictiar-General said this was his present con-
tention. He then pried on to weak of the nomfosOf tion
Kr. G. F.Wantull. Mr. Wendel was entitled to he
as the burgess roll from October, ws, to October 1817:
but by an omission of the overseer Ills name did not
Far. His name, however did Ws= on the burgess limed in October, 1877. lie was entitled to ote at
election, and was duly nominetod sea council:a% but
the Mayor thought St to disallow his nonsinatiest under
cirmunstaame to which he should drew their kodokito
stieution presenny. Re hardly thought it would is
dented that if this dieellovrance WM wrong it vitiated
the election. The ground upon which the Mayor
allowed the nomination wee that Mr. Washill's name
did not appear on tb. bargees roll imbed in October.
WC tnougu it spp.aoed in the One lame in October.
1817. The connoted proceeded to erne that the
bargees roll upon which the election was to like place
was the one published on the glad Ockilmr. 1817. and
that lids meet also be the roll by which the qualidention
eta candidate nominated on the Ned Otteher might he
Esidortaismill If this was not as then • person who had
bra off the list, MA who had no vels. might be
At lids WO lb. sob adJoussi Oa Wise.

On theoools re.aemenbinsit the Solknot-Gametal re-
poi•ad pie argunnint, contending at great length that
th. bum. roll upon which the nomination and election
should be determined was the one which came into
existence on the boil October, 1877. He then passed as
to the consideration of the queetaon, whether the Mayor
ania right in deciding this question, and said if the
Maw was wrong ,it would Invalidate the election. be-
canes it we. Worland by an Act of Parliament that the
decision of the Motor in matters of this kind should be
gicen in writing • it dinar...dug any ohfeetlna to a nomina-
tion paper his /Weis.o wat hosthut if allowins it, it was
Inbkot to reversal. On Petition against the election or
return. He should my no mote n this Point
became It seemed too plain to require argument, but be
would pass on to the last point upon which be should have
to Addeo. them 'lbis was an important Pot" and the
substance of it was that the Mayor decided his own ease,
which, according to common law. he war disqualified from
Hever there waa a els. of cases *bleb it was
desirable to preserve that common law ena, in the case
of elections, and particularly municipal elections. no that
partisans might be prevented from uiing their influence
for political purposes. The Mayor, he ~intended, decided
a question in his own favour, and aiming his political
°Prineljnamin objected to the phrase "political oPP3-
nen.- being used.
The Solicitor-General withdrew the words objected to,
but contended that the Mayor decided a case in which be
was himself interested. Six Person. wen. nominated. the
Mayor nominating three of them. If the Mayor excluded
• nomination by some one •Ise be virtually decided upon .
his own. The 'learned counsel hern road from the ca.
throe paragraphs which relate to the objection robed
against the nomination of Mr. Wanhill, and •Iso to the
objection to the nomination of Mew*. Aittlr we. Buckley,
and Trevaniou. He alio read the objections, and after-
wards the decisions given by tl.• Mayor, anal :intended
that whether the °biro:Lin to Hr. Wanbill's nomination
war right or wrong the Mayor had tio right to decide, an
he had nominated candidaten himself, and the fact of
disallowing • nomination made by someone else would
have • direct effect upon his own nomination, as the
their lordships would turuto paragraph 32 of the ca.-they
return of one of big nominee. was than secured. But If
would see that he not only did this, but that he actually
decided on the validity of hie own nomination. Huron-
e-nded that it was inconsistent *ith the judicial
principles of this country that the torsion, the validity of
Ms own nomination. He con'euded that it was inoo.
eistent with the j.:dinial principleo of this country that she
p re. the validity of whose act was questioned,
anduld In the one to decide nom' it. He further argued
that, considering the nature of the transaction, the Maya,
was specie ly interested in it, beton*e the persons elected
were those upon whole votes the election of Maror would
depen I, and he might mention—though he could only do
so as a matter of illustration—that the Merin had been
actually is..-elected owing to the respondents' votes. The
Solicitor-General eoncluded hi. argument by still blether
urging tt • the Mayor was disqualified, in point of law,
from deciding upon what was his own case
Mr. It nj unto stated, in ?only to a queetina, that he
should be nimble lobe present on the following der.
Mr. Justice throve nail they hall arranged for the caw
to go on de ilia iio dins, and they must go ou with it, or
them would do. three judges distil/need for • day, which
would he • thing quite against the constitution. (Lough ter.)
Mr. Benjamin said Hr. Pdllord would be able to go on
with the raga . .

Toe case was then • liourned till the following
morning.

T1111U0•1':

The hearing of the case was resumed on. --T7h—untiay
morning, the Judges taking their sesta at half-past ten
o'clock.
Mr Grantham asked their lerilithio, to take notice of
the it. section of the A. t 5 and 6 William IV.. cap 76,
stating that "every burgess of any borough who shall he
enrolled shall he entitled to vote, and that "no per-
son not enrolled on such burgess roll for the time shall he
entitled to vote." H. said that their contention was that
the word. "to? the time being" referred to the electarai
for which the burgess roll was prepared.
Mr. Pollard then commenced his address to their lord-
ships. He said be regretted it had fallen to hbi lot to
have to reply to the case on behalf of the respondent., sis
Mr. Benjamin would have put the question before them
much triter than he could do.. . . . .

Mr.—.l;;;lce Groe.; saidl"Might perhaps be convenient
that they should draw Mr. Pollard', attention to the
point with which they had been most etruck. It was as
to the :waning of the words 'the burgess roll for the
ti me being." The t2n4 section nl the shatute 5 and 6
William IV. cap. 76, eppeared toile. the dominant one.
He read the section, which having shown bow the
burgess roll is to be prepared. nays, "Evert' such book in
which the said burgess at, shall have been coint'd shell
be the burgess roll of the bargemen of such borough
entitled to vote, after the patsing of the Act, in the choice
of couneillors, assemove, end auditors of such borough
as hereinafter mentioned, at any election which may
take place in such borough beterei n the lint day of
November, inelutive in the rem% wherein such burger
roll shall halm been made, and the first day of November
In the suceed ins year.
Mr. Pollard mid ho could not contend otherwise. The list
was in force Irons the flret day of Norenber to tho
following 314 of October.

---iir:iuit:i.ea-iiro—ve—aTted how Mr. Pollard got over the

-1117. -Pollard sail be hoped to be able to do so.
Mr. Justice Grove said this WM what they were anxious
to bear him upon.
Mr. Pollard said be would call their attention first to
the questions 3 and I submittal to the reurt.
Mr. Justice Grove said this was one of those questions.
It was the question "whether the decision ~f the Mayor
allowing the objecUon to the nomination paper of the
amid George Frederick %Vanhill we. wrong or not." A.
be understoal it the objection to the nomination paper
WO. that, althoiligh Mr. VV.nhill wto noon the bureau
roll wh:ch hod liven completed on the 2ind of Uctober,
Fin, be was not OIiOO the burgess roll of the previous
year, There.., the objection raised to the court de-
ciding this question. and also question 3, on the ground
that ithad no juriediction to entertain or determine the

Pollard mid be ritheld submit that with regard to
number three there (*.ld be no passible question as to its
not being within their lorddiihips' jurisdiction.
Mr. Justice Groves asked Mr. Pollard to take question
four first, as that arm the point that moat troubled them.
Mr. Pollard then said th it, as the Solicitor General had
stated, this court was of final appeal, and therefore was
not hound in euy may like what his learned friend bad
called a court of co-onlinate jurisdiction. Ile should
contend that the questions which he bed to submit to
to them were not merely the decision. of • court of
co-ordinate jurialietrou, hut the decisions ot the Court
of Queen's Bench, to its own exclusive and peculiar
jurisdiction, and from whom decision, there was no
hypes) ; therefore its decisions in the matter referrid to
were eutitled to higher con-lleration than if the court
was an ordinary itie, On] sitting in it. ordinary jurisdic-
tion. Ttp.o.ii it. dccisnm mire i..t atuolutely binding on
their lordships, yet he ventured to suhrnit they would
treat then& With dieferenee. Mr. /Ulanl then proceeded
to draw attention to the 12th section of the 35th and Nth
Vi.•toris, chapt r 60, which defines in what matters the
eleerjon of prsons me iy he qui Wooed, and which sap.,
The alecti in ol any person at au election for • brrough
at ward may Inc questioned upon petitiou before no
election Court constituted as hereinafter in this act
provided, end hereinafter in this Act reierred to as the
onist., on the ground that the elr Minn was as to the
borough or ward, wholly avoided by general bribery,
treating. undue toluene.., or personation, or on the
grosad that the election of each person was avoided by
corrupt practices it offences against this Act committed
at the election, or on the ground that he was at the tint.
of the election disqualified for election to the office for
which the election was held, or on the ground that hewn.
no, elected by • majority of lawful votes." These were
the only matters in respect of which the presentation of
election petition against thrt return at • municipal
aiection <mild oinie under their lordships' jurisdiction.
The present cm, did not, he argued, come within the
mite/orige with which the court was authorised to deal.
This court, be contented, had no power to deal with the
question "whether the decision of the Mayor allowing
the objection to the nomination paper of the mid George
Frederick WanhiU wee wrong or swir Legislation Ind
already provided 'mans by which the conduct of the
Mayor, and the propriety M his decision could be ques-
tioned, namely, by an application fore inaediseme or by a
e. siverTanie.
Mr. Justice Groves said Mr. Pollard wss assuming that
the jurisdiction of the Court of Queen'. Bench and the
present court were necessarily autogiro of each other,
Mr. Folioed gold they were so far exclusive, and he
considered the matter now in question to be one which
could not be considered by OW Court. Mr. Pollard, in
pre--eeding with be argument, contended that the only
possible grounds upon which it might be questioned
whether the court had jurisdiction in this case or not
were Included in the worda, "that be was at the time of
election dlequallied for election to the Ace for which the
sanction wee held, or on the ground that he was not duly
elected by. saajority of lawful votes." The "majority of
lawful votes' was as between those persons offered for
election, and he submitted that the mere fact that some-
me else tried to be • sloth candidate would not come
mums, the meaning M the words. He admitted that lir.
Wanbill was entitled to vote at the election, but there
his "'unification ceased. Be was entitled to vote on the
let November, and to be On the burgeaa roil for all
cremes (rota that day, but not until that date. Some
ht might he thrown upon the matter by seeing what
wee done with referents to the nomination papers. It
ose somewhat singular that gm the nomination paper of
Mr. Wanhill the proposer, asonider, and them emoting
gave their numbers on both the old and the new roll.
Mr. iodic* Grove said they might do this in orcier to
=eke thwwsse.lvws male either way.
. . . . .

Mr. Pollart;ii; proceeding, contended that tho burgem '
roll for nomination on the rd October was different
from the one for eischisio on the lit November. In order
to into. at • conclueion ss to whether Mr. Wanhill was
entitled to be nominated on the day that he warn nomi-
nated it would be n.ce,aa,ibo xlance at the progress of
tegulatioe with regard to nominations. Under the
Municipal Oorporation Act, 5 and $ William IV., cap. 76.
there wee. no nomination; therefore thore could be only
oee burgess roll is fore; aa it were, at one time. Anothor
Act stated, "Be it enacted that every person In any borough
who shall be enrolled on she burg's, roll for the tune
being of such borough shall be entitled to vote in the
*toenail of irouneillora and of auditors sad sawors for
such borough." "Par the Uwe being' meant the time
&los at the olection, sad for this reason there was nothing
See in connection with the election except what wee to be
dem on the day appointed for the election. Mansions
the only parsons entitled to vista were those on the
burgs= roll for the tinie being., sad the., Wnn no quee-
lion that, in the meaning of becalms 11) and 31/. the only
.oersooo mantled to vote were the bummers wham, names
cri
.l upon the roll coming into force on the first of
We'eXber. sad listing until the following 31st October.
And lor ties remota There eras no other Act in copulae-
eon with the election to be done, except upon the lit of
November, and. Outvote", the burrows upon the roll in
tome for the Ist of November. 1876, to the 31st of October.
IST would by this Act be ths only ones who could vote
at at. election of councillor, heti on the lot November.
is 76, L.ocause the preirioue roll had wed to have any
exiitonse as • roll on the 31st October. There was than
only one roll in force forth, time being. 3he whole mods
of election had been changed, and the .riteso of Domina-
tion had been adopted. The g2nd Victoria, chance: 33
and .36. rection 0, referred to the introduction of the
nomination system, and the language used Wag at first
somewhat startling, especially with regard to the right of
the Mato, to nominate, eau said. "At say election of
councillors to le held for any learouth or ward, any
nerson entitled to vote may morals/do for the aloe of
councillor himself (if duly qualified) or say other parson
or persons mo qualified (not exceeding the number of
Pemba to he elected for the borough or ward. as the case
might lie 1" This showed that the I act of. person being
mayor Mei not prevent him from nonsinsting himself, or
say other person entitled to vat*. Then came this
question. I.s the nomination by this Act want take plea*
at least mew days before the day of elicit.; a orAr to
give an opportunity for objections to be made and coo-
eiders.; then for UM first time arose the neicensity of there
being two rolls having two different objects and purposes,
because it wee clear him that a person entitled to rot;
and therefor* entitled to nominate, could not he a person
.h.si right to rote only commenced on the first of
November, and would not he entitled to vote at any
maul election before that time. If such parson warn not
tei Use current roll, bet only on the roll coming ~nto fume
oath. Istof Noember ensuing, than he submitted that
be cadd not akin a nomination paper, because be could
"flng itina•sif under the oParntion of the words of
he had
...11.J entice tive"-reesseltael that Mr. Pollard read the
"assay eleetios of couseillors to he held for any
iixeonots or ward. say amen *stiffed to woes Map nomi-
mil, se though at an eleetaie of counalllon ally •
person who bad bees eatiShei to vote might mealuste,
Ilr. Polled mid that thessmeat of Poe Solicitor-
Gamma Wag *an 1,0 Porde be kabala. "that say
grwit° shall bosom* eau er voile ow the Ist of
wana bor. he.'
Kr. Jostles Oren rid if map werese an Imam saw,
te elested swim Is wools2e, 1., yews=
Opp is Os
Was for Ohs rissier• 111 .

bargees roll A person's qualification would b
mammon/1Y rattrkled by this, as he must hers one
qualification to fit him to be nominated and another to At
him to he elected.
Mr. Pollard said • Person must he on the old rill end
mantled to be on the new. Mr. Pollard missug hostler
argued this point,
Mr. Justice rimy. remarked that if the arrow•nt hi the
petitioner upon this point was goad it vitiated the election,
awl sail that as at Present advised they were against the
respondent, hut would wander the matter and give their
derision on tbe.r retssrn s • es.urt altar luncheons
In reply to as...riser reitionk made by Mr. Justice Groves,
Mr. Pollard said be thought that if they deeided against
him with regard to the pullet h. had Ines arpins, sod
did not decide against him on the Point as to
the quslid-
caLl n of Alderman Rowers, that Mrs Rogers whit." be
entitled to costs.
. . . .

The Solicitor-General sad the rsepoodents had thought
Molter to Menem in one
all stand together. cam. and he thought they muet
Mr. Pollard said there were special costs involved in
setting op that portion of the case relating to Mr. Rogers,
and himself and Mr. Bowen had had to beld several
censultatione
Their lordship. then withdrew. sail were absent from
the court for upwards of an hour.
Their lordships returned into court shortly before three
o'clock. nod Mr. Justice Grove at once proceeded to give
Lndgment He said thin cam wan the petition of Philip
Edward Lionel nudge mains% Tenet Andrews. Titus
Buckley, Henry Thomism Trevanion, and Frencis Timestell
Rog rs, the letter being the returuina officer for one of
the ward, of the borough of Poole. The petition was in
reapect of an election ef town rouncillore, which took place
on the let of November, IE7, in thet.hoeteolhe nod the
three candidates oh., were elected On that 4441\11.,11 were
James Audrueirs, Titus Buckley. and Henry Thnsnee
lievaaion, who were three of the reepandents in this
petition By the .peeied case which had been ergued
before them sever,' objections weir taken to the validity
Of the eleetou One of theft nbjeci ions appeared to them
during the argument of El dicitorGenerel to be of greet
force, end as it went to the whole question of whether the
election wan valid or void they r seiested Mr. Poll .rd to
address himself, in the first instance, to that objection.
Notwithstanding the able argument of Mr. Pollard,—who
wee very well Acquainted with the legislation on this
subject. and was able with perfect mediums to call their
attention to • Imre number of sections applyirm more or
lee. directly to thie csee—yet neither healed or his
learned brothers were satisfied that the objection .24 not
fetal to the election of those counclliore Thin objection,
which they thought fatal to the election, wt. the . nec ,
{dial in the 4th question put for their decision : "Whether
the decision of the Mayor allowing the objection to the
nomination paper of the mid George Frederith Wanhill
was wrong or not!' Added to this *as the further objec-
tion: "The respondents object to questions Send 4 &eine
determined by the court, on the ground that the C. tme
no iuriadiction to enter.On or determine the same.
Perhaps i: might, prime/seri& appear to be more in order
that he should take the question of jurisdiction first, no,
before deciding on the other question, it might be well to
rive the nelsons why they were 0011rtnerd they had juris-
diction. Rot lookoth at many of the facts which they
would be obliged to cite for that purpose, they hied
deemed it more convenient to take the objection iteelf
first, and afterwards to make what reference they thought
necessary with regard to the question of jureediction.
The facts with regard to George Frederick Wanhill were
✓ated in the cage as follow.:—" On the UM day of
October. 1877, six candidates were nominated in writing
for the South East Ward." Hers follow. d the Darnel of
the candidates, amongst them being thst of George
Frederick Wanhill The paragraph proceeded "All the
candidates were nominated in writing, and hy separate
nomination pews." Paragraph ID, and this woo an
important statement, said as follows:—" The said
Frederick Wanhill wee not encoded on the Forget:7ot
and ward list published on the And October, 1876, but be
was enrolled as "George F. Waxildlr in the borer., roll
for the paid borough published on the And October, 1877,
and was in all respects qualified to be elected as a
nourecillor " Noting, turned upon his being etyled
"George F. Wanhill: thin was not insisted upon by the
Solicitor General. Paragraph A stated —" The said
George Frederick Warmill, though in all respects so
entitled, was by no omission of the overseer of the pace
of the tything of Longdeek in the said borough of Poole,
not enrolled in the burgess roll published on the And of
October, 1876." The .suestlon turned on this fact Wan-
tedl being nominated f as a candidate for the election to
take plate en the first of November, 1877, we. it necessary,
in order to make his nomination a valid one, that he
should he upon the burgess roll made on the 23nri October,
1876, or upon the burgess roll made on the And October,
1877, or on both ; or to put it no Kr. Pollard bad put it,
should he be on the burgess roll of the And of October,
1876. and be entitled to he on the burgess list which
became the butte's roll on the 1120 d of October, 1877, and
which would be the list or roll upon which the •lection of
the first of November would proceed? It was argued by
the respondenta that it was necemary that be senold be
upon the roll putelisbed on the And of October, 1876, and
should al's be entitlol to be upon the subeequent burgess !
rolt. which would be made out upon the And of October,
1877, although it wax said to be immaterial whether he
was actually on the list, provided he was entitled to he
upon it. Oa the other band it was contended for the
petitioners that he was rightly nominated, being not only
entitled to be but being enrolled upon the burgess roll
published on the 22nd of October, 1877, and therefore that
the Mayor who allowed the objection to the nomination
paper was wrong in allowing it, or to use • converge
expresaion, in disallowing his candidature. They were of
opinion that the Mayor was wrong, and that Wauhill was
entitled to be nominated and elected, if the elector'
thought fit to vote for him son, to give him a majority
entitling him to be elected, he being se the burgess roll
published on the And of October, 1877. He did not
intend to go into all the ...canoes of the statute that had
been mentioned, but in order to reduce what he had to
say to • moderate compass, he should only mention thesis
particularly applying to the ease before therm The fist
he would cite was the lliiit section of sth and Ilth
Witham IV.. chapter 76, which enacted SS follows
"That the burgess list so revised and signed no last afore.
laid shall be delivered by the Mayor to the Town Clerk of
such borough, who shell keep the mune not shall cause
the said burgess list to be fairly and truly copied into one
general alph•betical list in a book to be by him provided
be that peeper, with every ONO.e therein numbered
beginning the number" from the tint name end continuing
there in • regular series until the last name, and shall
come such books to be completed on or before the And
lay of October in every year, and shall deliver such
books, together with the list at the expiration of his
office to the person succeeding him in such office; and
such book in which the mid hurries list shall have been
copied shall be the burns. roll of the bummers of each
borough entitled to vote, after the passing of this Act, in
the choice of councillors, asemeors, and auditors in such
borough, as hereinafter mentioned, at any election which
may t eke place in such borough between the first day of
November, inc.usive, in the year wherein such burger
roll shell have been made, and the first dem of November
In the suceee4ine ) eer." toe election took place on the
first ef November, •nd line. admitted that the hareem
roll which was amordeted by the Illed October preceding
was the one upon which the election was to take Sam. But
it was said that they most view the section in a different
way with regard to the tenni waren of cetelidatee, and that
the nonsinetion, both, regarded the terminator and the
nominate., must 134 made upon the previous roll, which
was not the one upon which the election would take place.
There was no doubt, that if tbie was so, many inconvenient
consequences would follow. First of all if the nominator
must Pecesmrily be upon the old roll and need not be upon
Use new, the person nominating might be a person who
would not be a voter at the election for which be had
nominated. This was an inconvenience. but It would not
be fatal if the words of this and other Arts made it clear
that it waa right. But it would not be • thing content.
plated by the legislature that s man whore time for thine
a voter should expire before the election for which he had
nominated • candidate should he the one selected by the
set to nominate candidate., without the seneesity of his
being • voter et the election. He was inclined to think
it was unnecessary for him to rive judgment upon this
because—asermaing Mr. Pollard's argument to be
well founded, and assuming that the nominator need dot
be upon the burgers roll for the first day of November—
what they had to decide was upon which roll the person
nominated should be, because the disallowance of
Wanbill's candidature was upon the ground that be,
although upon the burgess roll which would he the proper
one for election on the first of November, 1877, was not
on the previous roll, which was the one for the election on
the first of November, 1876, and for casual elections
between that date and the drat of November, 1877. But
when he cause to read the section of the statue which
applied to the nomination it appeared to him that
with regard to the nominator the construction of the
statute was more favourable to the view that be sbouid
be upon the new roll taking effect, for the purpoess of
election, on the first of November, 107. The next sec-
tion which &planed to this ease was 7th William IV. and
hat Victoria, can. 78 sec. 6, which said : "Be it enacted
that in every borough, in which, by reason of any neglect
• informadty, • new burgess roll of the said borough
shall not have been duly made in any year within the
time directed by the set, the bargees roll which was in
force before the WWI appointed for the revisloo shall
continue in force until such new burger roll shall have
been duly made." Then came section 6 of the Act 22nd
Victoria, cap. 35, which seaweed a. follows: "At any
election of councillors to be held for any borough or
ward env preen entitled to vote limy nominate for the,
office of councillor himself (if duly qualified) or any
other person or pereona se qualified (not exceeding the
number of persons to be elected for tbe borough or weed
as the cam may be), and every such nomination shall be
In writing, and shall stet. the Christian names and
surnames of the persons nominated, with their respec-
tive places of abode and descriptions, and shall be signed
by the party nominating and seat to the Town Clerk at
lout two whole days (Sunday secluded) bef ore the day
of *Mete" and the Town Clerk shall at last one whole I
day (Sunday excluded), before the said day of elm-base i
cause the Christian names and germane' of the person"
so nominated, with gosh statement of their respective
places of a abode, sad descriptions, and with the names
of the person nominating them respectively, to be printed
and placed on the door of the Town Hall, and in some
such conspicuous parts of the horoulth or ward for which!
such election Into be held." According to the argument
of tb.l=dents they must read this : —At no, election
of to be bold may on the fire' of Novenbat
1877, any person entitled to vote, not on the first of
November, 1877, but on the first of November, 1876, and
up to the first of November, 1877, may nominate • pm
sou to be elected on the first of November, 1877." With-
out POW such word" as be had incorporated the prism
feed reasonable meninx of the statute was that the
wools, "any person entitled to vote," must mean at POW
election the period for which has not tons by. In order
to yvs it a different construction it must mean that he
must tie entitled to rote, not at the general and usual
election, because that has penned—the first of NOVeMO•rs
1876—but it mast roan that he was entitled to vote at
any bye or casual election of councillors which may
accidentally become nommen, before the first of Novem-
ber, kV. it 'vented to him that would be a very strained
construction, and would not occur to warm* in reeding
the stilettoes. With • contrary construction he saw nothing
didicult or impracticable, become although the time of
the election and the time of the lists coming Into h.,.
did not arrive until the first of November, yet for many
other purposes the burgess list was in existence. It must I
be duly copied and completed by the 23rd October. At
that time it wee known who would be on the burgers roll
for 1877, and he saw uothing against the words of the
statues tieing read as be had stated. Lt to the question
et
of couvete i
ce, that, to his mind. wee n favour of the
contention of the petitioners, that a roll which wan
completed on the And October—althongh it did not for
the perfoem of election come into effect till the first of
November —should be in effect for enabling persons to
know who would be qualified candidates, who would be
qualified voters, and who would be qualified nominators
for the election to take place on the first of November,
when the list wag to erne into force. If bo decided on
this point be should think this waa the rending of
the statute. But he had not only to it on that
point. There was the point w the name of a
person nominated must appear on the roll published on
Octobeqed,lB76, or on the one published oa October
22nd,. WHY' regard to this, again, looking at the
remote the thine, it seemed to him that many
difilculties would grist, assuming that the language of
the Act and Its ditirent sectiohe SrO4 Prieto Pete
opposed to what he was now deciding. The therm-
venisace and curious resulta of it would be many.
ge et present advised he could not three with this, bat
he thought the section did apply, and if they bold the
reepowlente—Andrews, Beaky, and Trenentea—eile.
qualffied, they did so on the ground that they were net
duly elected be • majority of lawful votes, booths* bed
WenhilTs nomination not been disallowed the PAW
might have been entirely eillfferene If they were not to
reed the section in this way Lhet- Jurisdiction would be
=pelted indeed, because hone of thole thquirie; that
by showing that mine wrong has been
dorm, =LI etti. or Mrs: divert, the course cervothig,
would be Ilrithel their uriadlction. He thought thin
poled fairly cease within seateopt_ eau not say
tabg If the WNW ewe had hems hafted** oe to
eigitte_upeeb.
sree...t.dhl
trort new one ereill
"'ere iseira hem a plea MB OM

white the court coukl act. But bus the reilgesdeste hmIH
all meted together they w•r• hnekited oaths'. and
they etch Joined. selement4, in all the mucus put
forward for the validity of the election. net mere
throughout the Cum termed '• the respondents: there
were questions submitted for the ;views of the court
subject to "the respondente objection., ike. Rogers
himself objected to the jurisilction of the court on the
ground stated in the case ; be joined for his own porton*
In the objections raised, thus taking advantage of the
arguments used on behalf of the other three respondents.
He (Mr. Justice Groves) therefore saw no reuon why he
should be excluded, and he tborefon thought the election
should be declared void, end that the respondents should
' pay coats.
Mr. Pollard pointed out that the effect of this decision
would b- for the gut time to out a ....traction upon
the 38'.h and 30. b Victoria. can. JO. seen land 5, sad this
w..s • case which bad bean looked forward to as deciding
I the
_la • on the matter.
_ .

-J;7117; Gay mild be quite concurred in the
Migment delivered by Mr. Justice Groves.
Mr. Justice Lopes &ISO said be quite concurred in the
Judgment given by his Martel brothers.
This terminated the proceeding'.