The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-13 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.—TITE CASE OF LODGERS.—The
court resumed its sittings yesterday morning, in accordance
with the arrangement made previous to the adjournment
last week. During the progress of the revision the claims
of ledgers have several times come before the court, and
been discussed at great length. Shortly before the a,ljourn-
ment the ease of a person named TOMS was disputed with
great warmth ►y the agents, the question at issue being,
whether a lodger, who had a key to a common entrance, of
which the landlord also had a key, was entitled to rote.
Mr. M'Christie reserved his decision. At the meeting of
the court yesterday the learned gentleman proceeded to
give judgment as followa:—In the case of Moses Toms,
of 21, Milton-street, in the parish of St. Odes-without-
Cripplegate, the question arose whether the claimant
was to be considered an occupier within the meaning
of the act, entitled to vote in respect of certain rooms
which he occupies. The fact* of his case are these:—
He has occupied for a year and three quarters the first
floor, consisting of two rooms, of the house in which he
Eves, at a rent of ss. fed. a week. His landlord occupies
the shop and parlour on the ground floor, but does not sleep
there eas the claimant states), nor has he a servant who
sleeps in the house. Three other parties occupy apart-
ments in the house. There is but one outer door to the
house, by whick the landlord, in common with all the in•
Mates. has ingress and exit. The landlord, the claimant,
and the other three inmates have respectively a key of the
outer door, and they all lock or unlock that door when and
es thee please. The door is never barred or fastened inside
at night; there is neither bolt nor chain to it; it stands
open during the day. The landlord's shop door is inside
tile passage, which peerage the claimant has to pass along
to get to the staircase that leads up to his apartments, and
which staircase is shut off from the passage by a swing
door. There is a back kitchen at the end of the passage,
in which there is a cistern for water, and from which all
Parties in the house are supplied with water. The outer
door is opened in the morning by the party who has
occasion first, and locked at night by whoever bee last
occasion, either to enter or to leave the house. Now,where
a landlord resides, that is to any, occupies, by himself nr
his family, a part of his house day and night, letting off
other pare of the same house to other parties, there being
but one outer door leading into the house, which is used by
the landlord in common with all the inmates who occupy,
then it is clear that until there shall be an alteration in the
present view of the law that landlord is the occupier of that
house, and the other parties occupying parts of the same
house arc not entitled to he registered in respect of such
their rreptcure occu?ations. Mr. Smith and Mr. Brown

both admit that to be the law ; bat Mr. Smith eays it has not
yet been decided by the Court of Common Pleas, that where
• landlord occupies • part of his house, for the purposes of
his business, during the day time only, and does not sleep
there, ell the other circumstances of disqualification se to
others is the same house existing, that that disqualifies the
other inmates. He, therefore, contends that 111 this ease
Moue Toms is entitled to be registered, and wishes, if I
should be of opinion against him, to have a case upon that
point to the court of appeal. Now, to be an occupier, entitled
to vote, the party claiming must have the exclusive and inde-
pendent occupation of the house, premises, or apartments, in
respect of which bedtime to be registered; and can he have
that unless he has the exclusive control over the outer door,
through which he must enter to get into his castle ? The law
says he cannot. Here the claimant has not the sole control over
the outer door; but Mr. Smith argues that he, the landlord,
and three other inmates, have each, and that every one of
them has, the exclusive possession of and control over the
outer door, in that they have each a key of it. I ens under-
stand how it might be said that a number of persons in • cor-
porate or co-partnery character or capacity, might each have
an exclusive possession of ono particular outer door leading
into a given house; but how five different persons, totally
distinct from and altogether unconnected with each other, in
any transaction or character whatever, except sustaining the
relation of tenant and landlord, can each have an exclusive
possession of the one outer door, through which all must enter
—how rive separate and distinct possessions are Melees
one possession, and though one yet five, is what I cannot
very easily compreh,nel, ex applied to human affairs. But
to show that that is so, and to establish it, Mr. Smith refer,
me, amongst others, to the cue of Bryan Kearney, decided
in Ireland, and which, to bt sure, ho ealls the Irish
case. The decision in that ease cannot govern the
present. The facts of the cases are not at all alike;
but there are important dicta in the judgment given
in Bryan Kearney's case, all conclusive against Mr. Smith's
views of the present rase. The learned judge there says, the
claimant must show that that which he seeks to be regis-
tered in respect of " is in his own exclusive occupation ;"
and his lordship goes on—. But he must also show that he is
not dependent upon the gnodwill or leave of ar.nther for
any circumstance necessary to the full, free, and exclusive
enjoyment of his house ; or, in other words, he must com-
mand the entrance to it and the exit from it. To effect this
latter object he must have an exclusive right to, and control
°vs r, the outer door of his house ; if he have not, his occupa-
tion cannot be censidered as an exclusive occupation, since it
will be in the power of some other person to disturb his pos-
session without being a trespasser. The question then, in
this case, is, has the claimant, upon the evidence, shown an
exclusive right to the outer floor ? ' And I ink here, has
Moses Tom " shown an exclusive right to the outer door ?"
i lie has sh own that his landlord, and three other parties besides
himself, have • key of the outer door, which he must enter
and go out at, and with which they may all lock and unlock
that door every day, or at any hour any night. In the Irish
case, the claimant was the occupier of a chop, to which he
entered through an outer door that led into a hall, and from
which there was a door into his shop. The outer door of that
hall was kept open all day. Another party occupied another
part of the house, who had also to enter to his apartments
through that same outer done, which opened into the hall.
and both the claimant Avid that other party hail a key of the
ball outer door ; but the landlord hail no key of that outer door,
nor of any door belonging to the house, nor does it appear
from the csae that the landlord had ever even seen the house;
whereas here the landlord occupi a the lower part of the
house—he has his goods and furniture there—he is there
every day—he has a key—he enters when he pleases—
and although the claimant says be does not sleep there,
yet there is nothing to prevent him from entering
at any hour of the night, or from el eping there
if he should think it well to do so. And, therefore, the
cases, as I have aid, do not appear to me to be at all
analogous. Then Mr. Smith refers me to Mr. Elliott's
quotation of Lady Ponson by' s case, who occupied apartments
in Hampton Court Palace, and where it was sought to make
her ladyship, in virtue of her occupation of those apartmenta,
liable to be rated to the relief of the poor ; but neither is
that case applicable to the present. Hampton Court was at
one time • royal palace, but as my Lord Chief Justice Den-
man, in giving judgment on that very case. states, it has
ceased to be so far the purpose of a raddence of the sovereign.
It is true that there the Queen has a housekeeper, to take
Care of her picture gal'ery, and of some other apartments ;
but there are, I suppose, nearly 200 persons who occupy
anartnients there as private individuals, under warrants
from the Lord Chamberlain, and who have to provide at
their own expense all the household furniture and fix-
tures which they may require for their occupation of
these apartments, some of which have exclusive outward
entrances opening upon the public high road and Barge-
walk, and who are unquestionably liable to be rated to the •
relief of the poor. But what has that to do with this case?
where the inquiry is, not as to the liability to be rated, but
simply has Toms the exclusive command over the outer door
of the house in which he lives ? Lord Hale says, "Asto an
inmate who Foeth in at the game door as the owner of the
house, he is in the nature of a lodger, and if his chamber
be broken open, it is • burglary, but the indictment most
be laid for breaking the dwelling-house of him that let it,
and not of the inmate." And, again, " Where inmates
hare separate rooms in a house, if they enter at the same outer
door as the owner, the rooms are not the dwelling-house of
the inmates, but of the owner." It is true that in the case
of " Lee r. °easel]," it is said that, " where a burglary is
committed in the apartments of one who lodges in a house,
the circumstance of the owner's living in it, or his
o.:cupying only a shop or cellar in which he does
not sleep, makes • very material difference as to
the form of the indictment; for in the latter cane,
the lodger has the outer door entirely to him'clf, and the
burglary in such a caw must be laid to be in the house
of the lodger ; but it is otherwise in the former case, and
there it must be laid to be in the house of the owner." But
the simple statement of this claimant, without anything more,
that the landlord does not sleep in this house, if that were the
solo question, would never be held sufficient to support an
indictment. Besides, there are the circumstances in this case
that the landlord occupies a shop and parlour in the house,
that he is continually there in the day time, that he has the
key of the outer door, and that he may be there any night
and every night if he thinks proper, Who, therefore, cansey
that the claimant here has the outer door entirely to him-
self?" Certainly, lam not to restrict the fraechise, but
cannot make the law, and I cannot give the franchise where
the law has declared the claimant is not entitled to it.
According to my view of the law, the relative position of the
claimant end his landlord is. that the landlord remains the
occupier of the house, and that the claimant is a lodger,
and not within the contemplation of the act. This case has
been so clear to me from the first, that I should not have
slid so much about it as I have done, had it not been that
Mr. Smith has wished to appeal from my judgment. Mr.
Brown, however, on behalf of the claimant, has informed
me that he will not r. spend to the appeal. If Mr. Smith
continues seriously to think that this is a case he ought to
take to the Court of Common Pleas, and Mr. Brown will
now pledge himself to me that the claimant will respond, I
will grant a case ; but I have so little doubt that I am now
correctly a lministering the law as it exists, that if the
claimant continues to decline to respond, I shall not put the
parish to the expense in this case of defending an appeal by
ordering the overseers to he the respondents ; and in that
event, therefore, you can have no case.
Mr. Sidney Smith, the liberal agent, submitted that the
case was one which ought to be brought before the Court of
Common Pleas, as the rights of many other claimants were
involved in the decision pronounced.
The Reviaing Barrister said that feeling convinced that he
hid taken a correct view of the question, he did not consider
himself at liberty to throw upon the parish the expense of
an appeal. Ultimately, however, the learned gentleman
consented to grant en appeal.
In the parish of St. Augustin, Harry Bottomley claimed for
the occupation of part of a house in Werwick.square. It ap-
peared that the claimant was the agent of Blackie, Fuller-
ton, and Co., the booksellers, who resided in Glasgow, end
were the landlords of the premir s, and had a warehouse for
goods on the ground floor. There was only one entrance,
and of this Bottornley possessed the key. Mr. Smith con-
tended, as be had done before in similar eases, that this must
be regarded as an exclusive occupation. Mr. MtChristie
held that the occupation did not constitute a qualifying
tenancy • hut, on the application of Mr. Smith, he consented
to consolidate it with that of the claimant Tom, for the ad-
judication of the Court of Common Pleas.
MIDDLESEX.—The lists for the parishes of Edge-
ware, Finehley, Great and Little Stanmore, Harrow, Hen-
don, Kingsbury, and Pinner, were revised by the barrister
yesterday at the Chandos Arms, Edgeware. In the Hendon
hat the names of Vice-Chancellor Knight Bruce and his son
were struck out, they having sold their property at High-
wood Hill. In the same list the overseer applied to have
the name of William Cleaves struck nut, he having parted
with his qualification. By a mistake in printing the list,
the overseer's objection had been set against the name of
Thomas Graves, who is qualified. Mr. James suggested that
as the name of William Cleaves had not been ohjscteci to the
barrister had no power to deal with it. Mr. Payne, on the
other hand, held that the act gave full power to the barrister
to correct any mistake in the list. The barrister having re-
ferred to the overseer's MS. copy of the list, and found that
therein also the objection had been entered against the
name of " Thomas " instead of " William " G , de-
eded that he had not the power to strike out the name of
the disqualified party. In the parish of Little Stanmore,W.
Watkins claimed to have his name inserted in the list on ac-
count of his freehold life office of parish clerk, the stipend,
101. a year, being ;paid out of the rates levied on the land of
the pariah.—Mr. Dyne said this was a claim that could not
be allowed.--The Barrister (to the claimant) : Have you the
power of distraining on the land for your stipend ?—The
claimant No ; but the rates may be distrained for, and I
am paid out of the rates.—The Barrister : That will not do.
—Mr. Payne: Are you the sexton as well ?—Claimant : Yes.
—Mr. Payne : Then you have a direct interest in the land ?
Claimant . Yes.—Mr. Payne . And sometimes a very deep
one—(a laugh) ; but your tenants being all dead, you can-
not distmin upon them. The claim was disallowed. In the
case of St. Bartholomew Exchange, Landon, the threatened
I fine was net inflicted, an accredited agent having proved to
' the barrister that there were neither claims nor objections;
the statement as to claims referred to by the clerk of the
vestry, and reported in the Express of Friday last, being
applicable to the borough instead of the county list. To-day
the lists for the Hempstead polling district will be revised,
the court being held at Jack Straw's Castle, at 11 o'clock.

NEW POSTAL REGULATIONS WITH BRENIEN.—Last
night's Gazette contains a trea.nry warrant ordering that in
future all such British newspapers, &c., as pass free through
the post-office of this country may be sent to Bremen either
by packet or by private ships, post free. All such publica-
tions passing free of postage at Bremen, may be sent thence
to the United Kingdom and its colonies, gratis, by packet-
boat and by private ships at the rate of one halfpenny each.
Newspapers and other publications allowed to pass by the
post as newspapers in Bremen, published and posted in
'Bremen, may be sent from thence to the British colonies and