The Express.
London, England, 1847-11-12 00:00:00

become an inoolvent debtor, at Bybeld, in Northampton-
shire, and calling on the Bishop of Peterborough to execute
• writ of sequestrari facia+, and to pay over 1141. to the
plaintiff.—Mr. Martin and Mr. Addison showed cause
against the rule, and Sir F. Thesijler and Mr. T. Jones ap-
peared to support it, and Mr. Booth appeared for the Bishop
of Peterborough, and prayed that whatever might be the
decision of the court, the defeated party should pay his (the
bishop's) tests.—The whole question turned en the construc-
tion of the statute 1 & 2 Vic., c. 110, as to whether the pro-
visional assignee of an insolvent had power to obtain a se-
questration, or whether that right was restricted to the
general assignee.—The learned judge thought it was a ease
of such importance that he must take time to consider it
before giving judgment.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
Sitting. In snm°*
BURTON, APPILLANT O. OEILY, ~, abitSPONDEN7.—REOIII-
TRATION Aereat.e.—This was an appeal from the decision
of the revising barrister for the southern division of the
county of Northampton, and the question was, whether
the claim of the voter, David Hatfield, was sufficiently de..
scribed in the register to entitle hint to vote in respect of a
successive occupation. The claimant in registering his qua-
lification had represented himself as the occupier of land at
Coal-Ashbv, of the value of 501. per annum, and the revising
barrister allowed the vote on the ground that there had been
no hiatus in the term of occupation, it having been con-
tended, in opposition to the claim, that subsequent to the
period of registration the voter had become possessed of •
new species of qualification, and bad not sent in
any new claim previous to the 20th of July.
—Mr. Humfrey now appeared in support of the objection,
mid submitted that the decision of the revising barrister was
wrong, and ought to be reversed. The question was, whe-
ther a man who had sent in a claim as the occupier of land
which. at the time of registratios, he did hold, but which
afterwards ceased to be has property, could, because he hap-
pened accidentally to retain the same species of tenure or
qualification, claim • rate in respect of a successive =ups-
tion. By the fourth section of the 6th and 7th Viet.. it was
en icted that every person who shall not retain the same qua-
lification, or continue in the same place of abode as described
in the register, shall send in a fresh notice of claim on or be-
fore the 20th July. Thus it appeared that every voter was
called upon to send in his claim, and all those who were no:
upon the register, or who, being upon the register, did not
retain the same qualification, were required to furnish
• new claim; and the question was, whether the fact of a
man being properly registered originally was sufficient
notwithstanding he had since become the possessor of • new
and different set of premises. He (Mr. Humfrey) contended
that the voter could not, fur the purpose of making one quali-
fication, couple together certain property which he held
under two separate landlords. He might continue to hold
the same kind of qualification, but it was not the same in the
legal acceptation of the word.—Mr. Hayes, in support of the
decision of the barrister, contended that there was no ground
whatever for depriving the man of his right to vote. The
73rd section of the 6 Vie., cap. 18, stated that the lands and
tenements in respect of which a person described his right to
vote as the holder of property amounting to 50/. a year, shall
not be required to be, the same, but may he of a different
kind, and occupied in immediate succession by such person.
The voter, therefore, in the present cue had properly de-
scribed his qualification, and the barrister was right in re-
taining his name on the list.—The court said they
entertained no doubt in this cue either upon the
strict construction of the statute, or tpon the fair and
reasonable mode of viewing questions of such • nature. The
4th sec. of the statute expressly enacted that any person who
shall not retain the same qualification in respect of which his
name has been registered, shall send in a new claim on or
before a certain day, and this was required in order that full
information might be given with a view of ascertaining the
identity o the party whose claim is under consideration. It
was just as natural that he should give notice of his
change of qualification as that he should send in his
original claim. The legislature hod clearly laid it down that
a party was bound to enter a new claim where his qualifica-
tion to be put upon a new register arose out of a successive
occupation. In the prevent ease, therefore, the decision of
the barrister was wrong, and must be reversed.—Decision re-
versed.

SHELDON, APPELLANT, T. FLATCHEII, RESPONDENT.—
This was en appeal from the decision of the revising barrister
for the borough of Cheltenham, and the question was, whe-
ther the objector had given a sufficient description of his
place of abode in signing himself " J. Fletcher, 5, Sher-
borne-street," without adding the name of the particular
parish in which the street was situated. It appeared
that within a distance of seven miles there were " other
parishes containing streets," but it was not shown that there
was more than one "Sherborneetreet." The objector's
Place of abode was described in the notice of objection in
the same manner in which it was entered in the register. The
revising barrister therefore allowed the vote, and he had
stated in the case submitted to the court that it was not sug-
gested that there was any other Sherborne-street than the
one described, nor that any practical inconvenience followed
from the omission of the name of the town or parish.—Mr.
Serjeant Byles now submitted, in behalf of the appellant,
that the decision was wrong, and ought to be reversed. Ac-
cording to the 17th section of the sth Vict., chap. 18, the
Ninon objecting was bound to describe his place of abode
according to a certain form mentioned in the achedale. He
(the learned serjeant) therefore contended that in this case
the place of abode was not sufficiently stated.
The description ought to have been, "5, Sherborne-
street, Cheltenham ;" and the case of " Wollett v. Davis,"
(4th Com. Bench Reports, p. 115) was an authority in suo •
port of hie argument, that the nature of the objection should
in itself contain all that was required by the act, without
being aided by a reference to any entry in the register.—
Mr. Keating, on the other head, submitted that the place
of abode mentioned in the notice was sufficient, and a it
had bean found to be so by the revising barrister, the ques-
tion was whether he war justified in that opinion. In the
we of " Knowles o. Brooking " (2nd Com. Bench Reports,
p. 226), one of the learned judges had stated that each case
must depend upon its own circumstance, end it was quite
clear that, according to the facts in this particular cue, the
description " 6, Sherborne-street," was abundantly sufficient
to convey all the information that was required. It was a
matter of fact for the barrister to decide, and he having held
that the place of abode had been properly described, the
court ought not now to interfere.—Mr. Serjeant Byles, in
reply, urged that it was not a questiea of fact, but one
of law.
The court held that the information required to Le given
in the notice of objection involved matter both of law and
of fact. The decision being prim& facie sufficient in point
of law, the question of fact was for the barrister to decide.
The description of the place of abode must, of course, be
looked to with reference to the locality or district under con-
sideration ; and, supposing the entry had been read " 5,
Sherborne-street, Cheltenham," no objection could have
been raised. The question then was, whether the word
Cheltenham was not clearly understood, there being no
other parish but the parish of Cheltenham under considera-
tion, and there being, in point of fact, no reasonable doubt
en to the identity of the person objecting. The decision of
the revising barrister was conclusive upon the matter. Look-
ing, therefore, at the notice of object to in the way now sug-
gested—that is to say, with the word " Cheltenham" added
to the place of abode described—the court were of opinion
that it was sutficsent in point of law ; and the barrister hav-
ing held it to be so for all practice' purposes, his decision
must be affirmed.—Decision affirmed.
There were two cases brought forward, in which it ap-
peared that the parties had, " by an oversight," neglected
to deliver the proper books to the judges, according to the
provisions of the act. The court, therefore, refused to en-
tertain the eases, stating that they saw no reason for depart-
ing from the course pointed out by the statute, which ex-
pressly stated that the decision of the revising barrister must
be final, unless the parties shall prosecute an appeal.