The Express.
London, England, 1848-01-21 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

- - - - -
BURTON, APPILLANT, O. LANONAM, BIUIPONDINT.
BIGIIT OY A COMMITTEI OP A LUNATIC TO TOTE IN NB-
'PUT OP THE OCCUPATION OF LAND OF THE LUNATIC.—
This was an appeal spinet the decision of the revising bar.
rioter for the southern division of Northamptonshire. It
appeared that the respondent was the brother and committee
of Sir J. Langhom, a lunatic, and claimed to vote for the
occupation of certain farms the rent of which amounted to
3001. a year. He hod not paid any rent, but had debited
himself with the amount in his accounts to the Court el
Chancery, which hid been passed. The question was,
whether this was such an occupying tenancy as entitled Mr.
Lanehum to a vote. The vote was allowed.—Mr. Humfrey,'
for the appellant, contended that this was not such a quali-
fication as would entitle the respondent to a vote. The
20th section of the Reform Act gave a vote to
every person occupying as tenant lands for which
he was bete, tide liable to a yearly rent of rot iess than 50/.
This was not such a tepaney. By letters patent from
the crown the respondent held the estate iu his custody for
Sir J. ILangham, a lunatic. Teen were two contingencies
by the occurrence of el ich he would cease to have any right
over orinterest inehe land—viz., the revocation of the letters
patent, or the lunatic's recovering his senses. The com-
mittee was only a trustee for the lunatic, and it was clear
that a troutse could not become a tenant of the lands which
be holds in trust. " Attorney-General v. Dixie " (13 Vesey,
619); " Attorney-General v. Lord Clarendon " (19 Vesey,
491). The characters of lessor and lessen were incompatible,
for although the committee could not make leases
to
under the direetien of the Court of Chancery, yet he was the
person who let front year to year, and he had here let to
himself ; so that in ease of non payment of rent he would have
to diet am on himself, and to bring an action againsthimself.—
Mr. S. rjeant Manning, for the respondent, contended that
it was clear that the committee of a lunatic took no estate in
the property, but only had a power atialeous to those exer-
cised by the commiesimiers of lunacy. " Knight v.
Palmer " (Wilson's 11.! ports).• If the estate was iu the com-
mittee, no statutory provision would have been necessary to
enable him to make leases. It was clear that the respondent
halced himself in the situation of a tenant, was liable for
remand might beve been disnained on. Accounting to the
Court of Cluanty for the money, and that court bevel
passed the account, was equivalent to the payn eat of rent
into that court, and this was a recognition of the tensile!.
The respondent occupied either es owner,- tenant, or bailiff
to his brother. As owner he could not occupy ;
nod if ho occupied es bailiff, he would have to
acceunt not fur the rent but the proceeds of the
property, sod therefore it was clear he was tenant.
If the letters patent were revoked, he must have
notice as well as any other tenant. The commis-
sioners in lunacy under the crown acted as agents for the
lunatic and had adopted the committee as tenant. The
learned serjeant also contended that the appeal was not
signed in the manner prescribed by the act of parliament.
it was signed thus, " I, Christopher Markham, appeal on
behelt of Fdmund Burton." It ought to have been
signed by the appellant himself. It appeared, however, that
the notice to try had been signed by the appellant, and the
Come intimated are opinion that that was sufficient. —Mr.
Humfrey, in reply, contended that there was no landlord,
that consequently there could he no demise, and therefore
no (Penney cou'd be created.—The Court took time to au-
eider its judgment.
W smote, APPELLANT. v. PITT. RILAPONDENT.—SERTICII
or Nonce or iiN.—Thin was an appeal from the
decision of the revising barrister fur the borough of Bewdley.
A notice of ohjectlon to the respondeut'o right to vote was
taken to his house between nine and tin o'clock at night,
and the person who took it having knocked several times,
and not making any one hear, the notice was pushed under
the door. The barrister decided that this was not a sufficient
notice, Rs the time and mode of serving it were unreason-
able.—Mr.o ray, for the appellant, urged that the quest;onele-
pended on the 17th section cf 6 sk 7 Vie., c IS, which provides
that every person objectiug to a voter's right should give, or
caul ate be left, at the place of abode of the person objected
to, otice by a certain day, sigeed by the objector.
The question here was, whether the objector caused
the novice to be left within the meaning of the act.
The intention of the statute was that the person objected to
should receive the notice, and if the person serving it used
some contrivance by which it would rot be received that
would not be s leaving within the meaning of the statute.
But the mere fact that it was left at an unreasonable time
or in an unreasonable mode was not to be considered in the
question ; there must be something in the service amounting
to fraud. The act gave the whole slay for the service of the
notice ; and it also gave the alternative of giving the notice
or causing it to be left. The question now was, the notice
having been left, whether the person leaving it had been
guilty of fraud in order to prevent its being received. The
revising barrister only found that the notice was left at an
unreasonable time and in an unreasonable mode, and if that
were so the unreasonableness was created by the
statute, for its provisions had been complied with.
The legislature intended to give facilities for the service of
'these notices of objection. It was in tide instance left at the
house, which was the alternative given by the statute.—Mr.
Serk.ant Bytes, for the respondent, contended that the don-
Yoh was right, and that the service of notices should be at a
reasonable time and in a reasonable mode, which this clearly
was not. He instanced the provision of the 99th section of
the Reform Act, which in prescribing the manner in which
notices were to be served on overseers, allowed them to be
served at their eflices for parochial business, as well as at
their abodes, which implied that they should be served
during the usual hours of business.—The Court wasster of
opinion that the decision cf the revising barri
was right, and must be affirmed. What was required
by the statute was, that the notice should be
left at the house, and there were many modes in which that
pros 'salon might be satisfied wbi..h would not satisfy its in-
tenCon. It appeared to the court that the statute meant
that the notice should be left in the house in some ordinary
mode by which papers left would reach the bands of the
person for whom they were intended. The facia here did
not show sufticiint reasonableness of service either as to the
time or mode in which it was made.—Decision confirmed.

COURT OF EXCHEQUER.
Sittings in Banco.

---- -
RANCE O. GAINES.—COENTT COCRT.—PROHIRITION
pp PROCEEDING!' ON • JUDONE!FT OF BEFEILIOR COUNT.
—Mr. Naylor, in the COWIEe of last term, had moved for a
writ of prohibition directed to James Collier, Esq., the judge
of the county court of Cambridgeshire, held at Cambridge,
and the plaintiff herein, to prevent them from further pro-
ceeding in a certain plaint in the said county court, which
was founded on a judgment obtained against the said
defendant by the said plaintiff in the Court of Exchequer.
A rule nisi having been granted and served, he now moved
to make the same absolute, no cause being shown.—Mr.
Bar nt Parke : Very well, you arc entitled to make your
rule absolute on that ground.—Rule absolute.

New Trial riper.
WHITIVELL V. 11•11.11180L—INSURANCL—MAYINN Po-
LlCY.—This was an action upon • policy on • ship un
a voyage from Liverpool to Quebec and back to her dis-
charging port, or so near thereto as she could get, and for
24 hOurs after she should have been moored at anchor in
safety at her port of discharge. At the trial before Mr. Baron
Rolfe, at Liverpool, it appeared that the ship came home
chartered to Wallasey Pool, and that having arrived below
the Pool, she there anchored fur want of water for some
slay', at the end of which the captain engaged lumpers to
discharge her cargo at so much per load, and to " raft " as
much as might be required up the river to the
wharf, where she was ultimately going ; the captain
intenefing only to lighten her so as to enable him to pursue
his voyage thither, and not absolutely to discharge his cargo
in the river. The crew, however, were all discharge 1 except
the mate and carpenter, and the lumpers et to work.
When they had got out nearly half the cargo, by some gels-
niansgement the ship heeled over, and filling, went down •
total wreck, whereon this action wu brought. His lordship
left it to the jury to say whether the ship bad arrived as near
to her discharging port as she could get, and had moored
there 24 hones in safety. If so, and the captain had dis-
charged a substantial part of the cargo, in his opinion the
risk of the underwriter was at an end. The jury having
found for the defendants, this rule was obtained for a new
trial, on the ground of misdirection, it boils& contended
that the question was, whether there was any intention of
taking the ship up to the wharf, there to discharge the rest of
her cargo, as soon as she had discharged as much in the:river
as was necessary to enable her to get up in the then state of
the tide.—Mr. Martin, Mr. Compton, and Mr. Hogging ap-
peared in opposition to the rule ; and Mr. Watson and Mr.
Henderson having been heard in support of it, the court in-
timated that they wished to look into the cases.—Judgment
deferred.

ARCHES COURT.
Before 8h H. J. ant.
GEMS O. Gma.—Dr. Addams commenced his reply on
behalf of Mrs. Grits. Complaints had been made by the
learned counsel on the other aide, of the length of time
which he (Dr. Addami) had occupied in opening this ease.
Had he, however, proportioned the length of his speech to
what he conceived were the true merits of the case, so far
from occupying four days, he would not have exceeded four
seconds. After twenty yesn' experience in these courts, he
• . could not have imagined, bat for an intimation given him on
- the other side, that there was any serious intention of argu-
ing the case en behalf of Mr. Gals. He had not bean stall
• assisted by any observation falling from the court to the
effect that there was no occasion to pier such and such