The Sun.
London, England, 1837-01-13 00:00:00

KING'S BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)

LORD GEORGE LENNOX V. DESBOROUGH AND OTHERS.
Mr. Sergeant TALFOURD applied for a rule to show
cause why the verdict for the plaintiff obtained at the sit-
tings after last term should not be entered generally on all
the issues for the sum of 2,000/., the amount of the policy
of insurance effected upon the life of Lieut.-Col. Gress-
wolde. The Learned Sergeant contended at length that
the finding of the Jury respecting the liability of the insured
to fits should be taken as decisive of the question, inasmuch
as they held that such liability was not general, but was oc-
casioned by a fall from his horse while quartered in the
town of Macclesfield.
The CHIEF JUSTICE—We think it right to look at the
pleadings very particularly before we make any decision
upon your application.
Sergeant TALFOURD—Then, my Lord, you will have the
goodness to save my motion for a new trial, in case such a
course shall become necessary, otherwise we may be too
late to make it.
The CHIEF JUSTICE--Perhaps you will now state gene-
rally the grounds of that application.
Sergeant TALFOURD-Simply upon the ground that the
verdict, if not for us cannot be taken to be one against us,
and is therefore undefined.
EX PARTE HANDCOCE.
In this case Mr. THESSIGER obtained a rule for a quo
warrant" directed to a Mr. Mashater, calling upon him to
show by what authority he exercised the office of a Justice
of the Peace for the Manor of Harrington.
Sir W. FOLLETT now appeared to show cause against
the rule. The question would turn upon the meaning of
the words in the charter of Edward IV., which gave to the
inhabitants resident within the manor the right of voting for
a Justice of the Peace. Upon a vacancy his client, and
the gentlematkupon whose behalf Mr. Thessiger moved,
were candidates, and the matter in dispute was confined
to the simple question of who should be considered tenants
of the manor. A number of votes tendered in favour of
Mr. Hancock were rejected, as not entitled to exercise the
privilege. He contended that they were properly rejected,
as they were not inhabitants or parishioners within the mean-
ing of the words, as laid down by Lord Coke and several
other authorities.
Mr. THESSIGER in reply, maintained the right of the
inhabitants generally to the exercise of the franchise, and
it was for the other side to show the existence of a custom
limiting the right of the parishioners.
After hearing Sir Wm. Follett and Mr. Thessiger fur-
ther upon the point,
The CHIEF-JUSTICE said he was not prepared to put
any exclusive meaning upon the term inhabitant, but a de-
fect which early in the argument was pointed out by Sir
William Follett, did not appear to the Court to have been
remedied. They should see before making the rule for the
quo warrant" absolute, which would disturb Mr. Mashater
in the exercise of his office—a clear legal right in some
other person to remove him. Mr. Hendee& asserted that
a majority of good votes were given in his favour by
those persons who were inhabitants, but not householders ;
and that of such voters there were 218 persons
a number sufficient to turn the election in his favour. The
party making the application was bound to show the Court,
by affidavit, that he had a majority on the poll of inhabitant
voters, and he should adduce circumstances to prove that
the usage and custom of the manor gave to such persons
the right of voting. This was not done in the present in-
stance, and there was not sufficient before :the Court to
warrant them in disturbing Mr. Mashater in the exercise of
his office:
The other Judges agreed in this opinion, and the rule
was therefore discharged.