The Sun.
London, England, 1854-11-25 00:00:00

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.

lIIGISTRANIOI4.I APPHI.LS.-!RI PIIT2iST
APPRLLANT, V. RINDIRION, BASPONDINT.

It will be remembered that this was an appeal from a
Revising Barrister, by the holder of two allotments ob-
tained from a freehold land society, which, let on a
building lease, would be worth 151. a year, but which if
let from year to year, and used for any ether purpose
than building, would net be worth 40i. a year. The
barrister held that this was net a sufficient qualification
under the statute of Henry VI., and. refused to allow
the vete. The case was partly heard yesterday, and the
hearing was resumed this morning.
Mr. Sergeant Byles, on the part of the appellant, re-
plied, and he contended that the finding in the case, that
the land would be worth 151. a year only upon a lease
being granted, could not affect the appellant, by reduc-
ing his interest in the estate, for it was laid down in
Sugden's "Law of Vendors and Purchaser.," that tie
expense of preparing a lease, in the absence of any ex-
press agreement, would fall upon the grantee ; and
taking that into consideration, with the statement in the
case, that the land let on building lease would be worth
151. a year, it was clear that the appellant had a free-
hold interest worth more than 40s. a year. As to the
class of cases which had been referred to as analogous,
the cases of poor-law assessment, the court had decided
in the case of "Covill v. Wood" (2 C. 8., 216), that the
principle of those cases ought not to be applied to regis-
tration appeals. If a man had an estate of 40s. a year,
on which there was a charge of 205., the poor-law as-
sessment would be upon the 405., though it was clear
that the owner would not have a vote.
The Chief Justice said it seemed to him that this was
a good vote, and that the vote must be allowed. It was
not necessary to lay down a rule of law as to speculative,
or fraudulent value for the purpose of getting votes, for
in this case there was abundant evidence that this plot
of land was worth 40s. a year, and 'nothing but the un-
willingness or obstinacy of the appellant could prevent
his getting 40s. a year for it. Ho 113/1 given 1501. for it,
and that amount in the ordinary way would produce
more than 40e. a year, but beyond that he could let it for
151. a year if he thought fit ; and it was simply because
it was not worth 40s. a year as agricultural land, that
the revising barrister had held that it was not worth 40s.
a year, and had refused to allow the vote. The question
was, what !would the land fetch in the market, for a
thing was generally worth what it would fetch ; :and the
barrister said that the land would fetch 151. a year on
I lease. It had occurred to hint at the moment, that it
might make a difference that the value could only be ob-
tained upon something being done by the landlord to
entitle the tenant to build on the Imitate, but on consi-
deration, it appeared that every value depended upon
something to be done by the landlord ; there must be a
letting by lease, or verbal agreement, in every case.
The price of the land, the offer for it, and the statement
that it was worth for building purposes 151. a year, all
showed that it was worth mere than 40s. a year ; and
the revising barrister ought therefore to have granted
the vote under the statute of Henry VI.

Mr. Justice Manle thought it was clear that the ap-
pellant had a vote, as having a freehold from which he
might expend 140 s. a year if he liked. lie had paid
1501. for it, and it appeared that he might let it for
1g„ and without anything to qualify these facts, it
could not be doubted that the land was worth 40e. a
year. If it was necessary that ithe land should at pre-
sent preduce 403. a year in order to give a vote, then
a man with an estate of 14,0001. a year might
possibly be deprived of his vote. The revising barrister
seemed to have thought that if the appellant had had
power to let to a tenant from year to year at 40,, that
would have conferred a vote, or even if let for 21 years
on an occupation lease, bat he thought that as the requi-
site amount could only be obtain-Aid by grantinc, a build-
ing lease that that would not do. But why not? Build-
ing, of course, would not take place without getting a
tenant willing to build, but in every tenantcy there must
be a compact of some kind or other, and there was
no reason for depriving the appellant of the right of
suffrage, his property being clearly sufficient to give
it him.

The appeals were therefore allowed in this case, and
in the sixteen others eonsolidatel with it.

ITN-GETZ' V. LE VII%

This was an appeal from the di cision of the revising
barrister for Westminster.
Mr. Whitmore appeared for ti,e appellant ; and Mr.
31`Namara for the respondent.
The only point in the case was whether the notice
of objection sufficiently pointed out in which list of
voters a voter objected to, planed Alford, was. In
borough registrations the overseers are required an-
nually to make out a list of per sons supposed to be
qualified to vote, and if there be more than one list
of voters a notice of objection s;tionld specify to which
list it referred. Two lists are niade out, one of those
entitled to vote under the old f] anchise, and the other
of those to whom the franchise is given by the Reform
Act. The notice of objection objected to the voter's
right to vote " under the Reform. Act.
The Court thought the notice good. All that was re-
quisite was to describe the list, and by saying " under
the._ Reform Act " the list was sufficiently described.
The voter's name must therefore be expunged.

PREROGATIVE COURT.
(Before Sir John D•odson.)
ZLWELL V. Mg LTEI.
This was a business of grantina administration, with
will annexed, to the goods of Mi T. Ann Elwell, late of
the Liverpool-road, and was prow toted by 'a brother of
the deceased against Mrs. Smith a legatee named in
the will. Opposition was now withdrawn, and
The Court now pronounced fox the will.

BOW-STREET.—Mr. Morbey, the landlord of the
Rising Sun (the house in which 114 persons were lately
apprehended by the police), waited upon Mr. Jardine to
inform him that he was at Lowestoft at the time, and,
net having the slightest knowledge of what was going
on at his house, or of the intentions of the police, it was
clear that he had not designedly kept out of the way.
He had been complimented by the colleagues of his wor-
ship upon the manner in which he had conducted his
house, and he was most anxious to keep within the law,
although he was not aware that persons betting among
themselves, while using his house, was illegal. He
begged also to repudiate all knowledge of, or concurrence
with, the scurrilous attack on his worship in a paper
called the Racing Times, and to assure his worship that
he should not have risked the loss of his license (which
would be the ruin of him), to sayinothing of the expenses
in which he had been involved, by pursuing any course
opposed to his worship's views of the law. He was fined
10/. on a former occasion for betting himself, since which
time he had never made a bet with any one, and to this
extent only he thought he was limited by the act.
Mr. Jardine said, he had nothing to do with the ini-
tiative in these matters. He was asked to interpret the
meaning of these Betting Acts, and he did so to the best
of his ability. His decision had been appealed against,
and he was not sorry for it, as it might assist in bringing
about a clearer understanding upon a subject of consi-
derable importance. As to the print referred to, he
should not have been conscious of the existence of such
a paper if some one—most likely the person who wrote
the article in question—had not taken the trouble to
send him a copy of it. He (Mr. Merbey) need not dis-
tress his mind about that part of the matter.