The Sun.
London, England, 1849-11-12 00:00:00

Viltrb %baton

COMMON PLEAS—(THIS DAY.)
REGISTRATION APPEAL.
CAPEL, APPELLANT, V. OVERSEERS OF ASTON,
RESPONDENTS.
The appellant in this case was the owner and occu-
pier of some freehold land in the parish of Aston,
Birmingham, of a greater yearly value than 405.,
and was also the occupying tenant, but not the
owner, at a rent of more than 101. yearly, of a house
distant from the land, and situated within the
parish and borough of Birmingham. In respect
of the land he claimed a vote for the county,
but the Revising Barrister held that the land and
house, although separated, ought to be united, and
made to form one tenancy, and being so united they
constituted under the Reform Act a true qualification.
The claim for a county-rate was, therefore, dis-
allowed.
?Ir. KEENE, who appeared for the appellant stated,
that the 24th section of the Act, which was relied
upon by the Revising Barrister, said that no person
was entitled to a county vote in respect of his interest
in any freehold land occupied by himself " together
with" any house of sufficient yearly rental to entitle
him to a vote for a city or borough, and he contended
that the words " together with" were meant to refer to
space, to the land being attached to and not separated
from the house. In the present case the facts showed
that the land was not only at a distance from the
house, but was not even in the same parish, and if the
decision of the Barrister was upheld, he argued that
no meaning would be given to the words referred to.
Mr. Mzu.on, on the part of the respondents, con-
tended that the Legislature, by the words " together
with," meant cotemporaneous occupation of the free-
hold land and house, and that it mattered not whether
they were actually separated, because the house and
the land must be united and be considered to make
up and constitute ore mixed or joint tenancy, quali-
fying for a borough voter.
Mr. KEENE replied, observing that the effect of his
Learned Friend's argument would be to deprive free-
holders in boroughs of a county vote. A house and
land could not be considered as making one tenancy,
entitling to a borough vote, if the claimant was only
the occupier of the one and the owner and the occupier
of the other. Before they could be united and made
to form a right to a borough vote, the claimant must
be tenant only of both; he must have a distinctive
character as a tenant without having any freehold
interest.
The COURT deferred its decision.
BURTON, APPELLANT, V. OVERSEERS OP ASTON.
Mr. KEENE was also heard on the part of the ap-
pellant in this case. Burton was the owner of free-
hold land in the parish of Aston, occupied by himself,
of greater value than 40s. yearly, and also the occu-
pying tenant of a house in another parish of less
yearly value than 10/. He claimed, in respect
of the land, a vote for the county, but the Revising
Barrister decided that he was not entitled to one, and
held that, although he had not a 10/, tenancy, the
land and the house must be taken together to form a
borough qualification. The only distinction between
this and the former case was, that the house occupied
by the appellant was of less rental yearly.
Mr. Keene contended that the two occupations could
not be united, saying that a voter's qualification could
not be rated in two parishes. He also argued, as in
the first case, that the voter must have a distinctive
character—that his qualification could not be made
up of a freehold and a tenancy, which, although oc-
cupied together, were actually in separate parishes.
Mr. MELLOR. was heard on the other side.
The COURT took time to consider their decision.