The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-12 00:00:00

rpitTaTri4,PV_CF`ViTS T)Av.)

.uutt LISe aLiU peatiuu,, hlie
apeuls, but no case cailing for a special report came
before his Lordship during the morning. •

ROLLS' COURT.-(THIS DAY.)
Unoppoed cause petitions, and petitions of no interest
except to the parties concerned, occupied his Lordship
the Master of the Rolls the whole morning.

ICE-C CER .—( T H DAY.)
(13i4.re the VICE-CHANCELLOR Of ENGLAND.)
The hearing of cruse petitions, short causes, and peti-
tions, occupied his Honour the Vice-Chancellor of Eng-
land the whole day.
The Vice-Chancellors Knight Bruce and Wigram also
heard cause petitions and short causes.

QUEEN'S BENC H.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Bahen.)

THE QUALIFICATION FOR THE OFFICE OF MAYOR-THE
MAYORALTY OF CARLISLE-THE QUEEN V. DICKSON.

Some time ago a rule was granted in this Court, calling
upon Mr. Dickson, the present Mayor of Carlisle, to
show cause why a quo warranto should not issue, de-
manding the r'.ght and authority by which he held that
officy. The applicAtion was made on the affidavit of an
inhabitant named Potter, who alleged that the overseer
baring omitted Mr. Dickson's name from the burgess
list, which was necessary before a person could be elected
either a councillor or mayor, he was ineligible to hold
the office.

Mr. MARTIN this morning appeared in opposition to
the rule, and contended at some length that though
Mr. Dickson's name was omitted, he was not
disqualified, under the Municipal Corporation Act,
from holding the office. Mr. Dickson, he said, believed
his name had been on the list since the passing of that
Act, and only discovered the neglect of the overseer
when he was a candidate for the office of mayor. The
Acts prescribed the following routine for the preparation
of the lists:—The overseer was directed to make out a
list of burgesses entitled to vote on the sth of Septem-
ber, Vk hich was to be deposited with the town-clerk on
the 18th of September. It was to be revised on the 17th
of October, and completed on the 22d of the same
naf nth. A list was then to be made out by the towu-
cle which was called the burgess roll. That list was
finally revised and completed by the overseers and
assessors; so that the Act made the utmost provision
for the prevention of mistakes or omissions. And if the
mere omission was to be considered as a dis-
quatification, an overseer desirous that a cer-
tain party should be elected, might attain
that end by omitting the name of a person likely
to be elected from the list. Now the Legislature clearly
drew a distinction between parties being entitled to be
on the burgess list and of burgesses who were entitled to
be on the burgess roll, which was the final document.
It did not go the length of saying that parties " en-
titled" to be on the list, but who had been omitted, were
not qualified. The application was made to the Court
by a person who was in very needy circumstances; and
the office being not one of emolument, but of great la-
bour and responsibility, he trusted their Lordships
would put a liberal construction on the Act, and dis-
charge the rule.
Mr. Justice PATTESON said the contention of the
plaintiff was that Mr. Dickson was on the list on the 4th
of September, but that on the 9th of November he was
not, as he had not taken the proper Parliamentary steps
to qualify.

Justice COLERIDGE said the defendant could not
now be placed on the rolls of last year, since the list was
final ; there was no remedy in that respect.
The Court ultimately thought that the arguments
should take place, and that in the meantime the quo war-
rauto should issue.