The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-27 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX.

The Revising Barristers held their Court on Tuesday at
Jack Straw's Castle, Hampstead, and went through the
lists for Hampstead, Hornsey, and Willesden.
Before entering on the lists appointed especially for the
day, the Learned Gentlemen delivered judgments with re-
spect to the question of Trustees.
Mr. KEEN 's decision was to the following effect :—Mr.
Robert Finch Harris claims as trustee for a moiety of a
house called the Angel and Crown Inn, in the parish of
Staines, under the will of his late brother, by which the
testator devised his real estate to the claimant and a Mr.

Henry Nutts, and their heirs, in trust, to apply the rents
and profits to the maintenance of the testator's children until
the youngest child attained the age of 21, and then to divide
the same equally among the children, as tenants in common ;
the claimant was sole manager of the trust estate, and received
the rents and profits for the benefit of his nephews. The prin-
cipal objection to the claim was that Harris was a trustee,
and had a beneficial interest in the property in respect of
which he claimed. There was a second objection, that, as
the duties of the trustee would cease when the youngest
child attained the age of twenty-one, the claimant took
only a chattel, and not a freehold interest under the will ;
and in support of that objection a case, Doe dem. Gort v.
Leeds, in the Court of Exchequer, which is not reported,
was cited, laying aside a class of cases in which the rule
has been established that the purposes of a trust, and not
the words of limitation used by the testator, shall be the
measure of the estate to be taken by the trustee or exe-
cutor ; and, taking the fee to be vested in the claimant,
this case raises the important question whether a trus-
tee—having no beneficial interest in the trust estate in
respect of which he claims—is entitled to the county fran-
chise. The 23d sec. of the Reform Act, taken by itself, and
considered without reference to any other part of the Act,
appears to me to confer a clear right of voting upon trustees,
provided they arc in possession or receipt of rents and
profits of the trust estates. But even taken with the other
enactments, the effect appears the same. * * I now
come to the 26th section, which, it is contended, controuls
and renders nugatory the previous enactment. By that
section it is enacted, " that, notwithstanding any thing
thereinbefore contained, no person shall be entitled to vote
unless he be duly registered according to the provisions
thereinbefore contained : and that no person shall be so re-
gistered in any year in respect of his estate and interest in
any lands or tenements as freeholder, copyholder, customary
tenant, or tenant in ancient demesne,un/ess he shall have been
in the actual possession thereof, or in the receipts of the
rents and profits thereof to his own use, for six calendar
months next previous to the last day of .July." The claim-
ant's own use, which is here made a condition of registration,
is to be restricted to possession by the beneficial owner,
either by himself or by his tenant ; no trustee can be en-
entitled to vote. To speak of a trustee for his own use is
a contradiction in terms—a solecism in legal language. A
man may have a beneficial interest in part of the property
. _

of which he it a trustee as to the rest for others ; but in so
far as he has a beneficial interest his equitable estate merges
in his legal estate, and he is, in respect of that interest, ab-
solute owner and not a trustee. Are these trustees, whose
right to vote is so expressly declared by the 23d section of
the Reform Act, excluded by the 26th section ? The words
" notwithstanding anything hereinbeforo contained" are
words of form rather than substance, and I think the Court
would not be justified under the shelter of a phrase belong-
ing more to the conveyancer than to the lawgiver in ex-
punging a whole substantive clause of the Act, even if that
clause were more irreconcileable with the provisions of the
26th section than I think it will be found to be. The real
question is this—were the trustees within the contempla-
tion of the Legislature in the 26th section, or were they
not ? If they were not, there was no intention to exclude
them, and their rights, as declared by the 23d section, re-
mained unaffected : if they were, it is incumbent upon the
Court whose duty it is to construe this Act of Parliament,
to put such a construction upon it as may reconcile, if pos-
sible, the apparent inconsistency between the 23d and 26th
sections ; and at all events, if that should not be entirely
practicable, not to adopt a construction which shall reduce
that part of the Act to an absurdity ; for such would be the
effect of holding that the Legislature has annexed an im-
possible condition to the exercise of the right which it has
expressly given to trustees. After a consideration of the
effect of the words " to his own use" in the Reform Act,
and in former statutes, I am of opinion that trustees have
the right of voting under the 23d section, and that such
right is not affected by the provisions of the 26th section.
Where there is a plurality of trustees the value of the trust
estate in respect of which the claim is made must be such
as when divided by the number of trustees will give to such
trustee a sufficient qualification in point of value to vote for
the county. With regard to the number of trustees that
may be admitted to vote for the same estate, that must de-
pend upon the number that can prove that they are in actual
possession or receipt of the rents and profits. This excludes
altogether the claims of merely passive or dormant trus-
tees, such as trustees to attend the inheritance, trustees to
preserve contingent remainders, and other trustees of the
I ike kind, who are constituted, not for the performance of
active duties, but for mere technical purposes. Uniformity
of decision, and in the present state of the laws as to appeals
from the decisions of Revising Barristers in such a case as
this, can only bo attained by the amending hand of the Le-
gislature ; and until thst amending hand shall be applied
the construction which I have put upon this part of the Act
seems to me to be that which is most consistent with the
letter and with the spirit of the Reform Act. The result
of this decision is that the claim of Mr. Harris is allowed.
Mr. COVENTRY was of the same opinion.
Mr. GREGORY said that the question upon which the
Court had just given judgment was one of considerable im-
portance, and upon which a great difference of opinion
existed in the profession. It was extremely desirable that
it should be set at rest, and that the same rules should go-
vern each county. With that view he hoped the Court
would allow the present eases to stand over, in order that
lie might take advice as to the best means of raising the
question before a higher tribunal.
Mr. COPPOCK concurred, and expressed his readiness to
join in the expense of getting the opinion of the Court of
King's Bench upon the poiut, by mandamus, or otherwise.
He, however, feared that the 56th section, which enacted
that the decision of the Revising Barristers should be final,
rendered such a course impracticable.
The COURT acquiesced in the opinions expressed as to
the propriety of a formal decision from a higher tribunal,
but thought, with Mr. Coppock, that the 56th section pre-
cluded the possibility of the question being raised before the
Court of King's Bench.
It was ultimately arranged that the question should re-
main open until Mr. Gregory took Counsel's opinion as to
the best means of raising the question before the highest
legal tribunal.
The following is a summary of the results :-
1 Objection by
Overseers. Conservatives. Radicals.
Parish. Total. Sustained. Total. Sustained. Total. Sustained
Hampstead 17
Hornsey.... 10
Willesden.. 3

30
One stands over. t One stands over.

Messrs. COVENTRY and KEENE yesterday opened their
Court of Revision at the King's Head Inn, Enfield, for the
correction of the lists of the parishes of Hadley, South
Mimms, Edmonton, Tottenham, Friern, Barnett, and
Enfield.

(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
The list for the parish of Edmonton came under notice,
and upon it an objection appeared, taken by the Conserva-
tives against the vote of Mr. D. W. Harvey, M.P., on the
ground of change of residence.
Mr. Harvey appeared in person to support his vote, and
proved that he was still in possession of the same qualifi-
cation. The title deeds were laid by him upon the table.
The Hon. Gentleman said that he felt the effect of the ob-
jection, and was only anxious that it should not go forth
that he was rejected on the ground of disqualification in
respect of property.
Mr. COVENTRY held that the change of residence with-
out notice of claim, was fatal to the vote. He could make
no distinction, inasmuch as the rule had been universally
adopted (with one exception only) by all Revising Barris-
ters. The vote of Mr. Harvey must therefore be expunged.
(Before Mr. KEENE.)
The claims of the Shareholdders of the New River Com-
pany were opposed by Mr. Coppock, on behalf of the Re-
formers ; and supported by Mr. Gregory, on behalf of the
Conservatives. After a lengthened argument, the judg-
ment of the Court was postponed.
The labours of the day presented the following results :
Overseers' objections... 44 Allowed ... 42
Reform objections 47 Allowed
Tory objections ...... 19 Allowed

CITY.
ST. MARY COLEWICH.
The vote of Mr. Horton, who claimed to be placed on
the registry, in right of occupying premises in the parish,
was objected to on the ground that he was not rated to the
poor.
The Overseer stated that the premises occupied by Mr.
Horton were voted in the name of Emanuel College, Cam-
and the agents of that college paid the rates.
Horton admitted such to be the case, but contended
he ought not to be deprived of his elective franchise, as he
had for two years claimed to have his name entered on the
rate-books. The Overseer admitted this fact, and
Mr. MYLNE held that a person claiming to be rated had
done all required by the Act, and allowed the vote.

ST. LEONARD.
In this parish the Conservatives objected to two votes.
The acting Overseer, in answer to a question from the