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

CII.ANCERY.-(THIS DA'..)

The Lord Chancellor sat to-day in :he Old Fief!, Lin
coin's Ina, and heard cause and lenalie petitions, anti
appeals, but no case ea:ling for a special report came
before his Lordship during the morning.

ROLLS' COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
Un po:.ed cruse petitions, and petitions of na itAerest
exctpt to the parties concerned, occupied his Lordship
the Muster or the Rolls the whole morning.

VICE-CHANCERY.-(THIG DAY.)
(Before the VICE-CHANCELLOR of ENGLAND.)
The hearing of cruse petitions, short causes, and peti-
ticris, 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 BENCH.-(THIS DAY.)
(Sittings in Banco.)

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

Some time ago a rule was grant(4l in this Court, calling
upon Mr. Dickson, the prostnt Mayor f Carlisle, to
show cause wby a quo warrant() should not issue, de-
manding the r'glit and authority by which he held that
office. The application was made on the affidavit of an
inhabitant named Potter, who alleged that the overseer
having 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 acme length that though
Mr. Diekson'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, which 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
month. A list was then to be made out by the town-
cl which was called the burgess roll. That list was
finally revised arid 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-
qualification, 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 say ing that parties " en-
titled" to be on the list, but who had been omitted, were
not qualified. The application was made to the Court
hy 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 hy had not taken the proper Parliamentary steps
to qualify.

Sir. 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 ultimatPly thought that the arguments
should take place, and that in the meantime the quo %ar-
rant° should issue.