The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-16 00:00:00

E SUN, LONDON, MONDAY lOVNING, NOVEMBER 16, 181

a lady named Clithero, praying that 'the sum awarded 6 reflecting on the conduct of her sister. He was sure
to her for c.anpensatio=, from the railway company might the Court would hardly believe that such a letter—in
be laid ow, d the divi:lends pail t 9 her. - fact, that the whole of the letters on which the charge
fit IloNotitt Intele ti,e order es asked. was based—were written by a clergyman of the Church
'llJe (oft. t, after o' the eases of Carter and of El,gland. The offence of which the defendant had
Gil, and Temlyn and Re,yeekla, proceeded to hear been found guilty called for some punishment at the
further-arguments in the part-heard case of hands of the Court.
•
THE GRAND JUNCTION CANAL COMPANY V. DIMES. Their Lordships having consulted,
-, The bill in this case was filed originally so far back Mr. Justice COLERIDGE proceeded to pass the sen-
as the year 1838, and the object of that bill was tence of the Court upon the defendant in the most
to compel the Lord of the Manor of Rickmansworth, in impressive manner. He said---Josiah Bartlett, you are
Hertfordshire, to give the Grand Junction Canal Com- to receive the sentence of the Court after a conviction
party a perfect title to certain lands purchased by them for the publication' of a libel, charged on a criminal in-
fer the purpose of forming their canal. The circu=s- formation, which was tried at the last assizes at Here-
stances under which that bill was filed may be thus ford, and you were found guilty. The libel consisted of
stated. In the year 1797 the company purchased the a letter which was sent by you to the wife of the prose-
lands in question, under Acts passed in their behalf in eutur, Marianne Tolzer, and it is impossible for any one to
the i eign of George 111., of a persan of the name of read that letter without seeing that it conveysimputations-
Jeseph Skidmore, who held them as copyholds from the upon the character of that lady such as would have
• Lord of the Manor. Skidmore conveyed the lands by shown her to be valueless, because without virtue and
bargain and sale to the Canal Company, but that corn- chastity woman is worth_ nothing. That letter was
piny was never admitted by the Lord of the Manor. sent to herself, at a time when she was from her hus-
A t the time of the sale, a gentleman of the name of band, and when she 'was in your neighbourhood with her
Whitfield was Lord of the Manor at Rickmansworth, brother, and the occasion which had brought those per-
which he devised to Robert Williams, as trustee, for sale; sons into that neighbourhood was a letter which you had
and he, subsequently to the year 1818; when his testator previously sent to your own wife, in which, after making
died, sold the manor to Henry Windale, who by his will many statements of family unhappinesses, occasioned,
devised all his real estates to Ambrose Bohan and as you state, by the interference of your wife's rela-
Windale Martin in fee; and executed a mortgage of the tions, and in which von declared you entertained a
manor in fee to Dimes, the principal defendant in the settled determination to separate yourself from her,
suit, and died in the year 1836. The defendant Dimes, that letter contained no- imputations against the
in the year 1838, having foreclosed and claiming to be conduct of your wife in any other respect. It ap-
entitled to the legal estate in the lands, caused peered that she was the mother to you of
an obstruction to be placed across the, canal, many children, and it spoke of some division that was
and an injunction was applied for to pre- to be made with respect to the custody of those children.
vent him from doing so. Upon this application In answer to that letter your wife stated to you that
the Court directed the trial of an issue, for the purpose her own family, to whom she had most naturally corn-
of ascertaining whether the lands were copyhold or not, municated it, had sent her sister and her brother down
and it being found that they were, the Court continued to you fur the purpose of protecting and advising
the injunction that had been granted, and the cause now her. The cause, therefore, which brought the
came on for hearing. The bill, which had been twice prosecutrix and her brother into your neighbour-
amended, after setting forth these facts, charged that hood was not only perfectly justifiable, it was
upon every descent of the manor the land was entitled quite a commendable interference on their parti
to certain fines amounting to two years value, and and nothing appears in the conduct which they then
prayed that the present lord of the manor (whether the pursued that could in the slightest degree justify any
legal estate was vested in Dimes or the devisees of Win- illegal conduct on your part; but if there had been any-
dale) might be decreed to admit the plaintiffs to the thing in their conduct, or in the mode in which they
lands in question, or the heir at law of Joseph Skidmore, conducted; themselves, I would put it to you,
the original vendor as a trustee for them, upon payment if I thought that it was likely that you were
of whatever sums might be due to the lord in the nature capable of entering into such a consideration,
of fines. The devisees of Windale, by their answers, properly whether anything could have justified the
disclaimed all interest in the lands which were the sub- writing of the letter,which you wroteto Marianne Tolzer.

It is trite that letter was only written to herself, and it
was just possible that that letter might have been put
into the fire, and consequently seen by no other person.
But what could be expected from an innocent woman—
an innocent wife, but that, receiving a letter containing
such imputations as were there made, to show it at once,
and without reserve, with the boldness of innocence, and
in the confidence of affection to her husband ? It cannot
but be suppoSed that when you, as a reasonable being
in your senses, sent that letter you must have foreseen
that it would have been communicated to her husband, and
then it is impossible that you could be ignorant of the
misery which a letter of that nature might have caused
to the whole of that family. When this cause was
brought before the Court in the first instance, your
counsel, as you now state, retracted the whole charge,
and made, what you call, an abject apology. I think it
was impossible at that time for the counsel, on the
part of the prosecution, to do more thon he did
namely, to make the rule absolute. But the moment you
heard of this, whether it was that you supposed you had
now attained impunity, or for what other reason I know
not vet, although you had refused to adhere to the charge
you-had made in the public papers, you retracted that
apology-. You, therefore, put it forward to the world
a second time as a charge upon the truth of which you
were contented to stand. The case went to trial, and it
is not unworthy ,of observation that, in the course of
some of those letters which passed from you after that
time, having intimated to Marianne Tolzer that she
would be put into the box, and would be subjected
there to questions which it would have been
impossible for her to answer, it appears that she was
taken to the assizes for the purpose, but you did not
venture to call that person into the box and ask her any
questions.
The defendant—l was not there, my Lord.
Mr. Justice CoLELUDGE—Marianue Tolzer, on her
part, has done everything that a woman could do to
avow her innocence of the imputations cast upon her.
It is always usual upon occasions,of this sort, and most
justly, to see after the act has been once committed how
the party conducts himself—to see whether there is any
true repentance for what he has done—anything like an
appreciation of his guilty conduct ; or whether, on the
other hand, he adheres to it with the same malice which
he manifested when he was first induced to perpetrate
the act. I regret to say that in every step that has been
taken by you since the day of your conviction, the same
distinct malice, has been manifested on the one hand,
and the same amount of—l think I must call
it cunning—a desire to shield yourself from the con-
sequences of your act most distinctly appears. One
particular letter written to your wife, and which oc-
casioned some delay in the proceedings of the Court,
and which you were so very desirous should
not be read, shows this more clearly. I wish
I could think that this wish on your part was
because you really repented of the act of writing it, and
not that you were afraid of the consequences which it
might have upon you. • The Court thought, without
doubt, that the letter should be read, and therefore
at your own request, after the representations made of
the nature of its contents, the Court have looked into
it, and have spared the public the pain of its appearing
in print. It is fit to say that, although that letter
contains nothing that could induce the Court to
believe the truth of what you state in it—that there is
nothing also in that letter which in the slightest de-
gree, though no doubt the object of it was
to plant more deeply in your wife's mind a
sense of her sister's guilt—that the Court
consider that that letter particularises nothing that in
the slightest degree fixes Marianne Tolzer with any
particular specification—any charge of incontinency
whatever. In the courso of my experience in
this Court I have never had to deal with a
case of private life so full of • calumny as this appears
to be. It is very painful for this Court to have to deal
with transactions that go into the secresy of private life,
but it is much more painful to have before it
a person who fills, and who has filled so long
the situation you do a minister of the
holy Gospel. In your person one cannot but feel
that the Church itself is outraged. From the manner
you have conducted yourself in the whole of this
case, and after the observations you have made
this day—in which, using the language of your
own affidavit you Confess yorself guilty of nothing more
than an act of impropriety, and instance your own guilt
as something that may be palliated by a fine of the
smallest possible amount—it-- is vain to suppose
that as the organ of this Court, I can safely
address any observations to you whatever. I must
leave to another time to bring \ you to a state of
mind in which you will take a proper view of the emu.
mity of the offence you have committed. It remains
only for me to pass upon you that sentence which, upon
a full consideration of all the circumstances of
the case the Court think it right to impose
upon you, which is that you be imprisoned in
the Queen's Bench for two years on each count of this
indictment, each sentence to commence and end at the
same period ; and that at the expiration of that time you
enter into your own reeognizances in the sum of one
thousand pounds for your good behaviour to all her Ma-
jesty's subjects, and especially to Marianne Tolzer, for
the space of five years.
The defendant was then removed in the custody of the
proper officer, and the majority of the auditory withdrew.

ject of the suit, and thereby admitted Limes to be the
present lord of the manor ; and it was contended fur him
that it was not compulsory upon a lord of the manor to
admit a corporation to lands held of the manor, and con-
sequently that he was not compellable to admit the
plaintiffs.
Mr. Stuart, Mr. J. Parker, and Mr. Bask appeared
for the plaintiffs ; Mr. Bethel), Mr. Humfrey, and Mr.
Smythes for the defendant Dimes ; Mr. Randall ap-
peared for the devisees of Windale ; and Mr. S. Russell
fur the heirs of Skidmore.
Mr. HUMFREY resumed his arguments on behalf of
the defendant Dimes.
Mr. STUART having replied,
The VICE-CHANCELLOR gave judgment, declaring
that the heir, according to the custom of the manor of
Skudmore, was the party who ought to be admitted
tenant upon the court-roll, and that when admitted he
would be trustee of such estate as he got by the admis-
sion for the corporation. His Honour also directed that
the corporation should pay the fine and fees of admission,
and reierred it to the Master to ascertain what the
amount of the fee was, and also to inquire who was the
heir of Thomas Skudmore. The costs were ordered to
be taxed and paid by the plaintiffs, and then recovered
over again from the defendant.
The Court rose at half-past three o'clock.
(Before Sir J. WIGRAM.)
After some unimportant motions had been-disposed of
the arguments in the case of Blair v. Bromley were re-
sumed and continued till the rising of the Court.
(Before Sir J. K. BRUCE.)
STEWART V. BUSHDY.
His HONOUR gave directions in this case to-day. He
said that there was evidence of the contract, and he con-
sidered that the proper order would be that an account
should be taken of the debts of Mulholland and Co. at
the time of the bankruptcy.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Justice PATTESON.)
IN RE SIIIITTLEWORTIL

Mr. PARRY movedd in
thisthat e thease shouldretu rn
at
ton thenen
be writm oa fd
e. ha-
beas corpus issue
Sir J. BAYLEY said that the lady was then in West-
minster Hall.
seest
sfobruthttitehwantrotbn
wasthe
9th of August Maria E
of Dr. Millingen, and that the
delivered into the custody
and detained was, that she
cause of her so being taken .
The return was then
Elias
'her property, and
was at the
governing herself or
and incapable of
feperson to be at large. The
was an unfit and an unsafe ezaactßhlotd
a licensed house for the
of her confinement was
at Battersea,
place .
time, and has since been, of unsound mind,
reception there, an order for her
reception .
and at the time of herJ C.
Rowlack, the minister of St.
reception, signed by
produced, in which it was stated
Peter's,
Pimlico,
was
d in a most deplorable and in-
decent of lunatics, called York. House,
that she had been found
medical man, who
from Thomas Willmott, a
mind, and
stated that she
was.
of'
h unsound
he came to that
that the facts from
which
laboured under various
state. There were also two certificates, one
conclusion was, that she
pronounced her
insane, and stated that he came to that another, 'Wm. Gifford, a medical man,
conclusion from
delusions and was extremely dirty and indecent; and
conversation he had with her.
insufficient,
Mr. PARRY said he had to submit to his Lordship
that such a return to the writ was altogether
and that this lady should be discharged from custody.
He would state to his Lordship, on the threshbold
of the argument, that he did not intend to raise the
question as to whether or not the lady was insane,but
be would contend that the order and certificates upon
which this lady was received into the custody of Dr.
Millengen were insufficient and illegal. The order and
certificates were given under the Act Bth and 9th of
Victoria, chap. 100, and the sections (to which he
most particularly desired to direct his Lordship's
attention), were sections 45 and 46. The intention
of the Act was benevolent, but the sections
were two of the most restrictive upon the liberty of the
subject which could be found in any Act of Parliament.
The first point to which he would call the attention of
his Lordship was the order set forth in that return. It
appeared that a gentle.man named Rowlock, the minister
of the parish, having had his attention directed to the
forlorn condition, of this lady, felt it his duty to inter-
fere, although not related or connected with her. The
form of the order, as specified in schedule B of the Act,
required that a number of particulars with reference to
the age, sex, malady, condition, &c., of the lunatic should
be set forth upon the order, making it evident that the
intention of the Act was, that the order should not come
from an utter stranger, but from a person related, or
intimately connected, with him or her. It did not ap-
pear on the order that this gentleman had ever seen
her more than five minutes together. Under the
same schedule there was a list of sixteen particulars
with reference to the lunatic, to which the person mak-
ing the order should make answers, or give good and
sufficient reason for not doing so. It was required to
set forth the nature of the lunacy, whether suicidal, or
dangerous to others—whether the party was epileptic—
the date and duration of the attack---whether it was the
first attack—the former place of confinement,
and other

circumstances, to which no return whatever had been
made ; and, for the absence of the returns, the only
reason alleged was, that the lunatic was watched by a
person whom she held in fear.
Sir J. BAYLEY here remarked that he saw the prose-
cutor of the pre: eat writ sitting next to, and hording a
conversation with, the unfortunate lady.
Mr. PARRY was not aware Of the fact, or he would
not have permitted it. They did not require the lady to
wait i❑ Court at all.
Sir J. BAYLEY—She is suffering acute pain from bodily
disease, and it will be better if she is not compelled to
remain.

would convey the description of the objector's residence
us commonly known, and that this had been done in the
present instance.

The unfortunate lady, who appeared to be in consider-
able pain, was then supported out of Court by two fe-
male attendants.
M
al
c e fin
tte.s.swhich, under the construction of the 45th section of the
Act, would be at once fatal to them. Under the Act
2 and 3 William IV., chap. 107, the certificates were
geefortowathrde atrobjmeecdtiioc
only required to state that the person was of unsound
mind to obtain his introduction to a lunatic asylum ;
but the Act of 8 and 9 Victoria, chap. 100, which was
passed as an improvement upon the old Act, required
that the person certifying should state, upon the face of
his certificate, the facts that led him to the conclusion
that the person was insane. In the certificate of Dr.
Wilmott the only facts which were pat forward were,
that she was labouring under various delusions, and was
and dirty in the extreme. There were in that certificate
no facts, but merely the opinion of Dr. Wilmott. With
regard to the second certificate of Dr. William Griffiths,
that gentleman merely stated that be concluded that
this lady was insane from some conversation which he
had with her. He appeared to have a full conviction
that he was not about to state any fact, for he had
drawn his pen through the words " following facts,
videlicet," in the original printed certificate. As the
amended Act prescribed certain forms to be observed,
he (Mr. Parry) thought that they should be most impli-
citly complied with, especially in any document affecting
the liberty of any person. Under these circumstances
he submitted that the order upon the return and the
certificates were illegal, and that the lady should there-
fore be discharged from custody. The Learned Gentle-
man then proceeded to cite the case of Fell, a lunatic,
in which a decision had been given in favour of his view
of the present case.
Sir JOHN BAYLEY, in support of the return, submitted
that Dr. Quail was not the party entitled to impeach the
present return. The writ was moved for upon ex parte
applications, and on four affidavits, to only one of which
be would call the attention of the Court, as the others
were valueless. Dr. Quail stated that he was a phybi-
cian, and had known the alleged lunatic for five years,
during which time she had suffered from bodily disease,
but not from any mental ailment. His affidavit also set
forth her forcible removal from his custody, and the fact
that he had not since been)ble to obtain access to her.
He objected to his power to impeach the.return, as it did
not appear on the face of the affidavit that he was acting
under the authority of the' supposed lunatic. The
Learned Counsel then cited the case of the Canadian
prisoners, 5 Meeson and Wellsby, p. 32, and the
celebrated case of the Hottentot Venus, in sup-
port of this view of the case. Dr. Quail bad
stated that access to the lady was refused ; but his
proper course was to have applied to the Commissioners
of Lunacy, who had the entire and exclusive control of
all private lunatic asylums. ,He might have written, or
had his application answered in writing, but it did not
appear that he had taken any of these courses. He (Sir
J. Bayley) had affidavits which would establish facts to
the contrary of those adduced by Dr. Quail.
Mr. PARRY submitted that no affidavits could be pro-
duced in the case. The question as to the insanity of
the party was not under discussion ; it was as to the
validity of the return, and that would go by his Lord-
ship's judgment.
Sir J. BAYLEY would show that Dr. Quail was the last
person in the world to whom the case of this lady should
be committed.

The COURT took time to consider the judgment.
LAMBERT V. TIIE TOWN CLERK OF THE BOROUGH OF
NEW SARUM.

This. appeal was dismissed because ten days' clear
notice had not been given to the respondent.

MARLBRO'-STREET.-(THIS DAY

John Walker was charged with stealing several silk
handkerchiefs and scarfs, the property of his master.
John Cooper, constable 841), said, on Saturday even-
ing he was standing in the shop of Mr. Walker, pawn-
broker, High-street, Marylebone, when the prisoner
came in, and offered four green silk handkerchiefs in the
piece for pledge. Mr. Walker's assistant asked him if he
thought this was all right. He told him he thought not.
The assistant returned the handkerchiefs, and witness
asked the prisoner where he had got the handkerchiefs.
The prisoner told him he had purchased them at
Thrasher and-Glenny's, near Somerset House, Strand ;
and that he was a carpenter, living in Holywell-street,
Westminster. He took the defendant to the station.
house, and made inquiry of Messrs. Thrasher and
Glenny, who told him that they had -no hand-
kerchiefs with the same pattern of border, and
he then went to the prisoner's address, in Holywell-
street, and discovered there that he was a light porter
to Mr. Hummle, 6, Old Bond-street, where he went, and
found that they had had handkerchiefs of a similar
pattern.
Horace Hummle, hosier, 6, Old Bond-street, said they
had had handkerchiefs exactly similar to those produced
by the policeman.
Mr. HARDWICKE was about to commit the prisoner
for trial, when Mr. Hummle applied to have him re-
manded till further inquiry could be made. He said,
from a letter of the prisoner's which had been inter-
cepted, there was reason to suspect that depredations-to
a much greater amount had been committed.
The prisoner was remanded till Friday, when he will
be brought up for re-examination.
Jane Stanley was placed at the bar, charged with
rioting in several houses on Saturday evening, and com-
mitting assaults and damages.
T. Wilson, proprietor of a coffee-shop in John-street,
Oxford-street, said that the prisoner came to his house
on Saturday evening, and called for ale, which was re-
fused. She sat down, but soon arose, and cleared the
table of all that was on it, cups, saucers, &c. She was
much intoxicated, and he gave her into custody.
Richard Warren, the proprietor of the Union Tavern,
11, John-street, Oxford street, said the prisoner came
into his house about half•past five o'clock on Saturday
afternoon. She was tipsy, and he forbade his barmaid
to serve her with any liquor; when denied, she seized a
large glass globe, which stood on the counter, and threw
it at the barmaid.

The defendant said she did not remember anything
about it.

.....___
Mr. HARDWICKE said she must pay 10s. for the as-
sault, besides the amount of the damage done, or go to
the House of Correction for ten days.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—You had better go on with
the other part of the case.
Sir J. BAYLEY—The only point then was, whether it
was competent to any party to come to that Court to
seek the discharge of any private individual without his
or her consent. The Commissioners of Lunacy had the
control of all private asylums, and could discharge the
supposed lunatic if in illegal custody. lie would also
ask whether, supposing the certificate to be invalid, from
the circumstances mentioned by Mr. Parry, did that
make the custody of the lunatic illegal? The 45th sec-
tion of the Act stated that any person who received into
a licensed lunatic asylum any lunatic for whom money
was paid, under the forms stated in the Act, should be
punishable for a misdemeanour, and prosecuted at the
discretion of the Commissioners or their secretary, but
nothing was said as to the custody of the lunatic being
illegal. He, therefore, disputed the power of the Court
to discharge any for an informality in the medical
certificates.

Mr. Justice PATTESON—The language of the 45th
section is very strong. It says that no person shall be
received and detained in any licensed house, without the
form of medical certificate described in schedule C, and
that any person receiving a lunatic into such asylum
withoutsuch form of certificate shall be guilty of a mis-
demeattour. So the keeper might be punished as much
as he pleased, and still keep the lunatic in custoQl ac-
cording to your view of the case.
Some further discussion then took place, after which
Mr. Justice PATTFSON said that the case presented
many difficulties to his mind, and as it had been pretty
fully entered into before-his Brother Erle at chambers,
he would retire and consult him. He had considerable
doubts qs to the validity of the second certificate.
After some time had elapsed,
Mr. Justice PATTESON returned, and said that he had
had an opportunity of consulting his Brother Erie and
the Lord Chief Justice. Mr. Justice Erle bad entered
pretty fully into the case at chambers. They were
both of opinion that the certificates were valid, and came
within the meaning of the Act. His own opinion was
not of a similar tendency, and he thought that the better
plan would be to have the case argued to-morrow in full
Court, and the lady to be rmitted to her former custody
until then.

After some objection on the part of Sir J. BAYLEY,
Mr. PARRY pressed for immediate judgment.
Mr. Justice PATTESON—Such a course would be in-
convenient.
My own opinion is, that the certificates
are not valid, but it had better be argued in full Court
to- morrow.

This course was then, after some discussion, agreed on.
THE INHABITANTS OF THE PARISHES OF EAST SHEEN
AND MDRTLAKE V. THE RICHMOND RAILWAY COMPANY.
Mr. CHAMBERS moved for a rule to show cause why
a mandamus should not issue directed to the Richmond
Railway Company, calling upon them to construct a
good and sufficient bridge for foot passengers,
where their line crossed a part of a public
footway leading from Mortlake Church to East Sheen.
The company agreed to construct a good and sufficient
bridge within the space of six calendar months, and to
maintain it afterwards, From the affidavits it appeared,
that some disagreement took place between the company
and the inhabitants, and in consequence of it some fur-
ther provisions were introduced into their Act. In March
last the company began the bridge, and constructed it so
that passengers by the pathway were compelled to turn
out of it to the left, up a sort of wooden ladder or steps,
cross the bridge, and after having descended a similar
ladder on the other side, they were obliged to take a
slanting direction to regain the path. As the path was
much used by the tradespeople, and by walking funerals,
it became absolutely useless as a pathway, and com-
pelled many to make a very circuitous route. The com-
pany having finished this bridge, resolutely refused to
make any alteration in it.
Application granted for a rule nisi.

XCHEQUER.,(THIS DAY.)
The Court proceeded this day with the cases set down
on the special paper. None of the cases argued were of
any interest except to the parties immediately con-
cerned.

SOUTHWARK.-(THIS DAY.)

James Brooks, a cork-cutter,Was charged with travel-
ling on the South-Eastern Railway without a ticket, and
refusing to pay his fare when required.
Henry Smith, ticket inspector at the London-bridge
terminus, stated, that on the arrival of the train from
Ashford, on Saturday afternoon, the defendant was re-
quested to produce his ticket, and, on his refusal to do
so, the fare, ss. 7d., was asked of him, which he also
refused to pay. He was then given into custody.
The prisoner said he lost his ticket on the way from
Ashford, but as it appeared that he intended to defraud
the company,
Mr. BECHER committed him to prison for 21 days.

COMMON PLEAS.—(THIS DAY.)
BEENLEN V. HOCRIN,—THE BOROUGH OF DARTDIOUTH.
This was an appeal from a decision of the Revising
Barrister for the borough
of Dartmouth. The notice of
objection served on appellant did not specify the date of
the year, and the notice to the overseers had been served
on the churchwarden, who did not sign the list. The
Barrister, however, struck out the appellant's name.
Mr. GREENWOOD appeared on behalf of the appellant,
and maintained that the Revising Barrister's decision
was bad, inasmuch as the provisions ofofthte
ehlarweshpaod
had been,
mr. s
deirngtewanotinKsiNtauncLeAsa.bEy, theon behalfnotice.
contended there was nothing in the Registration Act re-
quiring the stringent compliance with its liberal terms
demanded by the appellant. Substantial compliancet
with its provisions was all that was required, and this
had been the case in the present instance.
Lord Chief Justice WILDE said, that with regard to
the first point raised—that regarding:the date, clause 17
—in his opinion, as appled to it, did not admit of a:doubt.
That clearly showed that the Legislature intended that
the 3'ear as well as- the day of the month shOuld be
set forth in the notice. Whatever inconvenience might
tdbbheaerdee,versed. Though
arise from the compliance with the provisions of the
section, the Court was not at liberty to deerpavnaerddt
tf,hr,ooam:
ttthhheee
evident meaning of the Legislature. Taphpeenalitiicte
would
fouobld-
jection must express on the faceertfoftshihteotuhledyeaalrsoasewxeplrleasss
17th clause directed
the day and the month; therefore he was of opinion the
and the 13th section
should
make out and sign
Revisingnoti e
iinni presenttEnh:.nsttheer
d judgmentipn os
itna
They
sl
itst.
btrot hheeveliaesutrocsipwreot
eehnadrevsse ~sufficientotwnhoieat
inot
made
hce oatefhd aeont thyoojeuetrthesd
overseers
ihseoPren!
lsoisesu.h.
the same. Did the clauses stand alone in this manner,
there might be some repon for holding the notice to be
bad, but the interpretation clause, 101, stated that any
act to be performed by the overseers might be done by
the majority of them, and then this became the act of
the whole. lie was, therefore, of opinion that the notice
now need not be served on the particular overseers who
signed the lists, but on any one of the whole, providing
the statute was in other respects complied with.
The rest of their Lordships concurred.
The decision of the Revising Barrister was accordingly
reversed.
WOOLLETT V. DAVIS.—THE COUNTY OF MONMOUTH.
agTaihnisst
waasdaecics°iouns°loidf hattede aßevppeiaslingin "ivg 83 votes)
Barrister for the
county of Monmouth, by which the name of the appel-
lant was expunged from the register. The point raised
was the form of •nolice served by the objector on the
appellant, the latter contending that the notice on:which
the Revising Barrister had acted was bad, because the
objector had not properly stated his place of abode.
Mr. COCEBURN appeared for the appellant, maintain-
ing that the notice of the objector was not in the manner
and form prescribed by No. 5, schedule ,IA of the. Act. _
Mr. KE ATING , for the respondent, contended that all
that the law coutiemplated ivuo ouch tt description as