The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-06 00:00:00

JUDGMENTS.

Shortly after entering the court
The 13ArtnrsT7ia said there are three cases which stand
over for judgment, in which the only question is whether
the parties respectively occupy certain premises as tenants,
by reason of the landlord of cuach residing in the house.
They are the cases of John Davies Price, in the list of
the parish of St. Clement, Easteheap, down for a count.
ing-house, 3, Church-court, Clement's-lane; Frederick
William Grainger, in the parish of St. Margaret, New
Fish-street, for a counting- house, 17, Pudding-Jane;
Henry Woodgate Saffel, in the parish of St. Leonard,
Eastcheap, for a counting-house, 5, Eastcheap. Mr.
Price occupies three rooms as a counting-house en
the first floor of the house, 3, Church-court, which

communicate with each other internally, and have
two doors opening into the common passage of
the house. The landlady of the house, Mrs. Artis, re-
sides in it, occupying the ground floor as a parlour, and
kitchen, and the rooms above the first floor as sleeping
apartments for herself and servant. The street-door of
the house is always left open on week days during the
hours of business, but Mr. Price has no key of that
door, the key is kept by the landlady; he has, however,
the keys to the passage doors of the rooms in his occu-
pation; these keys are left at night with the landlady's
servant, who has the charge of cleaning and looking
after the rooms in question, and for these services the
landlady is paid 51. a year more in the rent than she
would be if Mr. Price had a servant of his own to look
after the rooms. Under these circumstances I am of
opinion that Mr. Price does not occupy the rooms in
question as a tenant, but merely as a lodger, and that
the case falls within the principle of Pitt's case (1 Bar.
and Arn, 344), and Hill's case (lb., 409). It was ad-
mitted, indeed, by Mr. Wansey, who appeared to
support the vote of Mr. Price, that if that gen-
tleman had slept in the rooms he occupied he
would clearly be a lodger, but in my opinion the
quality of the occupation does not depend upon the
purposes for which the occupier may use the premises.
I cannot suppose, for example, that if a party occu-
pies the drawing-room fluor of an ordinary dwelling•
house in which his landlord resides, the outer door of
the house being left shut, and he uses the apartments in
his occupation for the purposes of business only, and
calls them a counting-house, he is to be entitled to the
franchise, when he would certainly not be entitled to it
if he used the same rooms as a dwelling-house. In other
words, I think that where a qualification is conferred
in respect of the occupation of a counting-house, it is in-
tended that the premises should be of such a nature as
that if used as a dwelling-house they would be sufficient
to confer the qualification as " a house." Nor do I think
that the circumstance of the street-door being left open
during the day makes any difference in such a case. It
is probably done here for the accommodation of Mr.
Price, but it appears to me that as the landlady resides
in the house she retains in law the control over the door.
I am of opinion, therefore, that Mr. Price's name must

be expunged. The circumstances in Mr. Grainger's case
are precisely similar in all essential particulars to that
in Mr. Price's, and this case will therefore be governed
by that decision, and Mr. Grainger's name will be ex-
punged. In Mr. Saffel's case there are some impor-
tant facts of a different character. That gentleman
also occupies the first floor of the house No. 5, East-
cheap, as a counting-house, and his landlord occupies
the ground floor as a shop, and the upper part of the
house above the first floor as a residence ; but this upper
part is shut off from the lower portion by a deor at the
foot of the staircase leading from the first floor ; and
that door is fastened, and the key of it kept by the land-
lord. The street-door of the house is, as in Mr. Price's
case, always left open during the hours of business ; and
it was proved in this case that this was so done by an
express agreement with the landlord ; but Mr. Saffel
has no key to it. The shop has a separate entrance from
the street, and there is a side door from the shop into
the passage of the house, which door is not fastened up,
but which is used by the landlord when he wishes to go
from the shop to the upper part of the house. Mr.
Saffel's own servant takes charge of the rooms in his
occupation. lam of opinion that Mr. Saffel occupies
these rooms as "tenant," and that he possesses a good
qualification in support of them. It appears to me that
the upper portion of the house in which the landlord re•
sides is so sufficiently divided from the rest of the build-
ing as to form, in law, a distinct and separate tenement;
the outer door to which may be considered to be
the door opening upon the staircase. If the shop on
the ground floor had no communication with the pas-
sage, the case, I think, would have presented no
doubt, because in that case the shop and the first
floor would have been also two distinct and separate
tenements; but as the shop has a door int@ the passage
leading to Mr. Saffel's apartments, I consider the whole
lower front of the house as in the nature of one tene-
ment. But of this the landlord only occupies a part; he
resides, it may be said, elsewhere, in what I consider to
he in law a separate building; and I decide this case,
therefore, in accordance with the decisions in which L
have held that the mere occupation by a landlord of part
of a house will not disqualify a party who occupies ano-
ther portion of the same house, a point upon which,
however, I may say that I do not feel very confident in
the absence of any decision by a higher tribunal. The
street-door in this case might perhaps be looked upon as
a mere protection to the premises, in the nature of a
door or gate at the end of a court passage, or at the en-
trance to a building containing several sets of chambers,
which is left open during the day, and closed for safety
at night. But Ido not lay much stress upon the fact of
this door being left open by day, and that it is so by an
express agreement between the parties, for if it were
usually kept closed, it would still be but thei case I have
before mentioned, that of the mere occupation by the
landlord of a portion of the tenement consisting of the
lower portion of the house. I decide, therefore, that Mr.
Saffel's name will be retained.

Mr. Wansey begged the Court would allow him a little
time to consider whether he shoukl take a case on the
question of the counting-house, as he considered it one
of importance.
The BARRISTER also considered the question of very
great importance, and expressed the greatest willingness
to accede to the application of Mr. Wansey.
George Catherwood claimed to be registered on the
ground of successive occupation from No. 3 to No. 1,
Warnford-court, but the premises which he occupied in
successive occupation not being described, the name was
expunged. _ _

Res'u-lt of the day's revision, according to the Liberal
return:—

Failed or
Allowed' Withdrawn.
Liberal objections 4O ... ..... 77
Tory ditto 49
Double ditto
Result according to the Conservative return:—
Allowed. Failed or
Withdrawn.
Liberal objections 37
Tory ditto 5l
Double ditto 2O .

The lists of the following parishes were revised:—St.
Bartholomew Exchange, kit. Benet Fink, St. Peter le
Poor, thereby finishing the revision of the ward of
Broad-street.

The Court adjourned till half-past ten o'clock this
morning, when the Barrister proceeded to the re-
vision of the lists of the parishes in the ward of Castle
Baynard.