The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-07 00:00:00

JUDGMENTS.

Shortly after entering the court
The BARRISTER 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 each residing in the house.
They are the cases of John Davies Price, in the list of
the parish of St. Clement, Eastcheap, down for a count•
ing-house, 3, Church-court, Clement's-lane; Frederick
William Grainger, in the parish of St. Margaret, New
Fish-street, fur a counting-house, 17, Pudding-lane;
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 on
tho 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 Si. 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 floor 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,
Out 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 into 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 I
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 the case I have
before mentioned, that of the mere occapation 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 should 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, tho name was
expunged.
Result of the day's revision, according to the Liberal
return:—

........
Allowed. Failed or
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 revist;cl:—St.
Bartholomew Exchange, St. Benet Fink, St. Peter le
Poer, 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.

(Before Mr. ARNOLD.)
On taking his seat yesterday morning, Mr. Arnold,
the Revising Barrister for the City of London', de-
livered the following decision:—
In going over the list of voters for the parish of St.
Peter-le-Poer on Monday, I observed the name of a
party, with the nature of the qualification and the de-
scription of the property stated in a similar manner
to those of Mr. Catherwood, and who had been ob-
jected to, and whose name had been expunged. The
name in question stands thus:—Robert Lewin Holt,
Upper Norwood, counting house Old Broad-street, being
a successive occupation with 3, Crown-court.
There was no objection against Mr. Holt.
In Mr. Catherwood's case the description of the quali-
fication stood thus:—

, (counting-house) Warnford-court, in suc-
cessive occupation with No. 3.
It was proved that the counting-house he now occupies
was at No. 1, Warnford-court, and that he moved there
from another counting-house No. 3, in the same court.
I thought I had power to insert " No. 1," as the
number of the qualifying property, now in the occupation
of the party, and also that the description ." No. 3,"
might be "commonly understood" to mean No. 3, Warn-
ford-court, and that, so far, the party was not prejudiced
by these mistakes; but I thought, that as there was no
description of the nature of the qualification at No. 3,
whether it was a " house " or a " counting honse," &c.,
that this was an omission which I could not supply, and
that the case fell within the principle of Bartlett and
Gibbs (1 Bar. and Am., 98), and I therefore expunged
the name. In dealing with Mr. Holt's case, I found it
necessary, for my own guidance, to look at the powers
of alteration given by the 4th section of the 6th Vic., c.
18, by which it is enacted, that " wherever the place of
abode, or the nature of the qualification, or the local or
other description of the property of any person shall be
wholly omitted, the barrister shall expunge the name of
such person from such list, unless the matter or matters
so omitted be supplied to the satisfaction of such bar-
rister before he shall have completed the revision of
such list, in which case he shall then and there insert
the name in such list," and as no evidence was offered
to supply the omission of the nature of the qualification
or the description of the property occupied by Mr. Holt,
at No. 3, Crown-court, I was prepared at once to ex-
punge the name. The part of the section was not
brought under my notice in Mr. Catherwood's case, but
upon consideration, I am now satisfied that its provi-
sions apply to such a case, and that my former decision
was incorrect, and I am the more glad that I
have had an opportunity of re-considering the
matter, as otherwise, there having been no notice
of appeal, in that case Mr. Catherwood would in my
opinion, have been improperly expunged from the list.
Having no doubt that I might make the alteration, and
read the description in the list in the names I formerly
mentioned, the only question was whether I could supply
the omission of the nature of the qualification with re-

gard to the premises occupied by him at 3, Warnford-
court—vic, " counting house," and inasmuch as that
omission was supplied to my satisfaction, I think I ought
to have inserted the same, and that the name should have
been retained. I shall therefore re-insert it in the list,
making the necessary alterations. On the other hand,
in Mr. Holt's case, if the matter omitted is not now sup-
plied, his name must be expunged.

DtA ItYLEBONE.
On Monday the revision of the list of voters for the
borough of Marylebone was finally concluded at thv
Court-house, Marylebone-lane, before D. C. Moylan, Esq,
There was nothing of any interest brought before the
Court, the proceedings being confined exclusively to the
correction of the lists.

In the parish of Mar) lebone, the letters D.D. after
the names of the several district clergymen were struck
out, on-account of their clerical order not being required

EAST SURREY.

The Court sat again yesterday, at the Vestry Ilan,
Camberwell. In the Christ Church list one case stood
over, that of the Rev. Mr. Mapleton, the rector of the
parish, who described his qualification as " freehold rcc.
tory of Christ Church." The vote was objected to by
Mr. Russell, the free-trade agent, and time was allowed
to produce evidence as to the precise nature of the
qualification.
Mr. Meymott said that formerly, under a will by John
Marshall, the rector had a residence in a place called
Axe-buildings, which had long since been pulled down,
and now formed part of the Blackfriars-road, but the
trustees under the will paid the rector 1001. a-year to
provide a residence. This sum was derived from large
freehold estates, and therefore clearly entitled the Rev.
Gentleman to a vote.

Mr. Russell argued that there ought to be some better
evidence as to the nature of the qualification. The
money' ought to be paid as a rent-charge, or under an
Act of Parliament, and a variety of other ways, and
there should be some distinct proof of a freehold interest
on land before the claim was allowed.

The REVISING BARRISTER held the qualification
good one, and retained the name on the list.
In the Camberwell list, Mr. Charles Ranken claimed
as a leaseholder. It appeared that he held the lease of a
residence from Dulwich College, worth 280/. a year, but
for which he only paid 62/., in consideration of repairing,
&c.. and which he had underlet at a rent of 105/.

Mr. Russell objected to the qualification, on the
ground that there should be a clear profit rental of 501
per year, the amount in this case being only 431.
Mr. Meymott argued that the Reform Act only re-
quired that the property should be worth 50/. more than
the amount at which it was underlet, and not that the
lessee should actually have a beneficial interest to that
amount.

The REVISING BARRISTER said his construction of the
Act was that there should be a receipt of 501. a-year
over and above the expenses, and the name must there-
fore be expunged.
No less than fifty claims were sent in by inmates of
the Licensed Victuallers' Asylum, in the Kent-road.
They described their qualification as " freehold houses
and land."

The claims were objected to by the overseers of Cam-
berwell, in which parish the asylum is situated.
Mr. Russell said he was instructed to support the
claim made by these parties, but, upon the consideration
he had been able to give to the question, he was of
opinion that the claims could not be substantiated. The
parties claiming to vote were the inmates of an asylum
established by the licensed victuallers, for the reception
of decayed members of their body, and the whole of
them had, no doubt, contributed towards the expense of
the building. They were, however, subject to dismissal
under certain circumstances, and it was questionable
whether they possessed such a freehold interest as would
entitle them to a vote. He should, therefore, refrain
from going further into the question on the present oc-
casion, and consented to abandon all the claims.
Mr. Shenton, one 'of the overseers, wished it to be
understood that the claims had not been sent in with
the sanction of the authorities of the asylum.
Mr. Meymott said he was instructed to oppose the
claims, but of course it was now unnecessary for him to
do so. He at the same time observed that the parties
had been put to a great deal of expense in printing,
when the parties clearly had no qualifications.
The whole of the names were then struck out from the
list.