The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-07 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATION.-(THIS DAY•)

CITY OF LONDON.
(Before Mr. CRAIG.)
The COURT sat at `the usual hour, when Mr. CRAIG
proceeded to give judgment in various cases which were
standing over.
The first case was that of Mr. John Knowles, a Besi-
dent Director of the Economic Assurance Company. The
evidence taken on the case was, that the claimant resided
in a house in Chatham-place, valued at 2201. a-year---
that he had resided there for six months previous to the
31st of July ; in fact from December, 1832—that he oc-
cupied the whole house, but merely in his capacity of Re-
sident Director--the house was the property of the So-
ciety, and held by the claimant as one of the trustees in
whom the whole of the Society's property was vested.
His servants and himself occupied the whole of the house.
but the rent was paid by the Society, and the use of the
house was considered as part of the claimant's salary. The
e
collector of the peers' rate proved that all rates for the
house in question were paid before the 20th of July. fie
generally received a cheque of the Company's. The claim-
ant's name was always attached to'it.
Mr. CRAIG said several questions might arise in this
case, but it was unnecessary for him to decide them, Lie
there was a preliminary objection which disposed of them'
The Reform Act required that before a person became
qualified to vote, be must occupy premises as owner
or tenant. This gentleman was a trustee, as wen.
as Resident Director, and it might well be ar-
gued, that in the double capacity he occupied this
house as owner, but still though he filled both of those
offices, the question arose, in what capacity did he O.:.
cupy the premises in question? It was clear that he dui
not occupy them as owner, but as Resident-Director of the
Company—that, in his (Mr. C.'s) opinion, was an occupati°9
as a servant. He had most carefully looked into all the,
cases and authorities which had been cited before him, a°,
many others, and the result of his deliberation was, that
the occupation of the claimant was merely that of a servant'
He would say that every Directer of a Company was a seri
vent, and a fortiori the Resident-Director was a servant, 01
occupied these premises in that capacity. It had been
stated, and much stress had been laid upon 'the fact, that
there was a clause in the deed of settlement, providing that
the Resident-Director should occupy the house of business---
that, in his opinion, clearly made against the claim. Mr.
Rowcroft had strongly contended that the claimant was 3
tenant, because if he did not occupy the house in question
so much would be added to his salary as would provide bill
another house—that, however, went for nothing, for it WIG
been decided by all the Judges, that where a house er
rooms were occupied as an appendage to the service, or for the
more convenient performance of the service, such occupation
e
could not' be considered as that of a tenant, but as that of
a servant. There were many cases in which it was decided'
that where a person had less wages on account of occutilipig
a house, he occupied merely as a servant. He would on 9
mention them. They were, the King v. Multridge
Term Reports, 598 ; Rex v. Minster, 3d Maule and' ,
Ser
wyn, 279 ; Rex v. Kelston, sth Maule and Selwyn, 136 ;
Rex v. Stock and others, 2d Taunton. If any per
would take the trouble to read over these cases carefully'
they would consider that he was borne out in the conclusion
he had come to, viz., that the name of Mr. Knowles on',
be expunged. This finished the list for the Bridewell Pre"
cinct, and the Learned Gentleman signed and passed it.
The next case was that of Edwin Charlton, the Secretor,'
of the Albion Fire Office, who claimed under similar ell'
cumstances.
Mr. CRAIG said, that having decided that occupation bYO
a Resident Director was that of a servant, of course the ens
of a Secretary was much stronger.
Claim disallowed, and the St. Brides list signed.
The claims of David Foggo, Secretary of the Europesil,
Assurance Company, and Henry Hubert, of the Rock le
Assurance, and Michael Saward, of the Promoter Dr°
$0
Office, were disallowed, under similar circumstances.
also was that of Mr. R. Jackson, of Sergeants' Inn, on t"-
same ground.
Bedell
The next case was the claim of Mr. Edward
Kemble, for a house in Mincing-lane.
Mr. CRAIG said, though he did not give the decision b(8.1
was about to do unwillingly, still he was aware it might
would cause surprise to many persons. The evidence he Pail
taken in the case was this—Mr. Kemble rented two houses
in Mincing-lane, one a dwelling-house and the other
counting-house ; he had occupied them for some years' but()
had let the dwelling-house up to October last, reserving a
himself three rooms for occasional• use. In January se.
February last he and Mrs. Kemble resided there, but solo
March they removed to their house in Croydon ; the hee,
in Mincing-lane was then put in the hands of a builder le,.
repairing, which was still going on. Mr. Kemble kept tis.;
female servants and one clerk in the house, and it vias„,l
proof that Mr. Kemble when detained late upon business
slept there, but not periodically, as he always went home to
Croydon when practicable. The common sense view of the
matter would lead any one to say that Mr. Kemble's reel;
dente was at Croydon, but he was bound to take and dein!,
according to the legal definition of the word " reside 466,
In the case of the King v. Sergeant, sth Term Reports, 4",,i
the defendant had been elected Bailiff of the borough n't
Seaforth ; the custom of the borough was that the resiar
burgesses elect one of themselves. The defendant had o
house out of the limits of the borough ; but as he had bee;
long connected with the Corporation, he, before the I,
tion, had agreed to take a house within the borouga
for four years ; the landlord afterwards objected, had
the taking was only for one year ; the defendant
slept for two nights in the house before the elect
and the Court of King's Bench held that that Wasto
good and bona fide residence, because he had she of
an intention, by taking the house for four years', to
residing in the borough, though it was afterwards reduce
one year, that was not his doing, and the intention was %a
as strongly shewn. Upon the authority of that ease.] a
thought he was bound to decide that Mr. Kemble ha of
good residence in Mincing-lane the day before the Slettbs
July, and consequently the same principle applied to
whole of the previous six months. The Learned Gen t,
man cited the case of the " King v. Nicholson, 12th v ron
342." Also the case from Mr. Rogers' nos'
od
Elections, of Andrew Brett who had a mill t:jso
a house within the borough of Milbourne Port, and
that
a farm without the borough. It was in that case proved
he resided generally at the farm, but that he kept a sell:oct
in the house at the mill. He was there every dal!
there was a bed always kept there for him, and that sot'era
six months before the election in question he had slept trio
three times in the absence of the servant, and alsollo
night before the election. The Committee held that he ery
a good inhabitant of the borough. That case was Tees
like the one in question, and under all these circumstanoe
he felt bound to retain the name of Mr. Kemble 1113enthea
register. The list for St. Dunstan's in the East Was
signed.
ugb
The next cases were those of Charles and Henri 'jr.
Hoare, of Fleet-street, Bankers. It was proved that too
Charles Hoare resided in Devonshire, but that be ciajoe
up to town four times in the year for a month at a 'ea
when he resided in Fleet-street, where a bed was all°
kept for him. After the last decision, of course inri
Hoare's name must be retained.
The evidence as to residence in Mr. Henry Lo be
Hoare's case was much stronger, and his name must
retained on the list.