Page images

to convince him that one or more of the Copies were erroneous, and could not be depended upon. As the Act is a very important one, and it is therefore very desirable to the Profession that they should have a Copy, on the correctness of which they can safely depend, the Editor has taken the pains to examine the present Copy with the Parliament Roll, and he can pledge himself for its accuracy. This is almost the only object he had in giving this little Work to the Public.

5, King's Bench Walk, Temple.




[blocks in formation]

Page 15, line 14 from top, after juries,” add " at the quar-




The following are the only Cases which have as yet been

decided upon the Statute :

R. v. Arnold. A rule nisi was granted by the Court of King's Bench, for a mandamus to the town clerk of a borough, to permit A and B, (two of the burgesses of the borough), either together or apart, to have inspection of the voting papers after an election for councillors, and to take copies of them, and compare the same with the originals. This question arose upon the 35th sect. of the statute, post, p. 60. And upon cause shown, the Court held that the town clerk was not bound to allow more than one burgess at a time to have inspection of the voting papers, nor was he bound to deliver more than one voting paper at a time to the burgess applying for such inspection; but they held that, although the statute did not require the town clerk to give copies of or extracts from such voting papers, yet he was bound to allow the burgess, who should so inspect a voting paper, to make a copy of or extracts from it.

R. v. The Justices of Gloucestershire. At the last general quarter sessions for the county of Gloucester, au application was made to the Court, to confirm and enrol an order of two justices of the county, made since the passing of this act, for diverting and turning a public foot-path in the parish of Clifton. Clifton was formerly a part of the county of Gloucester, for all purposes; it was afterwards added to the city of Bristol, by the Boundary Act (2 & 3 W. 4. c. 64. sch. O), as far as respected voting for members of parliament; and upon the application to the sessions above mentioned, a question arose, whether the 7th and 8th sections of the present statute (post, p. 30, 31), had not taken the jurisdiction in this respect from the magistrates of the county, and vested it in the magistrates of Bristol. The sessions held that such was the case, and that neither the magistrates who made the order, nor the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county had jurisdiction with respect to this foot-way; and they accordingly refused the application.

In last term (H. 1836), a rule nisi was obtained in the Court of King's Bench, for a mandamus to the justices, requiring them to receive and enter the application as of last sessions, and to enter continuances, &c. Cause being shewn against the rule, the Court held, that by the 7th and 8th sections of this statute, every place included within the bounds of a borough by the Boundary Act, was part of that borough for all purposes; that the parish of Clifton was, therefore, part of the borough of Bristol, and the justices of the county had no jurisdiction within it.

In addition to these, the Court, during the last term, granted several rules nisi, involving questions on the statute, which rules are now pending. But as the Court, in granting them, gave no intimation of their opinion upon the points raised by them, it would be useless to notice them here. As soon as they shall be decided, a short report of them will be added to this work, by way of supplement.

« EelmineJätka »