BOURNE, AND NORWICH AND SPALDING RAILWAY IN PARLIAMENT.] THE LYNN and Sutton Bridge, &c. Railway COMPANIES BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. The Bill took powers to enable the Llanelly | THE LYNN AND SUTTON BRIDGE, SPALDING AND Railway and Dock Company to make a pier in Swansea Bay and other works, involving, according to the deposited estimate, an expenditure of 40,0007., and authorising the company (by clause 8) to apply to the purposes of the undertaking under the same any moneys which might not be required by them for the purposes of their authorised Swansea Lines undertaking. Against this Bill a petition was presented by Lewis Llewellyn Dillwyn, of Hendrefoilan, in the county of Glamorgan, Esq., and member of Parliament, stating, That the petitioner was the owner of property which the company required for the purposes of the said Swansea Lines undertaking, and which property the company had contracted to purchase; but although the title had long since been approved, and the deed of assignment had also been approved and engrossed, the company had failed to complete the purchase in consequence of want of funds, and the petitioner objected to the said Bill, inasmuch as the diversion to the purposes of the Bill of funds which were applicable to the payment of the said purchase-money were injurious to the petitioner, and would deprive him of the security which he then possessed. That the pier and works proposed to be authorised by the Bill were uncalled for and unnecessary, and that the preamble of the said Bill was incapable of proof. That the engineering details of the scheme proposed by the said Bill was open to many serious objections, and especially in the following respects. The proposed pier was badly and injudiciously laid out for the purposes for which the same was intended. The amount of 40,000l. specified in the estimate of expense was inadequate for the purposes of the works contemplated by the Bill; and moreover the est mate did not state in detail how much of the 40,000 was required for the pier and how much for the other works contemplated by the Bill, nor did the estimate contain any detail nor specify the length of the proposed pier. That the financial arrangements which were made in reference to the proposed works ought to be strictly inquired into, and that the petitioner was advised that even if the Bill were to receive the sanction of Parliament, the undertakers would be unable to procure the necessary funds for the execution of the works under the Bill. That the company ought not to have been permitted to divert their funds from purposes to which the same were then applicable, until their existing undertaking had been completed, and their contract with the petitioner carried out. The petition prayed for a locus standi against the preamble and clauses of the Bill. Venables (Parliamentary agent).-Mr. Dillwyn is entitled to a locus standi, as he has an interest in anything which tends to lessen the value of his security. [Mr. RICKARDS.—Mr. Dillwyn can compel the promoters to complete their contract with him, if it is a valid one.] He may take proceedings against the company and find that they have exhausted their assets. [Mr. RICKARDS.—Has a creditor a right to petition against parliamentary arrangements with his debtor? Mr. DODSON.-The authorised undertaking of the promoters is still working, is it not?] It is completed, but has not yet been opened. The petitioner merely asks for a locus standi against the clause authorising the promoters to dispose of the surplus capital of the authorised Swansea Lines undertaking. Thomas for the promoters.-Clause 8 is of the essence of the Bill, and it will be impossible to grant a limited locus standi. The petitioner has not the slightest ground to be heard against the preamble of the Bill. Objection to the locus standi of the Petition of Locus standi-Amalgamation Bill-Simple contract A Bill was promoted for the amalgamation of two railway companies, and for the lease of a third railway to the amalgamated company, with power for the lessees to amalgamate themselves with the amalgamated company. Against this Bill a petition was presented by the engineer of the company proposed to be leased, stating that he had incurred liabilities on behalf of the company by becoming surety to the Crown for the opening of the railway within the time limited, and the due expenditure of the authorised capital for the purposes of the Act; that the companies were also indebted to him in large sums of money for professional services, &c., and that no provision for the payment of these sums was made in the Bill, although large sums of money had been raised on the security of the line, which had been completed by the exertions of the petitioner; that the Bill proposed to transfer to the amalgamated company the undertaking of the company, but not its liabilities: Held, that the petitioner had no locus standi. This was a Bill to amalgamate the Lynn and Sutton Bridge and the Spalding and Bourne Railway Companies, and for a lease of the Norwich and Spalding Railway to the amalgamated company, and for other purposes. The preamble of the Bill, after reciting the special Acts of the Spalding and Bourne Railway, the Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway, and the Norwich and Spalding Railway, stated that the three undertakings might be more conveniently and economically worked if they were placed under one management, and it had been agreed, subject to the authority of Parliament, that the undertakings of the Spalding and Bourne and the Lynn and Sutton Bridge Railway Companies should be united into one undertaking, and that the two companies should be amalgamated under the title of "The Midland and Eastern Railway Company," and that the amalgamated company should take a lease of the undertaking of the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company, and that power should be granted for the amalgamation of the same undertaking with the undertaking authorised by the Act; that by sect. 170 of the Great Eastern Railway Act 1862 that company granted running powers and facilities to any company which might be authorised to make a railway from the Great Northern Railway to any part of the railways theretofore belonging to the East Anglian Railways Company at Wisbeach or King's Lynn, or between those places, over so much of the last-mentioned railways as might lie between the points of junction therewith of any such authorised railway and the town of Dereham, so as to communicate with the railways beyond Dereham, and inasmuch as the then undertakings which by the Act were vested in the amalgamated company provided such a railway as the enactment contemplated from the Great Northern Railway to By the REFEREES.-The locus standi of this peti- the railways theretofore belonging to the East tion is disallowed. Locus standi disallowed. Anglian Railways Company at King's Lynn, it was expedient that the powers contemplated by the section of using the Great Eastern Railway between Lynn and Dereham should be conferred upon the amalgamated company and all companies and persons using their undertaking. That by the Densum Valley Railway Act 1864, a company was incorporated for making railways from the Great Eastern Railway at East Dereham to Norwich, and IN PARLIAMENT.] THE LYNN AND SUTTON BRIDGE, &C. RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. it was expedient that the powers thereinbefore recited with respect to the use of the Great Eastern Railway should be extended over the Densum Valley Railway and over the stations of the Great Eastern Railway Company at Norwich, and that the Midland and the Great Eastern Railway Companies should be authorised to enter into contracts with the company thereby amalgamated for the working, use, management, and maintenance of the amalgamated undertaking or of parts thereof. That after the passing of the Act of incorporation, the petitioner, by instructions of the directors, entered into negotia tions and concluded an arrangement for the construction of so much of the railway as extended from Spalding to Sutton Bridge, but owing to disputes which subsequently arose with the contractor employed, with reference to financial matters, difficulty he arranged with Mr. George Wythes, of Reigate, to the petitioner was appealed to by the directors, and after much undertake the completion of the portion of the railway from Spalding to Holbeach, upon terms mostly of deferred paytowards the end of the year 1859. ments; which portion of railway was opened for public use That the petitioner was at or about the time of such opening instructed by the directors to negotiate with the said Mr. George Wythes for continuing the construction of the railway from Holbeach, in accordance with the parliamentary plans and sections, to Sutton Bridge; and an arrangement for that purpose was concluded at a gross sum. the portion of railway from Holbeach to Sutton Bridge, but That the said Mr. George Wythes proceeded to construct being unable, as he alleged, to procure from the company the fulfilment of the terms agreed on for payment, the works ultimately were wholly suspended, and the petitioner was again applied to by the directors to assist the company in the con struction of their works. That the petitioner was also then instructed by the directors to determine the value of the work remaining unfinished, and this the petitioner ascertained to amount to the sum of 17,812, but Mr. George Wythes being dissatisfied at the nonpayment of the amount claimed to be due to him, and alsobeing dissatisfied at the proportionate amount at which the petitioner fixed the unfinished works, he, Mr. George Wythes petitioned the House against a Bill promoted by the line to Wisbeach, wherein he fully set forth his complaints, but said Norwich and Spalding Railway Company for an extension the company having made terms with the said Mr. George Wythes before such Bill was taken into consideration, the The Bill contained the usual amalgamation provisions for uniting the two companies. By clause 5 it was provided that from and after the passing of the Act the two companies should be dissolved, and their undertaking as thereinbefore defined, and all their estate, right, title, and interest in and to the said undertaking, and all the rights, privileges, easements, powers, and authorities incident to or affecting the same respectively, and all powers for the construction of new lines of railway which the said companies, or either of them, might obtain in the present session of Parliament, should, subject to the existing charges, debts, leases, covenants, contracts, obligations, and liabilities of the said companies then affecting the same, become and be absolutely vested in the amalgamated company, and should and might be held, possessed, enjoyed, used, exercised, and executed by the lastmentioned company in the same manner and to the same extent as they respectively were, or could, or might, if the Act had not passed, have been held, possessed, enjoyed, used, exercised, or executed by the two companies respectively. By clause 17, within one month after the passing of the Act, the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company should grant, and the amalgamated company should accept, a lease of the undertaking of the Norwich and Spalding Railway, and sects. 112 and 113 of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845, with respect to leasing the railway, should apply to every such lease, and such lease should be for a term of 999 years as from 1st Jan. 1866, or such subsequent day as the authority of Parliament might be obtained for the same, and the annual rent to be reserved by the lease should be of such amounts fixed, or fluctuating, as had been agreed, or might be agreed on, with the Norwich and Spalding Rail-justice to the petitioner, and to the persons before referred to, way Company. By clause 18 it was made lawful for the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company to agree with the amalgamated company for the amalgamation either immediate or future with the last-named company of the undertaking, &c., of the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company, and the dissolution of that company. Against this Bill a petition was presented by Peter Schuyler Bruff, of Westminster, engineer, stating, That the company were incorporated by Act of Parliament, of the 17 Vict. c. 124 (1853), and were authorised to construct a railway from the Great Northern Railway at Spalding to Sutton Bridge, with a branch to Wisbeach, at an estimated cost of 170,000Z. That the petitioner was appointed the company's engineer, and acted as such during the passing of the said Act through Parliament, and of the extended Act of 1859, and other various applications to Parliament; and the petitioner afterwards continued to act as the engineer of the company, and, so far as the petitioner had been informed, his appointment had never yet been rescinded. That on the passing of the said Act the company were desirous to release the Three per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities of the value of 12,7027. 78. 3d., deposited as security for the completion of the works, in compliance with the Standing Orders of Parliament, and the petitioner became surety for the payment of a large portion of that sum to the Crown, if the company should not, within the time limited for the completion of the railway, either open the same for the public conveyance of passengers or prove to the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that the company had paid up one-half of the mount of the authorised capital or had expended for the pures of their Act a sum equal in amount to such one-half; l that liability still continued. allegations in such petition were not gone into. That in addition to the claims of the said parties employed petitioner in large sums of money for professional services, to complete the railway, the company were indebted to the and for moneys paid for and on account of the company, for none of which was provision for payment made in the said Bill, although the petitioner was informed and believed that large sums of money had been raised upon the security of the completed portion of railway to Sutton Bridge, which should, in have been applied in discharge of their just claims upon the company. That the petitioner was informed, and believed, that an agreement had been entered into between the parties to the Bill, or some of them, by which in effect the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company had agreed to amalgamate with the amalgamated company upon terms which would entirely preclude the simple contract creditors from enforcing their claims against the said Norwich and Spalding Railway Company, and would also preclude the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company from paying their debts. That the said Bill proposed to transfer to the amalgamated company the undertaking, capital, real and personal property, powers, authorities, privileges, and exemptions of the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company, but not their liabilities. That the petitioner, in the event of the passing of the Bill, would be mulcted in a large sum of money. That for several previous sessions the Norwich and Spalding Railway Company had applied for powers to complete and extend their undertaking, with the view of amalgamating with other companies and getting rid of their liabilities, but the committee of the House had invariably rejected the proposition. That the said amalgamation was not brought about in the interest of the general body of shareholders, but was promoted by parties having other interests with the view of benefiting themselves. The petitioner had not only in the present session, but in past sessions, been unnecessarily and vexatiously subjected to expense in defending his rights and interests, and he humbly submitted that he was entitled to ask that the promoters of the said Bill should pay his costs and expenses in relation thereto. That the preamble of the said Bill was incapable of proof; and the said Bill contained divers clauses and provisions prejudicial to the petitioner's rights and interests, and to which he objected; and the said Bill, if allowed to pass into law, ought to contain divers other clauses and provisions for the protection of his rights and interests, which were not now inserted therein, IN PARLIAMENT.] WREXHAM, MOLD, AND CONNAH'S QUAY, &C. RAILWAYS BILL. [IN PARLIAMENT. The petitioner prayed for a locus standi against the preamble and clauses of the Bill. Littler for the petitioner.-It is submitted that although this case may be somewhat peculiar, the petitioner has a right to be heard. He has made great sacrifices in the interests of the Norwich and Spalding Railway, and incurred liabilities on its behalf. But now, after he has done everything in his power to forward the construction of the line, it is proposed either to lease it to another company, or to give it a discretionary power of amalgamating itself with that company. If either of these powers are exercised, great injury will be inflicted on Mr. Bruff. It is very doubtful whether his claims could be enforced against an amalgamated company, of which the company indebted to him is one of the members. But, in any event, he will be hampered and impeded in prosecuting his demands, and he ought, therefore, to be allowed to resist the present undertaking in committee. Cripps for the promoters.-This application for a locus standi is quite without precedent. The petitioner is nothing more than an ordinary simple contract creditor of the company. He has no lien or security of any description, and should be left to enforce his rights at law. The amalgamated company takes all the liabilities of the companies comprising it, so that no real inconvenience is sustained. By the REFEREES, after consultation.-The locus standi of this petition is disallowed. Locus standi disallowed. Friday, March 9. (Before Sir E. COLEBROOKE, Chairman; Mr. HANKEY THE WREXHAM, MOLD, AND CONNAH'S QUAY AND Objection to the locus standi of the Petition of the Locus standi-Railway passing by tunnel under a river A Bill was promoted by a railway company for the con- That your petitioners are owners of valuable quays and wharves, and other property, on the banks of the Dee, near the city of Chester, and by virtue of charters are entitled to and now levy tolls and customs in the nature of anchorage dues within the port of Chester (which includes not only the navigable portion of the said river, but the whole estuary of the Dee) upon all ships and vessels resorting thereto, and they also exercise other rights and privileges therein. That the navigation of the river Dee extends for several miles above Connah's Quay as far as the city of Chester, and there are upon it shipbuilding and other yards, and numerous employment to a large and increasing population resident in wharves and landing-places of great importance, which give and about Chester. That the navigation of the said river requires constant care and watching, and any interference with the same by placing any impediments in its channel, such as the works necessary for carrying the proposed railway under the same by means of a tunnel at the level proposed by the plans and sections deposited with reference to the said Bill will, as your petitioners are advised, result not only in injurious temporary obstruction to the passage of vessels up and down the river, but also in permanent injury to the navigation. That under these circumstances your petitioners object to the powers sought by the said Bill, and respectfully submit that the same as it now stands ought not to be sanctioned, for the following among other reasons: 1. The proposed method of carrying the railway under the bed of the river is objectionable, inasmuch as the same is not carried at a sufficient depth below the bed of the same to admit of the proper scouring and deepening of the channel for the purpose of maintaining the same of the depth prescribed by the existing statutes which regulate the maintenance of the navigation. 2. No provision is made by the Bill for protecting the navigable channel of the river during the constructing of the proposed tunnel under the same, or for making the company liable in damages for the injuries and damage, if any, which may result from their operations. 3. Under existing statutes the River Dee Company are bound under heavy penalties to uphold the navigation between Chester and the sea of a certain prescribed depth, and it is of the highest importance to the interests of your petitioners and the community of Chester that no interference with the bed and channel of the river should be authorised which may directly or indirectly release the River Dee Company from the obligations which they are now under to maintain the navigation in the prescribed state of efficiency, or deprive the River Dee Commissioners (a body appointed by statute for the protection of the navigation) and through them the public, of the remedies which they now possess in the event of failure by the River Dee Company to fulfil their obligations. It is therefore necessary, as your petitioners are advised, that special provisions should be inserted in the Bill to guard against this contingency. in so far as the same relate to that portion which is to pass 4. The details of the engineering of the proposed railway, under the river, are defective and objectionable, and are inefficient to secure the object sought to be obtained. 5. Certain of the clauses and provisions of the Bill are contrary to the interests of your petitioners and the public, and others ought to have been inserted therein which are essential for their protection. The petition prayed for a locus standi against the preamble and clauses of the Bill. Davison for the petitioners.-Upon the authority of several cases decided in the last session, the petitioners, merely as owners of wharves and quays, have a right to be heard. The first of these decisions is that of The Fareham and Netley Railway Bill (Stone & Gra. Rep. 75), where the owners and occupiers of wharves and quays on the banks of a Held, that the petitioners were entitled to a locus standi. river were heard against a railway proposing to cross the river by means of a bridge which, as they This was a Bill for the extension of the Wrexham, alleged, would obstruct the navigation. In The Dee Mold, and Connah's Quay Railway to Neston, and and Mersey Junction Railway Bill (Ib. 83) the comto join the Holylake Railway, and for other pur-missioners of the river were refused a locus standi poses. Whereby it was proposed, amongst other things, to construct a railway commencing in the parish of Hawarden, in the county of Flint, thence passing by a tunnel under the river Dee, near a place called Connah's Quay, and terminating in the parish of Neston, in the county of Chester. Against this Bill the mayor, aldermen, and burgesses of the City of Chester, under their common seal, presented a petition, which stated: That the powers so sought of crossing the river Dee are objected to by your petitioners, who are deeply interested in the navigation of that river, and they respectfully submit that the powers sought should not be granted, except under such conditions as will effectually protect the interests of the navigation. against a railway proposing to cross the river in a manner similar to that proposed by the present undertaking; but in the Connah's Quay Railways and Docks (Wrexham Mold and Connah's Quay Railway) Bill (Ib. 88), the present petitioners were heard against a railway extension proposing to construct docks on the river and estuary of the Dee so as to injure the navigation. Metcalfe (Parliamentary agent) for the promoters. The Dee and Mersey Junction Railway The tunnel which the promoters intend to construct Bill proposed to construct a bridge at a low level. is twenty-five feet below the bed of the river; there is therefore a good answer to the petitioners' By the REFEREES.-The locus standi is disallowed. Election Petitions. Reported by F. O. CRUMP, Esq., of the Middle Temple. THE BOROUGH OF HORSHAM. (Before Mr. W. W. WYNNE (in the chair), Hon. This was a petition presented by Mr. William Robert Seymour Vesey Fitzgerald, against the return of Mr. Robert Henry Hurst, who was elected by a majority of five, the numbers being 164 as against 159. The material parts of the petition were as follows: [ELECTION PET. That divers persons voted at the said election for the said Robert Henry Hurst who were before, at, and after the said election guilty of bribery, treating, and undue influence, and that such persons were disqualified from voting at the said election, and such votes ought now to be struck off the poll the said election in favour of the said Robert Henry Hurs That many persons were admitted to vote and did vote at who were not entitled by law to vote at the said election, or to have had their names inserted or retained in the register of voters for the said borough, such persons not having had any qualification in respect of occupation of premises or residence, or rating or payment of rates, or being respectively subject to legal incapacities, and whose names had been and were unduly and improperly retained or inserted in the lists by the express decision of the barrister who revised the list of voters for the said borough, from which the said register in force at the time of the said election had been made, and that such votes ought now to be struck off the poll. That many persons were admitted to vote and did vote at the said election for the said Robert Henry Hurst, who were registered electors of the said borough, but had become disqualified as electors for the said borough, and were incapable of voting at the said election, on the ground of the legal inca pacity of such persons at the time of their so voting, and which disqualification had arisen subsequently to the expiration of the time allowed for making out the list of voters from which the said register of voters in force at the time of such election had been formed, and that such votes ought to be struck off the poll. That many persons who were legally entitled to vote at such election, and whose names were on the register in force at such election, duly tendered their votes on behalf of your petitioner, but were improperly and illegally rejected, omitted votes ought now to be added to the poll of your petitioner. and excluded from the poll of your petitioner, and that such Cooke, Q. C., Staveley Hill, and George Browne. appeared for the petitioner; Keane, Q. C., West, and H. James for the sitting member. Cooke, Q. C., in opening the case for the petitioner, stated that the inquiry would resolve itself into a scrutiny of the votes, and when those which had been given illegally had been struck off, he relied upon a majority in favour of his client. ing in the room during the inquiry. That the majority of votes declared by the said returning officer at the said election in favour of the said Robert Henry Hurst over your petitioner was only an apparent and colourable majority, inasmuch as the votes of divers persons were accepted and recorded on the said poll in favour of the said The sitting member must use his discretion as to remainRobert Henry Hurst, who were not legally entitled, and had no right to vote at the said election, and that the real majority of good and legal votes polled at the last election was in favour of your petitioner over the said Robert Henry Hurst, and your petitioner was duly elected a member to serve in Parliament for the said borough of Horsham, and ought to have been returned as such. That many persons were admitted to vote and did vote in favour of the said Robert Henry Hurst, who were registered as electors for the said borough of Horsham by the revising barrister, but had become disqualifled to vote and incapable of voting, and were prohibited by law from voting by reason of their not having ever since the thirty-first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, to the time of their voting at such election, resided within the said borough or within the distance thereof required by the statute in such case made and provided to entitle such person to be registered, or on the ground of their having ceased to reside within the said borough, or within such distance so required as aforesaid, between the thirty-first day of July, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, and the time of their voting at such election, or on the ground of their not residing within the said borough or within such distance so required as aforesaid, at the time of their respectively voting at the said election, and that such votes ought now to be struck off the poll. That many other persons voted at the said election for the said Robert Henry Hurst who had previously voted at the same election, and the votes so secondly given were reckoned upon the poll for the said Robert Henry Hurst, and that such second votes ought now to be struck off the poll. That many persons who were registered as electora for the said borough were admitted to vote and did vote at the said election in favour of the said Robert Henry Hurst who were disqualifled to vote by reason of their having received parochial relief or other alms within the period of twelve months previous to the time of their so voting, and that such votes ought now to be struck off the poll of the said Robert Henry Hurst. That many persons voted at the said election for the said Robert Henry Hurst who were bribed to vote thereat, and that the votes of such persons were and are bad and invalid, and ought now to be struck off the poll. That many persons voted at the said election for the said Robert Henry Hurst who before, during, and after the said election did corruptly accept and take meat, drink, enter tainment, and provision for voting or having voted at the said election, and that such persons were and are by law incapable of voting at such election, and that the votes of such persons were and are utterly void and of no effect, and ought now to be struck off the poll. Previous to the production of evidence a discussion arose as to the right of the sitting member to remain in the room during the inquiry. Keane said that a judge's order to exclude witnesses did not exclude the parties to the suit, who are now competent witnesses. Cooke said that in the case of the Tavistock election petition in 1853, the committee said that the sitting member must use his own discretion as to remaining in the room. He did not care how it was arranged, but what committees do is generally brought forward as a precedent. He did not make any objection. Sitting member allowed to remain. THE CASE OF HENRY FOREMAN. A man who secretly becomes the occupier of a farm It was sought to expunge the vote of Henry Foreman on the ground that he was not the tenant of Amies Mill Farm, in respect of which he claimed to vote, but that his father was the tenant. Reliance was placed upon the terms of 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 29, "That in every city or borough which shall return a member or members to serve in any future Parlia ment, every male person of full age, and not subject such city or borough any place during the election to any legal incapacity, and who shall occupy within as owner or tenant, &c." What was the meaning of this phrase "owner or tenant?" Rogers on Elections, 69, says: "But it is to be observed that the statute, by requiring that a party must occupy either as owner or tenant, makes ownership or tenancy a superadded qualification to occupation, and though it is necessary to show ownership or tenancy in order to give a franchisable character to the occupation, that is quite independent of the fact of occupation, which is the essential ingredient in the borough franchise, and must be substantially proved." Now, in this case, it would be shown that the voter did not pay the rent to the landlord, but that his father paid it. He rested his case entirely upon the tenancy as evidenced by the fact of occupation. He did not contend that a man was bound to live in a house to be an occupier at law, but in this case there was occupation without tenancy, and it would be a novel proposition if it were contended that one person could occupy and exercise the privilege of voting in respect of his occupancy, whilst another was recognised as and fulfilled all the ordinary duties of a tenant. Mr. Nelthorpe, the owner of Amies Mill Farm, was called, and said that he had never recognised the son as his tenant, that he had never received any rent from him, and that he had always treated the father as his tenant. Foreman the elder was called and stated that his son first entered upon a co-tenancy with him, that he afterwards purchased the farm for 6007, and that he paid the rent to him as it proved convenient, and he paid Mr. Nelthorpe. Henry Foreman said that Mr. Nelthorpe had accepted him as tenant, that Mr. Nelthorpe had sent cows to his bull, and the cost had been deducted from the rent. There had been no written agreement. Keane contended that the son was clearly the tenant of the farm. No action of ejectment could succeed upon such evidence in any civil court. [ELECTION PET. wholly by his son (called as a witness), and at the request of Stapleton the son signed a guarantee for the payment of the rent in the event of his father's default. This guarantee was not produced, but the son paid the rent quarterly or half-yearly, as suited his convenience, with one or two exceptions, when the money was handed to Stapleton by the voter. The furniture in the house was the father's, and he lived there with his wife. Cooke contended that the son was the actual tenant, having made himself responsible for the rent, and that the father was not recognised as tenant, and not entitled to vote. Keane.-The person primarily liable would be the tenant, and that person was the father. Cooke cited the case of Mayhew v. Suttle, 24 L. J., N. S., Q. B. 54. In that case Mr. Keane contended for a similar proposition, viz., that a publican put into a house by brewers was the tenant, and all the judges of the Ex. Ch. decided against him. The publican was only the servant of the brewers, and that case was on all fours with the present. Vote retained. THE CASE OF JOHN LLOYD. When a claim is made before a revising barrister, who The facts were these:-A claim was made before The COMMITTEE decided that the vote should be the revising barrister, and although the agents of the expunged. Vote expunged. Evidence-Revising barrister. Where a revising barrister is summoned as a witness and is allowed to leave the room to keep an engagement, his note-book cannot be put in evidence even by consent between the parties. Mr. Deedes, the revising barrister, asked leave to be allowed to put his note-book in the hands of the committee whilst he kept an appointment elsewhere. He accordingly did so with the consent of the counsel on both sides, who agreed to recognise the accuracy of the contents. It was subsequently sought to use it in proof of certain allegations in the foregoing case, but political parties, who watch matters very narrowly in the borough, were present, no opposition was offered, and no evidence tendered on either side. The barrister accordingly inserted the name in the register, or directed it to be entered, and placed his initials against the entry. Cooke contended that this was 66 an express decision" within the meaning of the Act 6 Vict. c. 18, s. 98. Keane contra.-If the committee contrasted 2 Will. 4, c. 45, with the 6 Vict. c. 18, they would and "express decision" in the latter. He contended see that "decision" only was used in the former Act, that the act of the revising barrister was not an express decision, and therefore that it could not be reopened by the committee. A mere objection without evidence might have given the barrister jurisdicThe COMMITTEE decided that the book could not tion, but no objection had been made. "Express be used in the absence of Mr. Deedes. Evidence disallowed. THE CASE OF LANGHAM THOMAS (deceased). A voter occupied a house, furnished by himself, but being decision" was a term used in contradistinction to the result which follows in an ordinary case. There could be no express decision by the revising barrister unless the claim was contested. He cited Darling's case, W. & D. 172. Cooke, in support of his view, cited Keane referred to the terms of the Act of the present reign, sect. 98 (supra), which provides that if the name of a person shall have been specially retained, or specially inserted, or specially expunged or omitted, that should constitute an express decision. Everything "special" was absent in this case. The facts in this case were shortly these:-The voter died subsequently to the election. For some period before the election he occupied a house let to him by a Mr. Stapleton, the agent of Mr. ChaseThe voter was aged and in needy The COMMITTEE were of opinion that some latiwas maintained almost tude was allowed them in the construction then put more, the owner. circumstances, and he |