Q. B.] REG. v. BRADLEY. Thames Conservancy Act, we doubted whether the fishery, which was common to all (1 Mod. 105), was thereby transferred, and we also doubted whether the powers of the 30 Geo. 2, c. 21 (an Act having exclusive reference to the fishery), were powers with regard or relation to the conservancy, preservation and regulation of the river Thames, and as such vested in the conser-authorised to make such an appointment? There is vators by the 52nd section of the Thames Conservancy Act 1857, all the provisions of which appeared to us to have special reference to the navigation of the river and the regulation of the port of London. The Solicitor-General (Pulling and Metcalfe with him) for the appellant.-All the powers formerly exercised by the corporation of London in reference to the conservation of the river Thames are now vested in the conservators appointed under the statute the 20 & 21 Vict. c. cxlvii. The word conservancy" implies the care of the fisheries, and in support of this argument the old statutes, 17 Rich. 2, c. 9, and 4 Hen. 7, c. 15, were referred to; and 30 Geo. 2, c. 21; and 4 Inst. 250. No express mention is made in the recent Act of fisheries, and therefore the statute 30 Geo. 2, c. 21, is still in force as to them, except so far as it is modified by the recent Act. [Q. B. ant river keeper by warrant under the seal of the Conservator of the Thames, and (as far as it can empower him), authorised to exercise the power conferred by the 30 Geo. 2, c. 21, s. 5, on the assistants of the deputy of the Lord Mayor as conservator. The first question asked us is, whether the new corporation were certainly nothing in the provisions of the Thames Conservancy Act to show that the Legislature had their attention called to the fisheries; but there is nothing to be found restricting the very general language used in the 52nd section, and it seems to us that the powers given to the Mayor of London to appoint persons assistants in exercising the powers given to the water-bailiff as deputy of the mayor as conservator, are powers relating to the conservancy of the Thames, and are consequently transferred to the Conservator of the Thames. The next question is one of much more difficulty. The 6th section of 30 Geo. 2, c. 21, imposes a penalty of 10%. on any person obstructing the said water-bailiff or his assistants in the execution of that Act; and by sect. 11 there is an appeal given to the Court of Conservancy. The respondent in the The questions of law arising on the above case for the opinion of the Court of Q. B. are, first, Are the Conservators of the River Thames authorised to appoint officers to exercise the powers given to the water bailiffs of the city of London by the 30 Geo. 2, c. 21, s. 5? Secondly, Are such officers entitled to the protection given by the 6th section of the same statute? Thirdly, Is the jurisdiction on appeal given to the mayor and aldermen by the 11th section of the same Act now vested in the Conservators of the River Thames? Fourthly, Is the 76th section of the Thames Conservancy Act applicable to the offence charged against the respondent, and is the penalty thereby imposed cumu-present case had forcibly resisted the appellant in the lative or substituted? execution of his duty as an assistant-keeper appointed by the Conservator of the Thames, but exercising the powers originally conferred by the 30 Geo. 2 on the water-bailiff and his assistants, appointed by the mayor. He was summoned before the justices, who refused to impose on him the penalty of 107. under sect. 6 of the 30 Geo. 2, c. 21; and we think the justices were right. The officer appointed by the Conservator of the Thames has, as we think, all the powers and authorities, rights and privileges of the former officer appointed by the mayor, as conservator; and any one obstructing him must take the consequences which at common law would follow from obstructing a person having lawful authority. But it seems to us that the penalties under the common law, which were imposed on those who obstructed the former officers, cannot be extended by mere implication to those obstructing the new officers. In fact, it seems very plain that the question as to what was done with regard to the fisheries was not present to the minds of those who framed the Act, who very naturally thought only of the navigation and conservancy of the Thames, and there are no words in the Thames Conservancy Act that have the slightest tendency to express such an intention. If the Legislature had meant the penal clause to extend to the new officers they would certainly have made some provision as to the appeal which is now made inoperative. It requires something to show that the Legislature intended so to extend them. But we think that the officer employed in exercising the powers originally conferred by the 30 Geo. 2, but which he puts in execution only by virtue of the Thames Conservancy Act, in a person employed in the due execution of that latter Act within the meaning of sect. 76 of that Act, and consequently that the justices had jurisdiction in such a case to impose the penalty of 5. under that Act, subject to the appeal given to the court of quarter sessions. What we have above written disposes of all the questions put to us, and with that expression of our opinion the case should go back to the justices. No one appeared to argue the case on the part of the respondent. Cur. adv. vult. Jan. 31.-BLACKBURN, J.-In this case a question of considerable difficulty arises on the construction of the Thames Conservancy Act, 20 & 21 Vict. c. cxlvii., which by sect. 52 transferred to a newly created corporation, called the Conservators of the River Thames, amongst other things, "All the powers and authorities, rights and privileges which might be exercised by the Queen, in right of her crown, or by the mayor and commonalty and citizens of London, by prescription, usage, charter, or Act of Parliament, or otherwise, with regard or relation to the conservancy and the preservation and the regulation of the river Thames," to be by them exercised in the same manner, and under and subject to the same restrictions as the same are now respectively legally exercised by her Majesty, or by the mayor, &c., save only and except so far as the same may be modified by or be inconsistent with the provisions contained in the Act. Amongst the powers of the City of London was that of holding a court for the conservation of the water and river of the Thames; and it is said in the 4th Institute, that the mayor of London for the time being hath the conservation and rule of the water and river of the Thames, &c., and authority touching permission for using unlawful nets and other unlawful engines in fishing, and to all correction and punishment there concerning unlawful nets and engines there: (4 Inst. 270.) By stat. 30 Geo. 2, c. 21, s. 5, for the better protection of the fishery, it is enacted that it shall be lawful "for the deputy of the said mayor for the time being, as conservator as aforesaid, commonly called the water-bailiff" and his assistants appointed by warrant under the hand and seal of the mayor, to enter fishing-boats and seize brood of fish found there. Since the passing of the Thames Conservancy Act, the appellant has been appointed assist sufficient. If the place of abode of the candidate be omitted, the vote is vitiated. If at the trial of a quo warranto information against a person for exercising a municipal office, issued on the ground that he had not a majority of good votes, it is intended to set up more than one of the defeated candidates as the person who ought to have been declared elected, the whole matter should be open ed by the prosecutor in the first instance to the jury. Information in the nature of a quo warranto, calling upon the defendant to show by what authority he exercised the office of an alderman of the borough of Sheffield. The issue raised was that the defendant was not duly elected. At the trial at the last spring assizes, before Martin, B., at York, it appeared that on the 9th Nov. 1859 the town council of the borough of Sheffield proceeded to elect seven aldermen in the place of the seven who were retiring from office; that at the close of the poll the mayor declared six persons who had the greatest number of votes duly elected, and the validity of their election was not disputed. The next two candidates highest on the poll were the defendant and a person named Carr, who had each nineteen votes, whereupon the mayor gave the casting vote to the defendant, and declared him duly elected. The affirmative of this issue lying on the defendant, his counsel made out a prima facie case by showing that he was declared by the mayor at the election to have been duly elected, whereupon the prosecutor's counsel proceeded to impeach the election, and he produced the voting papers on behalf of the defendant, and took exception to the mode in which the name of the defendant William Bradley and his address were described in the voting papers of the six following persons :— Voters. Brittan Elliott Eyre Staniforth Unwin Jones....... ..... No place of abode Willm. Bradley [Q. B. Manisty showed cause.-No doubt it has been held in this court that the 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 14, is obligatory, and until overruled that decision must be held binding, and it must be considered law that the voting papers must contain the Christian name and surname of the party for whom the voter votes, and his place of abode and description. It is admitted, therefore, that two of the defendant's votes, Brittan's and Elliott's, are bad, as they omit the place of abode. is no Christian name. The letter is " W.," with a mark The next vote is Eyre's, and the objection is, that there over it, which the defendant contends stands for “m.” R. v. Hartlepool, 21 L. J. 71, Q.B., is an authority to show that the initial letter of a Christian name is sufficient. WIGHTMAN, J.-This case is distinguishable from Reg. v. Deighton, 5 Q. B. 896. There no place of abode was given; but here you do not altogether omit the Christian name, but you contract it. Here it is like "Wr." Manisty. It could not mislead; it is only a badlywritten "Wm." HILL, J.-The question is, does this contain the Christian name? thought it was Wm. Manisty. It does. it was for the jury. If it was a case of bad writing, It must be taken that the jury If it was unintelligible to ordinary persons, it would have been bad. HILL, J. But would a stranger read it William ? Manisty.-I think so, from its mode of junction with the letter B. WIGHTMAN, J.-It looks more like Walter. The difficulty is that it looks like Wr. Manisty. Then the court hold that it is worse than though it was only W.? WIGHTMAN, J.-Yes, that is so. Manisty. Then we have three bad votes; but we say that Staniforth's, Jones' and Unwin's are good, being Wm. and Willm. WIGHTMAN, J.-Yes; those would seem to be good. Manisty. Then there are three bad votes on the other side. The voting papers for Carr were handed to The counsel for the defendant then proceeded to ob- the jury, and they said one was Curr," and that ject to three of Carr's votes: Voters. Beckett Holland Cammell Name of candidate for whom he voted. John Curr John Cam No place of abode The 7 Will. 4 & 1 Vict. c. 78, s. 14, enacts that the election of aldermen by the council shall be in the following manner; that is to say, every member of the council entitled to vote in that election may vote for any number of persons not exceeding the umber of aldermen then to be chosen, by personally delivering at such meeting to the mayor or chairman of the meeting, a voting paper containing the Christian name and surname of the persons for whom he votes, with their respective places of abode and description, such paper being previously signed with the name of the member of council voting; and the mayor or chairman of the meeting, as soon as all the voting papers have been delivered to him, shall openly produce and read the same, and immediately afterwards deliver them to the town-clerk to be kept among the records of the borough, and in case of equality of votes among those entitled to vote, the mayor or chairman shall have a casting vote, whether or not he may be entitled to vote in the first instance. The learned judge overruled the objections, and the verdict was entered for the defendant, with leave reserved to the prosecutor to move. A rule nisi having been obtained for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection on the above ruling, the other was written "Cam," and the third had no place of abode. If the other side destroyed three of Bradley's votes, I have destroyed three of Carr's. There is a second objection. They say they ought to have been allowed, when their votes were reduced, to have been at liberty to have shown that Bradley was below Holland. When I had impeached the votes of the other side, I said it ought then to end, and so the judge thought. and there they ended. That would seem to be final. CROMPTON, J.-They impeached a number of votes, Overend. I said, after they had impeached my votes, that Holland, who had seventeen votes, was in a majority over Bradley. CROMPTON, J.-Then you opened a new case. You didn't offer fresh evidence to impeach Bradley. Overend.-We said there was another who had more good votes than Bradley—namely Holland. Manisty. That was never opened. But the judge said, as you did not go into that in the first instance, you must not go into it now. Besides, two of Holland's votes have no place of abode. CROMPTON, J.-It was not a surprise, it was a distinct defence, which should have been opened. You should have said, "Carr is above Bradley, and if not, Holland is above him." This additional case does not arise out of the case on the other side. Overend.-Holland and Atkinson had each seven teen. We said Bradley was badly elected. He was badly elected with reference to Holland. HILL, J.-When you impeached Bradley you ought to have shown the votes of both Carr and Holland, Q. B.] REG. v. PERRY. You could not be entitled, after not succeeding with Carr, to say, "I will now go and set up Holland." Overend. I relied upon defeating Bradley with Carr. I opened that Bradley was badly elected as regarded several others. It was a case of convenience, like a scrutiny in the House of Commons. CROMPTON, J.-But it was not such a scrutiny. If that course had been agreed to, it might have been so. Overend.—Then I must have gone into each case of seventeen votes. CROMPTON, J. You need merely have shown that they were seventeen on the poll. That would have put the other side to have shown that the votes were bad. Manisty. Just so. They had all the voting papers there, and only selected six or seven. CROMPTON, J.-This arises upon your own caso. Overend.-Not till Carr's votes were disposed of, for he had nineteen votes and the others only seventeen. I need not have troubled myself about others. CROMPTON, J.-By striking off three votes you set up all who had seventeen; but that arises froin your own evidence. Overend. However, it is now contended Bradley had six bad votes. The question is, what is a signature of the Christian name? The condition of voting is that he must give a voting paper with the Christian and surnames. (He referred to the judgment in Reg. v. Avery, 21 L. J. 428, Q. B.) There are cases, however, in which initials will do: but where the Legislature says he must write the Christian name, it is trifling with words to say that initials will be sufficient. Wm. may mean Wyndham, Wilbraham and others. HILL, J.-Have you ever known Wilbraham written Wm. ? Overend.-I cannot say I have. HILL, J.-Does the Christian name require anything more than to be written so as to be commonly known? Overend.-Wm. means any name which begins with a W. and ends with an m. He referred to 15 M. & W. 283, and Nash v. Calder, 5 C. B. 178, to show that W. cannot be a name of baptism. The reason for strictness is that an alderman is in for six years. CROMPTON, J.-The less you say about the reason of the thing the better. The reason seems to be the other way when all the voters are present, and here the mayor read out the names. [Q. B. that I think the vote to which this applies is bad; and the votes in which no place of abode was mentioned are bad also, so that there are three of Bradley's votes bad. But then there are three of Carr's votes bad also; which leaves the parties in an equal position and Bradley has the casting vote. Then as to the setting up of Holland's claim, who is alleged to have a majority of one over Bradley. On looking at two of Holland's voting papers I find that they are open to the same objection, of having no place of abode mentioned, and this would reduce Holland's votes to fifteen. It would be idle therefore to grant a new trial as to this case, as no good could result from it. Then Mr. Overend contends that he has a right to insist on the claims of other candidates, who were higher than Mr. Bradley, but it does not appear that there was any definite proposal made by him to go into the other cases at the trial. It seems to me, therefore, that as far as Holland's case is concerned, which was the only case pressed on the judge's attention at the trial, it would be useless to go to a trial, because he has equally objectionable votes, which would reduce his good votes below both Carr's and Bradley's. The rule must therefore be discharged. CROMPTON, J.-I am of the same opinion. The statute requires that the voting papers should contain the Christian and surnames of the party. It has been held that this is to be treated as imperative; and that decision is not to be impeached in this court. I think that means that there shall be something in writing to show everybody what the Christian name of the party is. A contraction does not prevent them from knowing that. A single initial letter might stand for several names, but "Wm." and "Willm." are contractions which are known ordinarily to mean "William." A misspelling of the Christian name would not vitiate the vote. In my opinion the judge at the trial acted rightly in rejecting the evidence as to the claims of the other candidates. The prosecutor if he had intended, to rely on them, ought to have put in all the poll in the first instance. It was really an attempt to set up a new case in answer to that made by the other side. HILL, J.-I am of the same opinion. I think that although the initial letter of the name is not sufficient, yet a known contraction of a Christian name which could not be mistaken, is the Christian name within the meaning of the statute, just as much as if it had been written at full length. As to the other point, I think that it was a matter for the discretion of the Overend referred to Allen v. Greensill, 4 C. B. 100. It was not intended that an abbreviation of the Chris-judge at the trial. The prosecutor ought in the first tian name should suffice, but that there should be the Christian name itself. It is not he shall "sign his name," in which case it would be sufficient. But here the Christian name is not given, therefore all the six votes are bad. Wm. is as bad as W.: (3 Bing. 296; 1 Dow. & Ry. 150.) CROMPTON, J.-There is a well-known contraction of William. Suppose a cockney was to write it "Villiam," would that vitiate the vote? WIGHTMAN, J.-I am opinion that, as to three of the votes for Bradley, which have been objected to by the prosecutor, the objection cannot be sustained, viz., as to the three votes in which the Christian name is written with a contraction, and not merely with the initial letter. Now, if these contractions are well known and understood as contractions of the Christian name "William," it is quite consistent with the intention of the Legislature, if we hold that they are sufficient for the purposes of the Act, and that it is not necesarry to write the Christian name in the voting papers at full length. It certainly appears to me that Wm." and "Willm." are sufficient to indicate the Christian name "William," and that the three votes to which this objection applies are good. But the mere initial "W." may so far tend to mislead for another name instance to have gone into the whole case, and if he declined to do that, then it was a matter for the discretion of the judge as to whether or not he would allow Holland's case to be set up. If he had exercised an unwise iscretion we might have corrected it and granted a new trial, if the ends of justice required it; but in this case that is not so, for the voting papers show that a new trial is not required. Rule discharged. Q. B.] REG. v. PERRY. [Q. B. of the Act. The 16th section of 1 & 2 Will. 4, c. 38, | Rotherhithe, then duly testified under their respective provides for the appointment of two churchwardens, hands and seals, granted his licence and authority for one to be chosen by the incumbent, the other by the the publication of banns of matrimony and the pew-renters. The 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, s. 14, provides solemnisation of marriages in the said church called that when banns of matrimony, marriages, &c., are Christchurch by the minister or incumbent thereof for authorised to be published and performed in any the time being, of persons residing within the district church or chapel to which a district shall belong, so assigned to the same church as aforesaid, and he such district or place shall become and be a separate also and with the like consent ordered and directed and distinct parish for ecclesiastical purposes, such that all such accustomed fees, dues and other emoluas contemplated by the 15th section of 6 & 7 Vict. ments as would have been otherwise paid or payable c. 37, and all the provisions of that Act relative to for or in respect of such banns and marriages to the new parishes shall apply; and the 17th section of the said rector or incumbent of the said rectory and church last-mentioned Act provides that one churchwarden of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, aforesaid, should thenceshall be elected by the incumbent and the other by forth be paid and payable to the minister or incumbent the inhabitants: of the said church called Christchurch; and the bishop also then caused his said order and direction as to the several offices to be performed in the said church called Christchurch as aforesaid to be registered in the said episcopal registry of the said diocese; that by a certain indenture dated the 6th April 1840, and then made by and between the Rev. Edward Blick, clerk, then being the rector or incumbent of the said rectory or church of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, of the first part, the said Lord Bishop of Winchester of the second part; the Master, Fellows and Scholars of Clare-hall in the University of Cambridge, the patrons of the said rectory or church of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, of the third part, and the Rev. John Saunders, then being the minister and incumbent of the said church called Christchurch, of the fourth part, and duly executed by the said parties respectively under their respective hands and seals, reciting amongst other things that the said church called Christchurch had been so erected, and that a district had beer so assigned to it as aforesaid, but that the same church was not intended to become, under or by virtue of the statute passed in the 58th year of the reign of King George 3, for building and promoting the building of additional churches in populous parishes, the parish church of a district parish, the said Edward Blick, under and by virtue of the said statute so made in the Parliament holden in the said first and second years of the reign of King William 4, as aforesaid, and by virtue of any other statutes, or of any other powers by which it was competent for him so to do, and, with the consent of the said bishop and of the said master, fellows and scholars of Clare-hall respectively, granted and declared that one equal fourth part of all such Easter offerings and oblations as should from time to time become due or payable, or, but for the same indenture, would become due or payable to or for the benefit of the rector or incumbent of the said rectory or church of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, and also that all fees, dues and emoluments for or in respect of the churchings, baptisms, marriages and burials as had been theretofore due to or Held, that the authority contemplated by the 14th section of the 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104 was not a revocable licence by the bishop, but an irrevocable authority under an order of the commissioners under the 11th section of the Act, and that the church in question was therefore not one in which banns of matrimony, marriages, &c., were authorised to be published and performed within the 14th section of 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, and therefore the appointment of churchwardens remained in the incumbent and pew-renters. This was a mandamus directed to Frederick Perry, clerk, minister and incumbent of the church or parish of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, in the county of Surrey. It recited that the parish of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, is an ancient parish, and the church thereof a rectory within the diocese and subject to the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Winchester; that in the year 1839 the population of the same parish then amounting to more than 2000 persons, and the existing churches and chapels within the same parish not affording accommodation for more than one-third of the inhabitants thereof for the attendance upon Divine service, according to the rites of the United Church of England and Ireland, a certain additional church called and known by the name of Christchurch (the site whereof had been duly conveyed to the commissioners for building new churches), was erected within the said parish, under and by virtue of the provisions contained in the statute 1 & 2 Will. 4, entitled "An Act to amend and render more effectual an Act passed in the seventh and eighth years of the reign of his late Majesty, entitled 'An Act to amend the Acts for building and promoting the building of additional churches in populous parishes,"" and which said additional church was afterwards, that is to say, on or about the 26th June 1839, duly consecrated by Charles Richard Lord Bishop of Winchester for the performance of Divine service according to the rites of the said United Church of England and Ireland, the same having been theretofore endowed with a sum of 1000l. secured upon money in the funds, in ad-received by the said Edward Blick as such rector or dition to the pew rents and profits intended to be taken and to arise from the same church, and a fund having also been provided for the repairs of the said church to the amount and in the manner required by the said statute, and one-third at least of the sittings in the said church having been also set apart and appropriated as free sittings according to the said statute, that afterwards, that is to say, on the 7th April 1840, the said Lord Bishop of Winchester, under and by virtue of the said statute, by a certain indenture by him duly executed under his hand and seal, assigned a separate and distinct district to the said church called Christchurch and caused a description of the boundaries of the said district so assigned to be registered in the episcopal registry of his diocese, such district then forming part of the said parish of St. Mary, Rotherhithe; and in and by the said indenture the said bishop, under and by virtue of the statute of the 6 & 7 Will. 4, entitled, "An Act for marriages in England," and with the consent of the patrons and the rector or incumbent of the said church or rectory of the said parish of St. Mary, incumbent as aforesaid, and should from time to time thereafter become due or payable from or by any person or persons whomsoever for or in respect of any services, ceremonies, or duties performed in the said church called Christchurch, or in any burial-ground belonging thereunto, should be for ever thereafter annexed to the said church called Christchurch, and should from time to time thereafter be receivable and received by or on behalf of and for the sole and exclusive use and benefit of the minister and incumbent for the time being of the same church; and the said fees, dues, offerings and emoluments respectively were by the said bishop, in and by the said indenture, duly assigned to the said minister and incumbent of the said church called Christchurch, who, under and by virtue of the said indenture and the statute aforesaid, then became and was entitled to the same for his own sole and exclusive use and benefit, without any reservation thereout; and every such minister and incumbent hath ever since, and is hereby so entitled to the saine; which said indenture was Q. B.] REG. v. PERRY. [Q. B. warden, and the inhabitants of the said parish have been and are prevented from choosing a fit and proper person to fill the said office of churchwarden, although the usual period of appointing parish officers and a proper time for so choosing such as aforesaid to fill the said office of churchwardens has long since elapsed, to the great prejudice and injury of the said parish and of the said inhabitants thereof. The writ then commanded the said Frederick Perry, being such minister and incumbent as aforesaid, to convene and hold a proper meeting of the inhabitants of the said parish of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, duly qualified according to law as aforesaid to vote at the election of churchwardens for the said parish for the purpose of electing a fit and proper person to serve the office of churchwarden for the said parish of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, for the current year, or such part thereof as may remain unexpired, so that such person may be then and there duly elected to serve the said office according to the laws and statutes in that behalf made and provided, or that he show cause to the contrary thereof. duly registered in the episcopal registry of the said bishop. That by means of the several premises afore said, the said church called Christchurch, before and at the time of the passing of the Act of Parliament made and passed in the nineteenth and twentieth years of her present Majesty, c. 101, entitled "An Act to extend the provisions of an Act of the sixth and seventh years of her Majesty, for making better provision for the spiritual care of populous parishes, and further to provide for the formation and endowment of separate and distinct parishes," had become and was within the meaning of the said Act, a consecrated church to which a district belonged, and wherein banns of matrimony and the solemnisation of marriages, churchings and baptisms, according to the laws and canons in force in this realm, were authorised to be published and performed (the district aforesaid not being, at the time of the passing of the same Act, a separate and distinct parish for ecclesiastical purposes), and the incumbent of which, by such authority, entitled for his own benefit to the entire fees arising from the performance of such offices without any reservation thereout, and whereby and by means of the said To this writ the said F. Perry duly made his last-mentioned Act, immediately after the passing return, which stated that the said church called thereof, the said district became and was, and now is, Christchurch had not at the time of the passing a separate and distinct parish for ecclesiastical pur- of the said Act passed in the Parliament holden poses, as is contemplated in the 15th section of the in the nineteenth and twentieth years of the statute made in the sixth and seventh years of the reign of her present Majesty in the said writ mentioned, reign of her present Majesty, entitled, "An Act to become, nor was it within the meaning of the said Act, make better provision for the spiritual care of a consecrated church to which a district belonged, and populous parishes;" and the said church called wherein banns of matrimony and solemnisation of Christchurch, being the church of the said dis- marriages, churchings and baptisms according to the trict, then became and was, and now is, the laws and canons in force in this realm, were authorised church of such parish; that all and singular the pro- to be published and performed, or the incumbent of visions of the said last-mentioned statute (as then which was by such authority entitled for his own benefit amended) relative to new parishes on their becoming to the entire fees arising from the performance of such such, and to the matters and things consequent thereon, without any reservation thereout. That the said disbecame and were, and now are, under and by virtue of the trict did not by means of the said last-mentioned Act said Act of the nineteenth and twentieth years of the of Parliament become a separate and distinct parish reign of her present Majesty, extended and made for ecclesiastical purposes, such as is contemplated in applicable to the new parish of Christchurch, and the 15th section of the statute made in the sixth and by reason thereof two fit and proper persons duly seventh years of the reign of her present Majesty in the qualified in that behalf, as required by the said statute said writ mentioned. That before and at the time of so made in the sixth and seventh years of the reign of the passing of the said Act of Parliament made in her present Majesty, ought in every year to be chosen the nineteenth and twentieth years of the reign of her churchwardens of the same parish, one being chosen present Majesty, the said district of Christchurch had by the minister and incumbent of the same parish and enjoyed, and now has and enjoys, the special right and the other by the inhabitants residing therein, and and privilege that the churchwardens for the church or having a similar qualification to that which would chapel of Christchurch should and shall, at the usual entitle inhabitants to vote at the election of church period of appointing parish officers in every year, be wardens for the said parish of St. Mary, Rotherhithe, chosen one by the incumbent of the said church or and such election ought to take place at the usual chapel for the time being, and the other by the renters period of appointing parish officers, at a meeting of pews in such church or chapel, and that such special summoned in such manner as the minister and incum-right, privilege and liability was not, nor is the same bent of such parish of Christchurch shall direct. That although one churchwarden for the said parish of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, has been duly chosen by the said Frederick Perry, being the minister and incumbent of the same parish as aforesaid, nevertheless no other churchwarden for the same parish has been chosen by the inhabitants residing therein, and having the qualification aforesaid, and that no meeting of such inhabitants for the purpose of choosing such churchwarden has been duly summoned by the said Frederick Perry as such minister and incumbent as aforesaid according to the said statutes, but that on the contrary thereof the said Frederick Perry, though requested as such minister and incumbent as aforesaid by divers of the said inhabitants to convene and hold such a meeting of the said inhabitants so qualified to vote as aforesaid for the purpose of choosing such other churchwarden according to the said statutes in that behalf, has wholly neglected and refused, and still does neglect and refuse so to do, whereby the said parish of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, has been and is wrongfully deprived of the benefit of having such other church taken away, altered, or in anywise affected by the said last-mentioned Act, but still exist in full force and effect, and that on the 12th April 1860, being the usual period of appointing parish officers, two churchwardens were duly chosen in such manner as aforesaid, one by the said Fredk. Perry, and the other by the pew-renters of the said chapel or church of Christchurch, to act as churchwardens for the same for the then current year which is not elapsed, and that they have since then acted and now act as such churchwardens as aforesaid, under such special right, privilege and liability as aforesaid. To this return the prosecutors demurred. The prosecutors' points were :-First, that the return made to the writ is wholly insufficient, as it shows no compliance with the writ, nor any valid excuse or reason for noncompliance; secondly, that the return, while it admits the facts set forth in the writ whereby the district of Christchurch, Rotherhithe, became a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes under the statute 19 & 20 Vict. c. 104, ss. 14 and 15 by merely denying that it did so become such separate |