Charles Edward Rawlins, Jun., Appellant; The Overseers of West Derby, Respondents

lancashire, southern division. charles edward eawlins, jun., Appellant; the overseers of west derby, Bespoiidents. Jan. 15, 1846. [S. C. 1 Lutw. Eeg. Gas. 373; Barr. & Arn. 599; 15 L. J. C. P. 70; 10 Jur. 268.] When the 20th of July falls on a Sunday, service of a notice of claim upon an overseer under the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 4, by leaving it at his place of abode on that day, is good service.-Semble, that, where the respondent appears, he is precluded from objecting to the form of the service of the notice of appeal required by ss. 62, 64. The overseers of the township of West Derby, in the southern division of the county of Lancaster, objected to the names of George Atkinson, and of thirty-nine other persons-whose names and descriptions were set forth in a schedule annexed to the case,-being retained on the list of claimants to vote in the said township. The barrister struck out the names of the said claimants from the said list, subject to the opinion of the court of Common Pleas on the following case :- All the said claims were delivered at the dwelling-house of one of the overseers of the said township of West Derby, in his absence, about 9 o'clock of the evening of Sunday, the 20th of July last. The overseers, nevertheless, published such claims in the list of claimants, but inserted opposite to each name the word "objected"; and at the revision of the said list, they contended that such service of the said claims respectively was insufficient and invalid, having been made [73] on a Sunday, and the following day being too late by law for the service of such notices; and that such claimants therefore were not entitled to have their names retained on the said list. The barrister allowed the objection, and consolidated the several cases. Arnold, for the respondents, took a preliminary objection-that the notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal had not been given or sent to the proper parties; the barrister having, under the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 43, nominated the overseers of the township of West Derby to be the respondents, and the notice being headed "Edward Eawlins, appellant, and Thomas Augustus G-ranville Dolling, overseer of West Derby, respondent," and served upon Dolling only. He submitted, that, though a notice addressed to the overseers generally, and served upon one of them, might be sufficient, the notice in question clearly was not so, for non constat that Dolling was in office at the time the overseers were named respondents. [Maule, J. Do you appear 1 ] In the case of affidavits informally headed, the party presenting the objection is not therefore taken to appear. [Maule, J. Does that apply to an affidavit of service 1] Crompton, contra, submitted that taking the sixty-second section and the interpretation clause (s. 101) together, the notice was sufficient. tindal, C. J. If the respondents appear, there is no necessity for proving the service of the notice under sect. 64. If they do not, we must deal with the case as we best may (a). [74] Arnold elected to appear. (a) See Colvill, App., Lewis, Besp., ante, p. 60. 2C.B.75 RAWLINS V. THE OVERSEERS OP WEST DERBY 869 Crompton, for the respondents. By the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 4, persons desirous of having their names inserted in the register for the county, are required to give notice of their claims to the overseers " on or before the 20th of July " in every year. The question is, whether words are to be inserted in the act that the legislature has not thought fit to place there, viz. " unless such day shall be Sunday." Wherever it has been intended to except Sunday in the act, it is done by apt and express words, as, amongst other instances, in sections 5, 8, 12, 18, 20. It would be strange indeed if the legislature had intended to except...