Edward Bayley, Appellant, The Overseers of the Township of Nantwich, Respondents
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 29 January 1846 |
| Date | 29 January 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 887
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 363.
county of chester, southern division. edward bayley, Appellant, the overseers of the township of nantwioh, Respondents. Jan. 29, 1846. [S. C. 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 363.] The production of a stamped duplicate notice of claim, duly delivered to the postmaster, and duly directed to the overseers, pursuant to the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, ss. 100, 101, is sufficient evidence of the notice of claim having been given to the overseers at the place mentioned in such duplicate, on the day on which such notice would, in the ordinary course of post, have been delivered at such place-notwithstanding its actual delivery to the overseer is delayed until after the time limited by the act, in consequence of pressure of business at the post-office. Edward Bayley claimed to be entitled to vote in respect of property situate within the township of Nantwich, in the southern division of the county of Chester. The claimant, as did also twenty-four other claimants (whose cases were identical and were consolidated therewith), resided at Nantwich. A notice of claim purporting to be signed by him, .was duly proved to have been posted at Manchester on the 19th of July. This notice of claim, according to the ordinary course of post, should have arrived at Nantwich, and been delivered to the overseers, on the 20th of July. It was not, in fact, delivered till the 22nd. The notice of claim, which was produced, bore the Nantwich post-mark of the latter day. The overseers of Nantwich published the names, with [119] this note :-" The whole of these claims, in consequence of negligence at the post-office, were not delivered until after the specified time." The revising barrister examined the postmaster of Nantwich, who proved that the notices of claim only arrived from Manchester on the 22nd of July, and that he had caused them to be delivered immediately, and was free from all blame. It appeared that all the twenty-five claimants might have delivered their notices of claim, personally, in due time; and that one of them denied all knowledge of his claim having been made. There was no proof of the cause of detention at Manchester. As the transmission of notices of objection had been proved to have been delayed several days by reason of their vast numbers, it was contended that the multiplicity of claims had also caused...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Parry v Brantley; Benjamin et Al v Brantley; Daniel v Brantley
... ... Richard Helps (12845) 2 C&B 857 and Edward Bailey v. The Overseers of the Township of ... ...
-
Joseph Parry and Appellant v Mark Brantley Respondent [ECSC]
...of post; 73 See fn. 71, p. 691. 74 [1958] 2 QB 187. 75 [1960] 2 QB 294. 76 Ibid, p. 298. 77 [1966] 1 WLR 1085. 78 (12845) 2 C&B 857. 79 (1846) 135 ER 887. 80 (1879) LR (ire) 137. 81 (1879) 6 LR (Ire) 142. 82 [1917] 1 KB 832. 83 [2002] 1 WLR 2849. 84 Supreme Court Civil Appeal No. 125/2007. ......
-
Doogan v Colquhoun
...Watt v. BarnettELR3 Q. B. Div. 363. Wilcoxon v. Wilkins9 Jur. (N. S.) 742. Furber v. King29 W. R. 535. Bayly v. Overseers of NantwichENR2 C. B. 118. Allen v. WaterhouseENR1 Lutw. 93. Bishop v. CoxIbid, 363. Bishop v. HelpsENR2 C. B. 56. Lewis v. EvansL. B. 10 C. P. 297. Moore v. ForrestIbid......
-
John Hannaford, Appellant, William Rolstone Whiteway, Respondent
...sending were proved without contradiction." The same determination was come to in Bayley, App., The Overseers of Nantwich, Resp., 2 C. B. 118, in the case of a notice of claim, which was duly posted at Manchester on the 19th of July, and ought according to the ordinary course of post to hav......