Howitt v Stephens
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 16 November 1858 |
| Date | 16 November 1858 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 141 E.R. 12
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. K. & G. 183; 28 L. J. C. P. 105; 5 Jur. N. S. 123; 7 W. R. 55. See Ford v. Boon, 1871, L. R. 7 C. P. 157; Sherwin v. Whyman, 1873, L. R. 9 C. P. 249.
[30] county of huntingdon. henry howitt, Appellant, edward stephens, llespomlent. david britain', Appellant, joseph wilcocks, Eespmident. Nov. 16th, 1858. [H. C. K. & G. 183 ; 28 L. J. C. P. 105 ; 5 Jur. N. S. 123 ; 7 W. E. 55. See Ford v. Bomi, 1871, L. E. 7 C. P. 157; Shei-win v. Whyman, 1873, L. R. 9 C. P. 249.] In a list of claimants for a county, A.'s qualification was described in the third column aa " 501. occupier," and in the fourth column the property was described as being situate in "Cambridge Road:"-Held, a sufficient description: but that, at all events, if insufficient, it was amendable under the 40th section of the (1 & 7 Viet, c. 18. At a court held on the 6th of October, 1858, for the revision of the lists of voters in the election of knights of the shire for the county of Huntingdon, the name of Henry Howitt was duly objected to. His name appeared on the list of claimants for the parish of St. Neots, us follows :- Street, lane, or other likr, plttce in this parish (or township) and number of house (if any) where tlui iroperly is situate, or mine of the, property, it' Christian nani arid .sur- aiawii by any, or name of So." name of each voter ufc full length. Place of iibotlt1. Xature uf Qiudili^atimi. ,he occupying tenant, or f the qualification consists t' a rent-charge, then the itinujs of the owitra of the property out of which such rent is issuing, or sonm of them, and the situation of uih propnrfcy. 1957 Howitt, Hunry. St. Xents. 501, Oticiupter. (Jumbridgti Road. It appeared that Henry Howitt had occupied for a sufficient time prior to the 31st of July last a farm on the Cam bridge Road, in the parish of St. Neots. for which he was bona fide liable to a yearly rent of not less than 501. It was objected that the qualification as stated in the third column was insufficient in law to entitle Henry Howitt to vote: and the revising-barrister held that the objection was valid. [31] The revising-barrister was then applied to on the part of the voter to amend the qualification, by striking out "501.," and inserting in lieu thereof "farm, as," so 5CXB. J. S.)32. HOWITT V. STEPHENS 13 that the qualification, as amended, would atand thus, " Farm, as occupier." The reTisirig*barrister| held, that, under the 40th section of the G & 7 Viet. e. 18, to which)ha wag referred, he had no power to do so; and he expunged the name from the list. If the court should he of opinion that the qualification as stated in the list was sufficient, th$ nai)i& was to b& re-inserted in the list: or, if the court should be of opinion that the! revising-barrister had power to amend the qualification, then the third column was; to be amended as above stated. Ati the same court the name of David Brittain was also duly objected to; and his name appeared on the list of claimants for the parish of Eynesbury, as follows :- No. GhriatUn name, &c. Place of abode. Suture of Qualification. ' Htreet ^Jta^^^ 537 Brittain, David. Eynesbury. 501. Occupier. Eynesbury Field. Edward Stephens was the objector to Henry Hewitt's name, and Joseph Wilcox was the objector to the name of David Brittain : and, the cases being the same in all respeqta, they ware consolidated. Stephenson (with whom was Kinglake, Serjt.), for the appellant. The description in the- list " 501. occupier" was sufficient; or, if not, the revising-barrister ought to have amended it, under the power conferred upon him by the 40th section of the 6 & 7 Viet. c, 18, The 20th section of the Eeform Act, 2 W. 4, c. 45...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bourhill v Same
...223. 1200 (J A MR RON V. THE CHARING CROSS R.UIYVVAY TO. 16 C. B. (N. S.) 2. 13 C. B. (N. S.) 12, 24 ; Hoiritt, App., Stephens, Reap., 5, C. B. (N. S.) 30. The defendants could not suppose from this notice that the claimant was merely a tenant from year to year; for, in that case, the amoun......