John Hannaford, Appellant, William Rolstone Whiteway, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 14 November 1856 |
| Date | 14 November 1856 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 140 E.R. 22
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER.
S. C. 26 L. J. C. P. 75; 3 Jur. N. S. 673; 5 W. R. 75.
22 HANNAFOBD V. WH1TEWAY 1 C. B. (N. S.) 53. [53] borough of ashburton. john hannaford, Appellant, william kolstone whiteway, Respondent. Nov. 14, 1856. [S. C. 26 L. J. 0. P. 75; 3 Jur. N. S. 673; 5 W. R. 75.] A notice of objection sent by post, pursuant to the 100th section of the 6 & 7 Viet, c. 18, is not vitiated by the fact of the post-master having received it out of the usual hours of business prescribed by the postmaster-general. At a court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the borough of Ashburton, William Rolstone Whiteway objected to the name of John Hannaford being retained on the list of voters for the parish of Ashburton. The facts of the case were as follows :- The objector, being a person qualified to object, gave due notice of objection to the overseers; and he sought to prove service of the notice of objection on the party himself by post under the statute 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 100. All the provisions of that section were strictly complied with, except as to the time when the duplicate notices were delivered to the post-master. The objector delivered the duplicate notice to the post-master of the post-office of Ashburton, at 6 o'clock in the morning of Monday, the 25th of August, 1856. He produced before the revising-barrister one of the duplicates bearing the Ashburton post-mark of the 25th of August, 1856; and he proved that the notice would in the ordJBary course of post have been delivered on that day at the place to which it was adSress'ed. 1 During the month of August, 1856, the Ashburton post-office was open to the public, on week days, from 7 o'clock, A.M. until 50 minutes past 3 o'clock, p.m. ; and it was not compulsory on the post-master to register any letter except within those hours. Public notice was given at the office that these were the hours of business. The hours for receiving the duplicate notices under [54] 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 100, are the same as those for registering ordinary letters. It was contended, on behalf of the voter, that the delivery of the duplicate notices to the postmaster before 7 o'clock, a.m., not being within the regular hours olbusiness, was irregular; that, before the stamped duplicate could be produced in evidence, the objector was bound to prove that he had complied with all the provisions of the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 100, and, amongst other things, that he had delivered the notices to the post-master within the hours appointed for the transaction of that business; and that, as he failed to prove this, the stamped duplicate could not be received as evidence of the notice having been given as required by the act. The revising-barrister was of opinion, that, as the post-master had consented to receive and compare the notices, although delivered to him at an hour when he was not bound to do so, the statute had been sufficiently complied with; and he decided that the notice of objection was duly proved. He therefore called upon the voter to prove his qualification; which he failed to do; and the revising-barrister thereupon expunged his name from the list. If the court should be of opinion that the delivery of the duplicate notice to the post-master at the time above stated was not sufficient within the meaning of the statute 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 100, the name of the voter John Hannaford was to be restored to the list. Kinglake, Serjt., for the appellant. The provisions as to notices of objections, in the case of borough voters, are contained in ss. 17, 40, and 100, of the 6 & 7 Viet, c. 18. The 17th section enacts "that every person whose name shall have been inserted in any list...
To continue reading
Request your trial