Samuel Hickton, Appellant, Daniel Antrobus, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 19 January 1846 |
| Date | 19 January 1846 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 135 E.R. 872
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS.
S. C. 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 363.
southern division of cheshire. samuel hiokton, Appellant, danisl antrobus, Respondent. Jan. 19, 1846. [S. C. 1 Lutw. Eeg. Cas. 363.] Sending a notice of objection to the party objected to by the post, pursuant to the directions of the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, s. 100, is a sufficient substitute for giving the notice to the party, or leaving it at his place of abode, as required by section 7.- Where, therefore, a notice was posted, under s. 100, in sufficient time to have reached the party according to the ordinary course of post, on the 25th of August: Held, that such service was sufficient to call upon the party to prove his qualification, notwithstanding that the actual delivery was accidentally delayed until the 27th.-And held, that the provisions of s. 100, are equally applicable to notices to overseers, directed, as provided by s. 101, to their usual places of abode. Samuel Hickton, of Eood Lane, Congleton, a person on the register for the southern division of the county of Chester, objected to the name of Daniel Antrobus, as not entitled to be inserted in the list of voters for the said division. The facts of the case were as follow :-Duplicate notices of objection, stamped at the Manchester post-office on the 24th of August, one directed to the party objected to, and the other to the overseers of the township of Congleton, were produced, and duly proved before the barrister. These notices of objection would, in the ordinary course of post, be delivered at the place of abode as described in the said list, and also to the overseers of Congleton, on the 25th of August. The notices themselves were produced on behalf of Daniel [83] Antrobus, and bore the Congleton post-mark of August 26th, and were not delivered to the overseers, or at the place of abode of the person objected to, until that day. Upon inquiry into the cause of the detention, it appeared that so many notices of objection had been posted at the Manchester post-office on that and the two preceding days, that the postmaster was unable to transmit the notices in time. He alleged the sudden and enormous influx of letters as a reason for the detention. It was contended on the part of Samuel Hickton, that the objector had complied with the provisions of the act 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, which enacts, sect. 100, "that the production by the party who...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blue Anvil Trading (Pty) Limited v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality
...Applicant and the Respondent had been concluded in February 2011, a second tender was put out by the First Respondent, under tender number CB 82 2011, the Applicant also tendered in respect thereof and was 2014 JDR 1065 p4 De Vries AJ: 10. The two tenders differed in the following respects ......
-
Hudson v Louth
...Lewis v. EvansELR L. R. 10 C. P. 297. Noseworthy's CaseELR L. R. 9 C. P. 240. Cooper v. CoatesUNK 5 M. & G. 98. In Hickton v. AntrobusENR 2 C. B. 82. Cuming v. TomsUNK 7 M. & G. 34. Wanklyn v. WoollettENR 4 C. B. 88. In Bayley v. The Nantwich OverseersENR 2 C. B. 120. Parliament County vote......