William Samuel, Appellant; Adam Hitchmough, Respondent
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 18 November 1862 |
| Date | 18 November 1862 |
| Court | Court of Common Pleas |
English Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 1
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND IN THE EXCHEQUER CHAMBER
S. C. K. & G. 522; 32 L. J. C. P. 55; 7 L. T. 360; 9 Jur. N. S. 414; 11 W. R. 92.
COMMON BENCH REPORTS. New Series. CASES ARGUED and DETERMINED in the COURT of COMMON PLEAS, and in the KXCHEQTJER CHAMBER, in Michaelmas Term and Vacation, 1862, and Hilary Term, 1803. By JOHN SCOTT, Esq., of the Inner Temple, Barrister-at-Law. Vol. .XI[I. London, 1803. [1] cases argued and determined in the court op common pleas, in michaelmas term, in the twenty-sixth year of the reign of victoria. The Judges who usually sat in Banco in this term, were,-Erie, C. J., Williams, J., Byles, J., and Keating, J. memoranda. Sir Robert Joseph Phillimore, Knt., Doctor of Civil Law, having been appointed Her Majesty's Advocate-General, in the room of Sir John D. Harding, Knt., resigned, was on the first day of this term called upon to take his seat within the Bar accordingly. The following gentlemen who had, in the Vacation preceding this term, been appointed Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law, were also called upon to take their seats within the Bar :- John Robert Kenyon, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn ; Thomas Southgate, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn; Arthur Hobhouse, Esq., of Lincoln's Inn. [3] registration cases. MlUKAELMAK TERM, 1862. No. I. borough of bedford. william samuel, Appellant; adam hitchmough, Respondent. Nov. 18th, 1862. [S. C. K, & G-. 522; 32 L. J. C. P. 55; 7 L. T. 360 ò 9 Jur. N. S. 414; 11 W. R. 02.] A notice of objection to a borough voter, in the form prescribed by the schedule B. No. II, to the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, described the objector as being "on the list of voters for tha parish ('f St. Paul." It appeared that there were two lists made out for the parish of St. Paul, viz. the 101. or new qualification list and the reserved right list. The revising-barrister decided that the description of the objector was insufficient, for not stating on which of the two lists his name appeared.-The court reversed his decision. At a court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the borough of Bedford, William Samuel objected to the name of Adam Hitchmough being retained on the C. P. XXi.-Ul 2 SAMUEL V. HITGHMOUGH 13 C. B. (N. 8.)4. 101. or newi qualification list of voters for the borough of Bedford. A notice 01 objection was proved to have been duly served, in the following form:- "To Mr. Adam Hitchmough. " I hereby give you notice that I object to your name being retained on the list oj persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the borough of Bedford. Dated this 28rd day of August, 1862. " william samuel, of Water Lane, St. Paul, Bedford, on the list of voters for the parish of St. Paul." It appeared that there were two lists made out for the parish of St. Paul, viz. the 101. or new qualification list, and the reserved right list. The revising-barrister decided that the vote of the said Adam Hitchmough was bad. But it was objected, on behalf of the said Adam Hitchmough, that the notice of objection ò was bad, inasmuch as the said William Samuel stated himself in the notice, to be "on the list of voters for the parish of St. Paul," whereas he should have stated himself to be on the 101. or new qualification list of voters for the said parish. The revising-barrister held the notice to be bad, and retained the name on the list. [4] He was then applied to, on the part of William Samuel, to amend the notice, by adding thereto the list of voters on which his name appeared: but he held that, under the 101st section of the 6 & 7 Viet. c. 18, to which he was referred, he had no power to do so. If the court should be of opinion that the notice of objection was sufficient in stating that William Samuel (the objector) was on the list of voters for the parish of SU Paul,, in the borough of Bedford, or if the court considered that the revising-barrister had power to amend the notice by adding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Saunders v Union Government
...alleged. See Halsbury Laws of England (Hailsham, Vol. 26, paras. 579 — 581). The Crown in any case is not liable: see Tobin v The Queen (143 E.R. 1,162); B.S.A. Co v Crickmore (supra); Thorne's case (supra); de Villiers v Minister of Justice (1916 TPD 463); see also Act 13 of 1912, secs. 1,......
-
Arkins v Armstrong
...reference to so much of an alleged cause of action as would not have been within the jurisdiction of the County Court, and in which (1) 13 C. B. N. S. (3) 15 C. B. N. S. 793. (2) 6 C. B. 443. THE IRISH REPORTS. [I. R. he succeeded upon so much of his suit as could have been made in the Coun......
-
R C F Vanquelin v Bouard
...to the sum of 14,000 francs in money of the said empire, and the defendant, in Paris, accepted the said bills, and the said J. A. F. 13 C. B.(N. S.)3tt. VANQTJETJN V, BOUARD 819 Vanquelin indorsed the said hills in France aforesaid to one Bolli; and the said bills arrived at maturity, and a......
-
Channon v Parkhouse
...Reports Citation: 143 E.R. 136 IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS AND EXCHEQUER CHAMBER Channon and Parkhouse 136 CHANKON V. PARKHOUSE 13 C. B. (N. S.) 3. [341] channon v. parkhouse. Nov. 24th, 1862. The mere circumstance of the plaintiff being an officer in the navy, and hoping to be shortly app......