whenever there may be occasion. He is paid by the job, and makes the declaration required by 8 & 9 Vict. c. 85, s. 10, once for all upon his appointment, which declaration is made by all the officers of the customs. Held, that such a person is "an officer or person employed in the collecting the customs," and is not entitled to a vote. Pownall v. Hood, 21 Law Journal Reports, N. S. 12 (C. P.).

S. 2. Assessors and collectors of window tax* are not disqualified from being registered as voters. Dyer v. Gough, 7 Man. & Gr. 109. See Baxter v. The Overseers of Doncaster, ib. 120, note; Cooper v. Harris, ib. 120, note.

STAT. 54 Geo. 3, c. 170, " An Act to repeal certain Provisions in Local Acts for the Maintenance and Regulation of the Poor, and to make other Provisions in relation thereto."

S. 11.-[See Mashiter v. Dunn, 6 C. B. 30, post, p. 381, stat. 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 36.]

STAT. 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, “An Act to amend the Laws for the Relief of the Poor."

S. 7.-An assistant overseer, who is appointed in general terms under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7, is an "overseer " within the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 17, and service of a notice of objection upon such assistant overseer is good service. The mere fact of the notice having been left at the place of abode of the overseer (or assistant overseer) at twenty minutes past eleven o'clock at night on the 25th August is not enough to invalidate the service. Confirmation by the poor law commissioners is not essential to the validity of the appointment of an assistant overseer under the 59 Geo. 3, c. 12, s. 7. Where there is no express limitation of the duties to be performed by such assistant overseer, he must be taken to have been appointed to perform all the ordinary duties of an overseer. Points v. Attwood, 6 C. B. 38. [See post, stat. 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 17.]

The window duty was abolished by stat. 14 & 15 Vict. c. 36.

STAT. 2 Will. 4, c. 45, [ante, p. 231, A.] "An Act to amend the Representation of the People in England and Wales." 1832.

S. 7.-See Palmer v. Allen, 6 C. B. 51. [Vide post, stat. 2 & 3 Will. 4, c. 64, s. 37.

S. 19.-A. claimed to vote in respect of a burgage tenement in an ancient borough. The case found that burgage tenements within the borough had always been conveyed by deed of grant, or bargain and sale, without livery of seisin, and without a lease for a year, or any inrolment; that no surrender or admittance was required, nor was any fine paid upon descent or alienation; that the mode of descent was agreeably to the common law, except that females inherited, not as coparcenors, but by seniority; that the interest of a feme covert was passed without any separate examination of the wife; that the widow of a person dying seised of a burgage tenement had the whole during her chaste viduity; that burgage tenements had always been devisable in the same way as ordinary freeholds; that they were held subject only to the payment of certain fixed annual rents payable to some individual, and that no other services had been performed or payments made in respect of them. Held, that in the absence of evidence on the face of the case to show that the freehold was in any other person, it must be assumed that A. had such a freehold tenure as to entitle him to be registered, the value being sufficient. Busher v. Thompson, 4 C. B. 48. S. 20.-See Webb v. Aston, 5 M. & G. 14. [Post, s. 25.]

A tenant holding, under two different landlords, two different sets of premises, the rent of each being less than £50 a year, though together they amount to more than that sum, is not entitled to a vote under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 20. Gadsby v. Barrow, 7 Man. & G. 21.

The committee of a lunatic's estate, who has taken into his own occupation part of the land, charging himself in the account rendered by him to the Court of Chancery and allowed by the master, with a yearly sum as "rent," does not thereby become an occupying "tenant" within the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 20, as he could not make himself " tenant by his own act, nor could the master in chancery by allowing that account. [This conclusion was arrived at "after some hesitation."] Burton v. Langham, 5 C. B. 92.

S. 23. See Davies v. Waddington, 7 Man. & G. 37; Simpson v. Wilkinson, ib. 50; Baxter v. Brown, ib. 198; Ashmore v. Lees, 2 C. B. 31; ante, p. 365-6, a.

S. 24.-A. owned and occupied freehold land in the parish of B. of more than the clear yearly value of 40s., and also occupied, as tenant, a house of more than the clear yearly value of £10 in the parish of C., at a distance from the land,-both house and land being within the borough of D. Held, that A. was entitled to be registered for the county in respect of the land, and also for the borough in respect of the house; for that, in order to give effect to all the words of the 24th sect. of the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, as expounded by the 27th sect., it was necessary to read it as applicable to the tenant or owner distributively, and to construe the words "occupied by him therewith as owner as importing an ownership as well of the house as of the land to be united with it, in harmony with the provision by which tenanted land to be united with a tenanted house must be occupied under the same landlord. Capell v. The Overseers of Aston, 8 C. B. 1.

A. owned and occupied freehold land in the parish of B. of more than the clear yearly value of 40s., and also occupied, as tenant, a house of less than the clear yearly value of £10 in the parish of C. at a distance from the land, both house and land being within the borough of D., and, if added together, being of value sufficient to form a borough qualification. Held, that A. was entitled to be registered for the county in respect of the land, but not for the borough. Burton v. The Overseers of Aston, 8 C. B. 7.

S. 25.-A lessee of several houses (all locally situated within a borough) for the residue of a term of not less than sixty years, one such house being of sufficient value to confer a vote for the borough under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, if the remaining houses are each of less than that value, but collectively of more, is not deprived by s. 25 of his vote for the county under s. 20, in respect of such remaining houses. Webb v. The Overseers of Aston, 5 Man. & G. 14.

S. 26.--The words "actual possession" in the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 26, mean a possession in fact, as contradistinguished to a possession in law. Therefore a grantee of a rentcharge is not entitled to be registered unless he be in the actual receipt of it for six months before the last day of July. Murray v. Thorniley, 2 C. B. 217.

The assignee of a rent-charge is not entitled to be registered unless he has been in the actual receipt of it for six months before the last day of July. Hayden v. The Overseers of Twerton, 4 C. B. 1.

27.-See Webb v. The Overseers of Aston, 5 Man. & G. 14, ante, s. 25.

S. 27.-" House."

The occupier of part of a house, who has a key of the outer door, the landlord not residing in or occupying any portion of the premises, is entitled to vote. Semble per Maule, J., that" apartments" is a proper description of the premises occupied. Score v. Huggett, 7 Man. & G.

95.

The occupier of a floor in a house in which the landlord himself resides is a mere lodger, and not entitled to be registered as a voter, although he has a key to the outer door. Wansey v. Perkins (Hill's case), 7 Man. & G. 151. See Pitts v. Smedley, 7 Man. & G. 85.

A building the lower part of which is used as a cowhouse and stable, and the upper, consisting of a chamber, used as a dwelling place, is properly described as a house within the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. Nunn v. Denton, 7 Man. & G. 66.

A building calculated to be used as a dwelling house, though not used as such, is properly described as a house. Daniel v. Coulsting, 7 Man. & G. 122.

"Part of a house" is a sufficient statement of the qualification of a borough voter under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. Judson v. Luckett, 2 Com. B. 197. See Pitts v. Smedley, 7 Man. & G. 85.

"Counting House."

A. occupied, as a counting house, a room in a house the landlord of which also had a counting house there, but did not reside there. There was an outer door, which was locked at night. A. had no key of this door, nor was there any keyhole on the outside. A person employed and paid by the landlord lived in the house for the purpose of protecting the premises, and letting in the several tenants when the outer door was closed. Held, that A. was tenant of a counting house within 2 Will, 4, c. 45, s. 27. Downing v. Luckett, 5 C. B. 40. "Building."

A cowhouse or stable is a 66 building" within the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, the occupation of which will confer

the franchise for the borough. Whitmore v. Bedford, 5 M. & G. 9; Peele v. Downes, ib. 13, note; Peele v. Williams, ib. 13, note.

Rooms in a factory were let to cotton-spinners separately, the rents varying according to the size of the room. The approach to the rooms was either by a common staircase leading from the entrance to the factory (to which there was a door which was never fastened), or by separate outside staircases, or by doors opening into the yard. Each tenant had his own spinning machine (which was worked by a steam engine belonging to the landlord, it being part of each contract that the landlord should supply the steam power), and also the exclusive use of his room, and the key to the door thereof. Held, that the occupier of each room was the exclusive occupier of "a building" within 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. Wright v. The Town Clerk of Stockport, 5 M. & G. 33.

One who has the exclusive occupation of apartments in a house, at a rent, having a key of the outer door, and free and uncontrolled access thereto at all times, the landlord occupying a portion of the premises, but not residing therein, is entitled to be registered as tenant of a "building" within the 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. Toms v. Luckett, 5 C. B. 23.

"Where the revising barrister finds a certain erection to be a 66 building" under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27, and gives a description of it that does not necessarily show that it cannot be a building within the act, the court will not interfere with his decision. Watson v. Cotton, 5 C. B. 51.

"Joining Buildings," &c.

Webb v. Ashton, 5 Man. & Gr. 14. See s. 25.

Two distinct buildings cannot be joined together, in order to constitute a right to be registered as a borough voter under 2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. Dewhurst v. Feilden, 7 Man. & Gr. 182.

A tenant with several holdings under different landlords, each holding being under £50 a year, is not qualified, although together they amount to more than £50 a year. Gadsby v. Barrow, 7 Man. & Gr. 21; ante, s. 20.

A. occupied a shop, which together with a house and other premises, also occupied by him, constituted a sufficient qualification in point of value, but neither being sufficient alone. The shop was separated from the rest of the premises by a yard in the exclusive occupation of A.; but