The statement in writing by the revising barrister is duly transmitted to the masters, but the notice of intention to prosecute the appeal is not sent in time: Held, that the appeal cannot be entertained. An affidavit by the clerk of the attorney to the appellant, stating that the notice which is required to be signed by the appellant has by mistake not been sent, cannot be received as a substitute for such notice. Simpson v. Wilkinson, 5 Man. & G. 3.

The court cannot entertain an appeal in the absence of the respondent, unless there be an affidavit of service upon him of notice of the appellant's intention to prosecute the appeal under s. 64. Colvill v. Lewis, 2 Com. B. 60. See Aldworth v. Dore, 5 Com. B. 87.

Semble, that where the respondent appears on the appeal, he is precluded from objecting to the form of the service of the notice of appeal required by ss. 62, 64. Rawlins v. The Overseers of West Derby, 2 Com. B. 72.

A waiver by the respondent of the notice to him required by s. 64 will not enable the court to entertain the appeal in his absence. Newton v. The Overseers of Mobberley, 2 Com. B. 203.

The court has no power to hear an appeal where the respondent fails to appear, unless the appellant has served upon him a notice, under s. 62, of his intention to prosecute the appeal ten days at least before the first day appointed by the court for hearing appeals-that is, ten clear days, exclusive both of the day of service and of the day so appointed. Norton v. The Town Clerk of Salisbury, 4 Com. B. 32; Clarke v. Beaton, 5 Com. B. 76.

The court will not postpone the hearing of an appeal in order to afford time to give the necessary notice, upon a suggestion that the difficulty has arisen from the circumstance of their having appointed an unusually early day for hearing the appeals; there having been ample time to give the notice between the day appointed, and the day on which the decision of the revising barrister was pronounced. Adey v. Hill, 4 Com. B. 38.

The decision of the revising barrister took place on the 16th October. The appellants' attorney was taken ill in the last week of that month, and died on the 7th November. Held, that this was no excuse for the absence of the notice to the respondent required by s. 62, and that the court had no power under s. 64 to aid the appellant by postponing the hearing. Pring v. Estcourt, 4 Com. B. 73.

The decision of the revising barrister was not given

until Saturday the 30th October. The notice to the respondent under s. 62 was served on Tuesday the 2nd November, the first day appointed for hearing the appeals being the 11th. Held, that the case was within the proviso in s. 64, empowering the court to postpone the hearing where there had not been reasonable time to give the notice. Palmer v. Allen, 5 Com. B. 5.

The notice of the appellants' intention to prosecute his appeal under s. 62, must be signed by the appellant himself; the signature of an agent will not suffice. Where an appeal was tendered within the first four days of the term, with a notice imperfectly signed, the court refused to allow the appeal to be entered (the defect being cured) on the fifth day. Petherbridge v. Ash, 4 Com. B. 74.

An application by the respondent for leave to deliver paper books after the proper time does not dispense with the notice required to be served upon him by s. 62. Groves v. Bontems, 4 Com. B. 70. See Palmer v. Allen, 5 Com. B. 1-3.

The only notice that need be served upon the respondent is the ten days' notice, required by s. 62, of the appellant's intention duly to prosecute the appeal. Powell v. Caswell, 8 Com. B. 14.

S. 65. Where a case is remitted to the revising barrister in order that it may be more fully stated, the course is for the master to return it to the appellant with a note of the facts to be supplied, and for the appellant to transmit the same to the revising barrister. Webb v. The Overseers of Aston, 5 Man. & G. 14.

Semble, that where a statement in the case was "uncertain and insufficient," the revising barrister being present in court, the court permitted the case to be altered by him instanter. Whithorn v. Thomas, 7 Man. & G. 1.

Where a case sent by the revising barrister found that a claimant "stated" certain matters, it was remitted upon the ground that it set forth evidence and not facts. Pitts v. Smedley, 7 Man. & G. 85.

The court will not remit a case to the revising barrister for the insertion of a fact which the barrister considered to be immaterial. Hinton v. Hinton, 7 Man. &

G. 166, note (a).

S. 67. No order for altering the register pursuant to the decision of the court need be drawn up. Whitmore v. Bedford, 5 Man. & G. 9.

S. 69.-See Burton v. Langham, 5 Com. B. 92-108, note (a).

S. 70.-"Costs."

The court will not give costs upon an appeal, though only one side be heard, where a question of law, the fair subject of a doubt, is involved. Croucher v. Browne, 2 Com. B. 97. See Gale v. Chubb, 4 Com. B. 48; Jolliffe v. Rice, 6 Com. B. 10; Copland v. Bartlett, ib. 29; Simpson v. Wilkinson, 7 M. & G. 65.

Where the respondent appears, but the appellant does not, the decision of the revising barrister will be affirmed with costs, unless it appears that a similar point is involved in another case standing for argument. Bage v. Perkins, 7 Man. & G. 156; Allen v. House, ib. 157; White v. Pring, 8 Com. B. 13.

S. 73.-Burton v. Gery, 5 Com. B. 7; see s. 4.

S. 74. The trustees of an almshouse were empowered by letters patent of incorporation to appoint and remove twenty-four inmates "toties quoties sibi conveniens fore videbitur." Held, that the inmates appointed under the power did not take an estate for life in the property enjoyed by them as such inmates, and were therefore not entitled to be registered as freeholders. Davis v. Waddington, 7 Mann. & G. 37.

The minister of a dissenting chapel was invited to become pastor by letter from the deacons, and upon this invitation entered upon the office of minister, and took possession of a house and premises vested in trustees, to permit the minister of the chapel "during his life, if he should so long continue pastor," to occupy the same without paying any rent. Held, that the minister had an equitable estate for life under the trusts of the deed in the house and premises, and was entitled to vote in respect thereof. Burton v. Brooks, 21 Law Journal Rep. Ń. S. 7 (C. P.).

The inmates of an hospital in the county of York, founded and endowed by the Duke of N. in 1673, claimed to be registered for the county of Nottingham. It appeared that the revenues of the hospital were derived from lands in Yorkshire and Nottinghamshire, which were vested in trustees; that the whole formed one fund, out of which the trustees paid a weekly stipend to each inmate; that originally each inmate received 2s. 6d. a week, and a certain yearly allowance of coals and clothing, but that the weekly payment had subsequently been increased to 10s.; that by one of the constitutions of the charity it was provided, that if at the end of any year there should be found in the treasury of the hospital above 1001., the

surplus should be divided amongst the pensioners; and that the appointment was for life, no instance of dismissal being known. By an act of parliament modifying the constitutions of the charity, it was provided, that instead of having the surplus revenues distributable amongst the original number of the pensioners, additional pensioners should be chosen, and the trustees, under the direction of the duke, were empowered and directed from time to time to add as many more pensioners as the revenues of the hospital would allow (leaving a sufficient surplus for repairs and incidental expenses); and the trustees were, under the directions of the duke, to pay the pensioners such fixed stipends as they should think fit (having regard to the revenues of the hospital), and to lessen or increase, vary, change, and alter such weekly stipends as they should find requisite, so that the stipends should at no time be reduced below 3s. 6d. per week. The revising barrister having held that the inmates had no legal or equitable interest in the funds of the hospital to a sufficient amount to entitle them to be registered, assuming that they had no absolute right to more than 3s. 6d. per week, the court affirmed his decision, and held that the rents derived from the lands in the two counties might be apportioned. Ashmore v. Lees, 2 Com. B. 31.

A mortgagor in possession is not, under section 74, entitled to be registered as a voter, unless his estate therein is of the value of 40s. per annum beyond the interest payable upon the mortgage. Copland v. Bartlett, 6 Com. B. 18.

The claimant, a member of a building society, purchased land of the yearly value of 6l., and mortgaged it to the trustees of the society for the amount of the purchase-money which they had advanced to him. He was also a holder of three shares in the society. By the rules of the society he was bound to pay 1s. 6d. weekly for each share (117. 14s. per annum); and by the mortgage, which was in accordance with the rules of the society, power was reserved to the trustees, on neglect or refusal to observe any of the regulations, &c., to sell the premises, &c., and receive the rents. By the mortgage, a sum equal to 51. per cent. as premium for prior advances was to be, and was secured; and the sum fixed to be paid for incidental expenses was 6s. per annum, which was also secured. Of the 117. 14s. per annum, 21. 16s. was appropriated to the payment of interest on the money still due upon the mortgage, and for incidental expenses,

and the remainder was taken in part discharge of the mortgage debt, and a receipt given from time to time. Held, that the whole 117. 14s. must be deducted from the annual value of the estate, and therefore that the claimant had not an estate of the value of 40s. by the year within the meaning of 8 Hen. 6, c. 7, and the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 74, and was not entitled to vote for a knight of the shire. Beamish v. The Overseers of Stoke, 21 Law Jour. Rep. N. S., 9 (C. P.); and see Lee v. Hutchinson, 8 Com. B. 16.

S. 75.-See ante, pp. 378-9, A. Hughes v. The Overseers of Chatham, 5 Mann. & G. 54; Moss v. The Overseers of St. Michael, Lichfield, 7 Mann. & G. 72 ; Cook v. Luckett, 2 Com. B. 168; Pariente v. Luckett, ib. 177; Judson v. Luckett, ib. 197.

[S. 81, 82.-See Pryce v. Belcher, 3 C. B. 58, and 4 C. B. 866. An action on the case against a returning officer for refusing to admit the vote of the plaintiff, in contravention of s. 82. Held, that though the returning officer might have thereby subjected himself to a criminal prosecution for a breach of public duty, the plaintiff could not sue him for damages, having, in fact, become by nonresidence disqualified to vote.]

S. 100. The duties of a postmaster in receiving and forwarding notices of objection under the Registration Act are merely ministerial, and may in his absence be performed by a clerk. Cooper v. Coates, 5 Mann. & G. 98.

Under s. 100, a notice of objection may be posted by an agent for the objector; and the objector himself may produce the stamped duplicate of such notice before the revising barrister, although the notice was posted by an agent. Cuming v. Toms, 7 Mann. & G. 29.

A notice of objection, and also the duplicate notice, where notice of objection is sent by post, must be personally signed by the objector. Toms v. Cuming, 7 Mann. & G. 88.

Sending the notice of objection to the party objected to by the post, pursuant to the directions of s. 100, is a sufficient substitute for giving the notice to the party, or leaving it at his place of abode, as required by s. 7. Where, therefore, a notice was posted under s. 100, in sufficient time to reach the party according to the ordinary course of post, on the 25th of August: Held, that such service was sufficient, notwithstanding that the actual delivery was accidentally delayed until the 27th; and held, that the provisions of s. 100 are equally ap