WESTMINSTER ELECTION PETITION. hundredth part of that amount was the ordinary payment, according to the above evidence, although I must say that other evidence which was given yesterday was contradictory as to that. There was next the evidence with regard to those two letters upon which Mr. Stephen commented very lately, and there is not the slightest doubt that if I were satisfied that that letter which Charles Wheeler said he wrote-although Charles Wheeler was not an agent whose conduct would affect Mr. Smith, because he stands in the same position as Davis, and Mr. Smith is not responsible for him as a canvasser-if, I repeat, I were satisfied that the letter which he adduced was really and truly the letter that he wrote to Mr. Edwards, I do not know what effect it would have upon my mind. But I am not satisfied of it. The evidence of Mr. Edwards with regard to that does not convince my mind that such were really the contents of that letter. It may be that if the letter were otherwise framed, Mr. Edwards's letter would be conformable to it. It is of course, however, a very strong circumstance in this case. In addition, you | have the evidence of the two Wheelers, taking it for what it is worth, of what was actually done with respect to these boards. I need not say that that was a strong primâ facie case to answer, and they brought evidence against it. I have already said what the point upon which the case turns is. It turns upon whether or not the exhibition of these boards, and whether the payment for them, was really bona fide and honest. What have we then against the evidence of the Wheelers on this matter? In the first place, we have the evidence of Mr. Edwards. I have already said that I do not want to say anything offensive to Mr. Edwards, or anything that would cause him pain, but if the evidence had stood upon him alone I could not have failed, but should have felt bound, to take his antecedents into my consideration. I dare say that what Mr. Edwards said is perfectly true, that in the year 1851 bribery was regarded as a very different thing from what it was regarded in 1868, or is regarded in 1869, and probably those persons who live to see another general election may find that further progress will be made with regard to it in 1873 or 1874, when probably the next election will take place. That may be so, and if a case were to be tried, and the same evidence were to be adduced in the case in 1873 or 1874 as has been adduced here, the person who sits in the position which I occupy might form a different conclusion upon it. It might well be that a person sitting and hearing the evidence might come to a different conclusion from that at which I have arrived, and I do not think anyone would complain if the judge upon this evidence arrived at a different conclusion from mine. He would have ample evidence before him, and it might be that it would strike his mind more strongly than it strikes mine. But, as I have said, if the case stood upon the evidence of Mr. Edwards it would go to negative that which is essential for the unseating of Mr. Smith; and although circumstantial evidence was strong against him, yet if his evidence was true it would negative that which is essential to unseat Mr. Smith. But then I come to the evidence of Mr. Grimston. Mr. Grimston has given his evidence upon this matter, and he has stated that which, if it be true, shows that it was not a dishonest exhibition of those boards. He has sworn so. He is a gentleman of position and name. I believe he was formerly a member of the Bar; he has retired from it for many years I believe, but he has been a public man, and he has been the chairman of one of the telegraph companies, I believe the most extensive one in the kingdom, and he is a perfectly well-known man, and I believe his character for honesty and uprightness and veracity has never been questioned by anyone. No doubt this may have been an imprudent thing, it may have been a suspicious thing, but he has pledged his oath that it was done bonâ fide, and that he had no intention, nor, as far as he knew, had Mr. Edwards any intention, of using it as a means of bribery. And therefore, as it seems to me, believing Mr. Grimston's evidence, as I do believe it implicitly, I am justified in acting upon it and in believing that the supplying those boards and paying for them was not a colourable act, but was a real bonâ fide act for the purpose of having those boards exhibited to the public. It has been proved satisfactorily, I think, that there was a difficulty in this district in finding places where show-boards and placards could be exhibited, and that this plan was had recourse to of necessity for the purpose of giving publicity to the candidature of Mr. Smith. It may have been a little over done. It may have been that some of the agents may have had improper views with regard to it. But I think when I have to determine whether there was passing in Mr. Edwards's and Mr. Grimston's minds a design to evade this Act of Parliament and to act colourably, I am bound, believing as I thoroughly do the entire of the evidence of Mr. Grimston, to say that, in my judgment, this case has not been made out against Mr. Smith. It is, therefore, my determination that Mr. Smith has been duly elected, and I shall report to the Speaker in conformity with that determination. There are two other minor matters which I have also to report upon; but they are merely formal. It is merely that I have no reason to believe that corrupt practices have generally prevailed in Westminster, and that I have no reason to believe that any candidate connected with this election has been guilty of anything wrong. The only other question is the question with regard to costs. With regard to that matter, it has been my desire that costs should follow the event. In one instance I departed from that because I thought, and apparently with the consent of the learned counsel for the respondent, that the case was not one for costs by reason of a number of persons having lost their franchise from their own folly in the manner in which they tendered their votes. But although my impression strongly is that the costs should follow the event in this case, I certainly should not give the entire of them, for, in my opinion, this case has lasted a great deal too long. If I make any deduction as to costs at all, as I have authority to do under the Act of Parliament, I shall probably make some direction stating what amount of costs I think the petitioners should bear. But I observe that some of the other judges, in more cases than one, have proceeded upon the principle of not giving costs where there was reasonable or probable cause for the petition. And if they in their judgment— I should rather say, if we in our joint-judgment, when I have an opportunity of seeing them-consider that we ought to be governed in giving costs by the consideration as to whether there was reasonable or probable cause for the petition, and that that is to be the ground upon which this matter is to be determined, I should be inclined not to give costs at all, for I think that there was reasonable and proper ground for the petition, indeed, I think there was strong ground for it. But, however, with regard to that matter (it is rather a collateral question), I will take the first opportunity I have of seeing Mr. Justice Willes or Mr. Justice Blackburn, or perhaps both of them, and I will communicate to the registrar, Mr. Avory, what determination we arrive at. There is no reason for any adjourned sitting afterwards upon it, but I will report to the Speaker as I have stated. Hawkins, Q. C.-With reference to any special JUDGES' CH.] STAFFORD ELECTION PETITION--OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. directions as to costs, perhaps your Lordship will allow me to say that we had delivered to us a long list of 100 persons who were alleged to have been bribed, and we were therefore obliged to be prepared with the evidence of all those persons. MARTIN, B. I can only form my opinion from the evidence adduced to me. This case has occupied nearly seven days, and I certainly have a very strong impression that it has lasted too long.(a) Agents for the petitioners, Cobb and Southey. Agents for the respondent, Rogerson and Ford. JUDGES' CHAMBERS. Reported by F. O. CRUMP, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. STAFFORD ELECTION PETITION. (Before BLACKburn, J.) Particulars of accounts-Inspection of vouchers. Particulars of a respondent's accounts can be obtained only by means of interrogatories. But an order made for inspection of vouchers. In this petition the Hon. E. Chandos Leigh applied for particulars of two sums mentioned in the accounts filed by the election agent of the respondent, the sitting member, and for inspection of the vouchers relating to the same. Jeune contended that no such order could have been made under the old practice, and that the 2nd section of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868, considered in connection with the 25th, did not incorporate the Common Law Procedure Acts into the procedure on election petitions. It was further urged that the particulars asked for could, in accordance with common law practice, be obtained only by interrogatories; and that the vouchers being in the possession of the election agent, who was bound by 26 Vict. c. 29, s. 3 to file them, were not in the possession or under the control of the respondent himself. The 2nd section of the Act (31 & 32 Vict. c. 125) says that the court shall, "subject to the provisions of this Act, have the same powers, jurisdiction, and authority with reference to an election petition, and the proceedings thereon as it would have if such petition were an ordinary cause within their jurisdiction." The 25th section enables the judges to make rules and orders. BLACKBURN, J. thought that the 2nd section of the Parliamentary Elections Act 1868 gave the judges power to make orders with respect to election petitions in conformity with the Common Law Procedure Acts. The particulars sought could only be obtained by means of interrogatories. But an order could be made for inspection of the vouchers. Agents: Wyatt; Baxter, Rose, and Norton. [ELECT. PET, ELECTION PETITIONS. Reported by F. O. CRUMP, Esq., Barrister-at-Law. OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. March 16 to 23, 1869. (Before BLACKBURN, J.) Scrutiny-Opening the register-6 Vict. c. 18-Mode of procedure-Ambiguous headings to votes-Particulars -11 & 12 Vict. c. 98, s. 56, rule 7-Receipt of Residence-Judge's parochial relief — Personation power to amend barrister's list-Nonpayment of rates -Matter for revising barrister-Double occupancy Tendered votes-Intimidation. There were four candidates, H., P., C., and S., of whom two, H. and P., were returned. C. and S. petitioned against their return. C. was in a minority of six as regarded P. and of twenty-four as regarded H. S. was in a minority of thirty-eight as regarded P. and of fifty-six as regarded H.: Held, that the best course to pursue was for the pettioners to put C. in a majority over P., and then for the respondents to attack the votes of the petitioners; and that if C. should succeed in beating P. then S. should be left to beat H. The court will not allow any formal objection to the several heads of objection in _the_lists provided to be given by the 7th of the Regula Generales: Semble, if a name is placed on the register any objection should be in the shape of an appeal, as the register is intended to be conclusive. The court will order the books of the overseers to be produced for examination by counsel on either side, for the purpose of showing what voters have received parochial relief. The charge of personation is a matter of fact in which the evidence explains itself. The question of residence is a matter of fact which the judge will decide on the evidence. Where the names of persons appear in the lists of voters, although struck off by the revising barrister, and those persons voted, it would seem doubtful whether the judge has any power to amend. It is competent to the judge to deal with objections actually taken and overruled by the revising barrister. The petitioners in preparing their lists did not refer to persons who had not paid their rates before July 31: Held, that the matter could not be gone into, as it was one which must have come before the revising barrister. An objection of double occupancy is one which should be taken before the revising barrister, and if not then taken cannot be raised before the judge. Where good votes are tendered and rejected at the poll they will be added on the scrutiny. Persons making threats through other persons, and persons through whom they are made, are guilty of a misdemeanor, and their votes are bad, and will be struck off on a scrutiny. The following was the form of petition in this case: The petition of John Morgan Cobbett, of Edenbridge, in the county of Kent, Esquire; and Frederick Lowten Spinks, of Brenley House, near Faversham, in the county of Kent, Serjeant-at-law; and Thomas Evans Lees, of Hathersham-lodge, in the borough of Oldham, in the county palatine of Lancaster, Esquire; and John Bentley, of the (a) Subsequently an order was made that each party borough of Oldham aforesaid, land agent: whose should pay his own costs. names are subscribed. OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. Frederick Lowten Spinks, or one of them, which said votes, or some of them, were improperly rejected or omitted to be recorded, or when tendered for both, were only recorded for one of them, and that such votes ought now to be recorded, and entered upon the poll in favour of the said John Morgan Cobbett and Frederick Lowten Spinks. 11. And your petitioners say that at the above of voters for the said horough of Oldham, or otherwise improperly entered on such register, tendered votes in favour of the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, which votes were improperly recorded for them, or one of them, but were in fact null and void, and ought now to be struck off the poll. 2. And your petitioners state that the election was holden on the 17th Nov. 1868, when John Tomlinson Hibbert, of Urmstone Grange, near Shet-election certain persons not entered on the register ford, in the said county of Lancaster, Esquire; and John Platt, of Oldham aforesaid, Esquire; and your petitioners John Morgan Cobbett and Frederick Lowten Spinks were candidates; and the returning officer has returned the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt as being duly elected. 3. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons corruptly voted for, and were reckoned upon the poll of, the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, whose votes were obtained by bribery or undue influence, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, were consequently null and void, and ought now to be struck off the poll. 4. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons corruptly voted for, and were reckoned upon the poll of, the said John Tomlinson Hibbert, and John Platt, or one of them, whose votes were obtained by treating, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, were consequently void and of none effect, and ought now to be struck off the poll. 5. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons, who voted for the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John' Platt, or one of them, did knowingly personate and falsely assume to vote, and did vote, in the names of certain other persons whose names appear upon the register of voters for the said borough of Oldham, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, ought now to be struck off the poll. 6. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons were admitted to vote, and did vote, for the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, who were not at the time duly qualified to vote at the said election, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, ought now to be struck off the poll. 7. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons were admitted to vote, and did vote, for the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, who were at the time subject to legal incapacity, or were otherwise disqualified by law from voting at the said election, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, ought now to be struck off the poll. 8. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons voted respectively more than once, and had such votes recorded more than once for the said John Tomlinson Hibbert, and John Platt, or one of them, and that the votes of such persons, or some of them, so more than once given and recorded, ought now to be struck off the poll. 9. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons voted for, and were reckoned on the poll of, the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, who had not, according to the statute in that case, made and provided ever since the 31st July last, resided, and at the time of so voting continued to reside, within the said borough of Oldham, or within the distance of seven miles therefrom, and that the votes of such persons were null and void, and ought now to be struck off the poll. 10. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons, duly qualified to vote, tendered their votes respectively in favour of your petitioners, the said John Morgan Cobbett and | 12. And your petitioners say that at the above election certain persons duly qualified to vote tendered their votes respectively in favour of your petitioners the said John Morgan Cobbett, and Frederick Lowten Spinks, or one of them, and that such votes were duly received, but were wrongly recorded and entered as being in favour of the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, and that the votes of such persons or some of them, ought now to be struck off the poll of the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or one of them, and entered and recorded in favour of the said John Morgan Cobbett and Frederick Lowten Spinks, or one of them. 13. And your petitioners say that at the above election, the real majority of good and legal votes polled at the above election was not in favour of the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt, or either of them, and that your petitioners the said John Morgan Cobbett and Frederick Lowten Spinks, or one of them, had a majority of good and legal votes, and that they were, or one of them was, duly elected members or a member to serve in Parliament, and ought to be returned as such. Wherefore your petitioners pray that it may be determined that the said John Tomlinson Hibbert and John Platt were not, or that one of them was not, duly elected or returned, and that your petitioners the said John Morgan Cobbett and Frederick Lowten Spinks were, or that one of them was, duly elected and ought to have been returned. JOHN M. COBBETT. FRED L. SPINKS. THOMAS EVANS LEES. JOHN BENTLEY. The counsel for the petitioners were Rodwell, Q.C., Higgin, Q.C., and Leresche; Edwards and Herschell were for the respondents. Rodwell, in opening the case, said that it was one which would be free from those charges which were generally entered into in inquiries of this nature. In the points which would be raised, no difficulty would arise upon the construction of agency, and he believed he was right in anticipating that on those points they would require His Lordship's experience and familiarity with Acts of Parliament to decide various questions which had been somewhat undecided hitherto by decisions of election committees. Before he entered into the different heads and the allegations contained in the petition, perhaps it might be worth while to give a little history of the circumstances under which this election took place. [This he proceeded to do, and continued :-] The population of Oldham was upwards of 100,000, and the number of voters on the register 13,454. Of these, so far as he could make out, something like 12,200 polled. The numbers were for Mr. Hibbert, 6140; for Mr. Platt, 6122; for Mr. Cobbett, 6116; for Mr. Spinks, 6084. His Lordship would take that calculation from him, and he would OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. perceive that Mr. Cobbett was in a minority of 6 votes so far as regarded Mr. Platt, and 24 so far as regarded Mr. Hibbert; Mr. Serjeant Spinks was in a minority of 38 as regarded Mr. Platt, and 56 so far as regarded Mr. Hibbert. There were, he understood, very few plumpers given, and very little of what was called cross voting. The parties seemed loyally to have stuck to the candidates on each side; and of course his Lordship could inform them whether the mode of dealing with the scrutiny would be a correct one. Under ordinary circumstances, where there were only two persons to decide betwixt, of course the person in the minority must first place himself in a majority, and then the person thus placed in a minority must strike off his opponent's votes. Here, however, there were four persons engaged, and therefore he presumed the best and simplest plan would be for the petitioner Mr. Cobbett to strike off several votes, so as to put himself in a majority over Mr. Platt; and then the other course would be for Serjeant Spinks to endeavour to render his minority into a majority. That would have to be disposed of whenever they had dealt with Mr. Cobbett. He did not see any other way. They must go on striking off votes. Cobbett and Spinks must strike off the votes of Hibbert and Platt. Directly they put Cobbett into a mafority, then the other side would have to attack their (the petitioners') votes. BLACKBURN, J.-This is the first case of the kind that has been tried. I do not see any objection to that course. Do you, Mr. Edwards? Edwards: I don't see any objection to it. BLACKBURN, J.-The effect would be, when you brought it in such a position that Mr. Cobbett beats Mr. Platt, you will leave Mr. Spinks to beat Mr. Hibbert. That would be as convenient a course as any. I take it for granted, there being so many votes challenged on each side, that you will probably agree upon this course. Rodwell said that all that could possibly be done to reduce the number of cases to be discussed would be done. The allegations in the petition had been reduced to the different heads of objection now comprised in what he would call the bill of particulars. That bill had been prepared by the petitioners, at all events, in strict conformity with the 7th rule which their Lordships had settled with reference to the information, he presumed, which each party was to give to their opponents. That rule was founded on the 56th section of the 11 & 12 Vict. c. 98; and perhaps it might be worth while, as some discussion might take place on that subject hereafter, that he should call attention to the particular words of the statute :-That the parties complaining of or defending elections, or returning complaints of any election petition, shall, except in the cases herein before provided for, by themselves or their agent, deliver in to the clerk, at his office, a list of votes intended to be objected to, giving in the said lists the several heads of the objection, distinguishing the same against the names of the voter. And the said clerk shall keep the list so delivered to him in his office open to the inspection of all parties. Now, it had been the usage in Parliamentary committees that these lists should be strictly adhered to, and that parties should not be allowed to travel out of the petition. By the 7th rule it was provided that when the petitioner claimed the seat, alleging that he had the majority of lawful votes, the parties complaining of or defending the election return, should, six days before the day appointed, deliver to the master a list of votes intended to be objected to, and no evidence should be good against the validity or invalidity, nor upon any head of objection not specified in the list, except by leave of the court or judge, as might be ordered. He invited his Lordship's attention to the rule, and also to the statute, because at some period or another of the inquiry he should have to take his Lordship's opinion as to the right of his friends to go into votes which came under very ambiguous headings. He mentioned this with the view of saving his Lordship the trouble of having the statute brought before him again when the objection arose; and he wished to intimate to his friends on the other side most candidly, with regard to the several heads of objection relied upon by them, that there were several objections which he would take to the headings, and the validity of their going into the votes under them. Edwards.-I may state also, that there are several objections which I shall take to their form. BLACKBURN, J.-I shall not at present entertain any objection to any special heading. The substance of justice, which I have always kept in view in these cases, is that the matter shall not be affected by any slips of form. Rodwell said there were several points which would arise in the course of the investigation, and he thought there were one or two leading points of law connected with that matter to which he would invite attention. He referred to what had caused the greatest struggles in committees in former times, namely, what was called "opening the register." Of course they would have to be guided by his Lordship as to the legal effect of expressions which admitted, he believed, of considerable doubt, and that would determine a good deal the course which he and his friends on the other side would pursue in conducting these cases. Under the 6 Vict. c. 18, there was a considerable difference of opinion in practice amongst committees with regard to opening the register. The greatest leading lights of the day had argued that point before the committees with different results, but they had in the main the decision given to the effect that no questions could be gone into which might have been raised before a revising barrister, and on which that revising barrister had not given a reverse opinion. After some further remarks on this point, the learned counsel said if the register was to be conclusive for practical purposes, then it was actually the polling book. But it was not so, for a man might be on the register, and yet not be entitled to vote. For instance, an infant or a custom-house officer might be on the register, and the fact of the revising barrister having placed a man on the register did not, consequently, prevent his vote from being cancelled if grounds sufficient to warrant its cancelment were discovered subsequent to the revision. It was the same if a person was receiving parochial relief after the 31st July; he was then entitled to be on the register, though he was disqualified for voting. The same with a briber; although his name was on the register his vote was not valid, and it was this class of voters that the petitioners asked his Lordship to strike off-both in the case of the briber and the bribed-and those who had voted when under age, and thereby reduce the majority of Messrs. Hibbert and Platt to a minority. BLACKBURN, J.-After a name is placed on the register by the barrister, any objection should be in the shape of an appeal, for the register was intended to be conclusive. I shall consider this, however, if it is likely to turn the election, according as the facts are brought out in evidence, as a point to be reserved, this being the first time the question has OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. been brought up in an inquiry. My present impression is, that if after the registration the incapacity of the voter was discovered-he not being of full age for instance—the decision of the revising barrister could only be brought before me in the nature of an appeal. Rodwell intimated that he believed the issue of the scrutiny might depend upon the view his Lordship took of this matter. BLACKBURN, J.-If it was simply a question of whether a certain number of people were of full age or not at the time of the election, they being on the register, there would be no difficulty in the matter, for the facts could easily be ascertained. Rodwell went on to say that both himself and his learned friend on the other side had experienced the greatest difficulty in being unable to ascertain the modus operandi of revising barristers in the retaining or expunging of names from the register. The officials having the custody of the revising barristers' lists would not allow them to inspect the books, and therefore they were quite in the dark on the matter. In counties the thing is clear enough. The clerk of the peace has the lists of revising barristers by special Act of Parliament, but in boroughs, curious enough, there is no such legal enactment, and the list is given to the returning officer the mayor. BLACKBURN, J.-Then de facto there is no difficulty in our way, for I suppose the books are in the town clerk's offices. There can be no doubt the revising barristers' lists ought to be inspected by both sides; and I have no doubt those who have the custody of the books will allow them to do so. The books can be brought here and inspected, or, as they will no doubt be tolerably voluminous, it might be more convenient to examine them elsewhere. The revising barristers' books were then produced, and the system of the barristers in expunging and retaining votes was explained to his Lordship. Rodwell then asked the interference of the court in another matter with regard to the list of those who had been receiving parochial relief. In this question both sides had been put in immense difficulty, because the relieving officers, or those having the custody of the books, had not thought themselves at liberty to give information or produce the books. The simplest way they could have taken, and it must come to pass sooner or later, would have been to have allowed them to ascertain whether John Smith or anyone else had received parochial relief since the 31st July. As this could only be ascertained from the books, they could not get at it. BLACKBURN, J. thought the question was whether the parochial officer was the right person to bring his books or to give on evidence whether so-and-so had received relief. There could be no doubt both parties ought to have been allowed to see the books. Rodwell explained that this difficulty they had tried to get over by subpoenaing the relieving officers. BLACKBURN, J. considered that if the books had been allowed to be examined by both parties it would have simplified matters very much, as it would prevent them having to go into the details of the cases in court. One person on each side had better inspect the books, so as to prevent any unnecessary trouble. It was then arranged that one of the barristers on each side should examine the relief books and the barrister's register in an ante-room. This Rodwell resumed, and said that he would now pass to the various heads which they had stated in their particulars, with reference to the voters whom they sought to strike off. First, there was the charge of personation; and of this there were two classesthe first was a case in which one person had voted in existence, where he had died or left the country, for another, and secondly where there was no voter and where some other person assumed his name and voted. Of course this would be entirely a question of fact, and they should call evidence of parties who, on going to claim their votes, found that somebody else had voted in their name. could certainly be excused in some cases, for in a population like this there seemed to be some names extremely common on the register, and, therefore, they might charitably suppose in many cases persons were misled, and had innocently committed what was a misdemeanour if shown to be by design. But in two or three cases parties would be proved to have committed the act knowing at the time that they had no right to vote in respect to the name upon the register they had assumed. Each of those cases was complete in itself, and therefore they could not get any decision in any case which would decide the issue of the whole. His Lordship would have to decide upon the facts, and he would not go into the details of these cases. [BLACKBURN, J.-It will be quite unnecessary; the evidence will explain itself.] The second charge was regarding non-residents within seven miles after the 31st July. This count involved the question of what was a residence, and the legal interpretation set down was that residence was home as ruled in the case of Whithorn v. Thomas. In one case they should object to the voter as being a non-resident, he living over seven miles outside the boundary of the borough. He resided 25ft. over seven miles outside the boundary according to the measurement of the surveyor, and the statute allowed a margin of 20ft., so that this case would be a very close one. [BLACKBURN, J. a matter of fact.] I should deal with that as The count of "occupancy would be practically withdrawn. Then as to section 4, it was a very important head, because in it occurred that word which seemed to puzzle everybody, namely, “corruptly," and their case was that some person on behalf of the voter, either directly or indirectly, paid the rates for certain voters for the purpose of enabling them to become eligible to vote in the election. The Act stated that if any person shall either directly or indirectly corruptly pay any rates on behalf of any ratepayer for the purpose of enabling him to be put on the register for the borough, and thereby influence his vote on any future election: or if any candidate shall directly or indirectly pay any rate on behalf of any voter for the purpose of inducing him to vote, or to refrain from voting, he shall be guilty of bribery, and any person on whose behalf and with whose privity any such payment as in the section is mentioned is made shall also be guilty of bribery, and shall be punishable accordingly This clause regulated the sections relating to the briber or the bribee, or the payer and the payee The main facts in this particular case were that several persons who were very greatly interested on the behalf of Messrs. Hibbert and Plattin fact were active partisans-went to several men in their employment, and gave them money for the purpose of paying their rates in order that they might vote. The question would be, of course for his Lordship to determine how far this conduct could be brought within the meaning of "corruptly." Some of those to whom money was so paid were parties who would rather, in some instances, not have voted at all-who would have been glad of the |