OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. opportunity of not paying their rates, to be spared who had received relief from 31st July 1867. He the trouble and anxiety of voting; but to many of wished to know how far he should be permitted these people money was sent through most curious to go into the cases previously to July 1868. sources-in some instances through unseen hands- [BLACKBURN, J.-That very much depends upon and the name of a woman was mentioned-and whether you have raised the question before the question for his Lordship to consider was, the revising barrister.] He thought there would whether he could infer corruption or not from the be some cases where objections were taken act. In one particular class of cases, there could which his Lordship would go into. He prebe no doubt about the corruption; for it appeared sumed he would not go into those cases to that upon the 20th July a person named Partington, which it could be shown the revising bara very active partisan, and a clerk in the service at rister's attention had been particularly called. He Messrs. Platt's works, gave several voters money then proceeded to refer to various cases in which for the express purpose of paying their rates. It relief was alleged to have been given to a member did not appear that the voters asked him for money, of a family, and that was held to be a receipt of but that he suggested to them, or other persons parochial relief so as to invalidate a vote. With resuggested for him, that the men should borrow gard to the 8th heading, he had already said that all money, which was done, no doubt, in a business-like that was necessary was with regard to the construcway, for money was advanced to them on that tion of the 98th section of 6 Vict. c. 18, with reference morning for the purpose of paying their rates, and to persons incapacitated from want of age, his arguthe money was to be repaid by 1s. instalments ment being that he had a right to strike these off, deducted from their wages. He ventured to think because they were incapacitated by statute. The ninth that the corrupt character of this transaction objection was the list of those who were treated. would be ascertained by the statements which These were simple cases which would be dealt with the parties would make with regard to the object when they arrived at the evidence. Then the tenth of their having this money. If he could show that objection was to persons objected to on the ground they did not borrow it at their own suggestion, but that they were struck off by the revising barrister, that the loan was forced upon them, and that they and consequently the names ought not to have would not have paid their rates had it not been for been on the list at the time of the election. That the loan, then taking into consideration the position was a very peculiar form of objection. With regard held by Mr. Partington and others-that they were to that the plea of the petitioners was that the active partisans of Messrs. Hibbert and Platt--he printed copy of the register, which was the guide thought the inference to be drawn was that the to the poll-clerk and the returning officer, was not money was paid indirectly for the purpose of paying a correct copy of the lists as left by the revising the rates, and thereby influencing the election. The barrister. That was a matter of fact, which would section he had alluded to applied both to the person be determined by an inspection of the lists they were who received the bribe and the briber, and if he going to revise. Supposing those names appeared on could show that the men to whom the money was the list in spite of being struck off by the revising given had not repaid it, he apprehended that the barrister, and the persons gave their votes to the votes were bad votes according to the statute-that respondents, he submitted it was within his Lordthey had been guilty of bribing and of receiving ship's power to amend the matter. [BLACKBURN, J. bribes. The sixth heading was votes objected to on said it would require a careful looking at the words the ground that he had before or during the election of the statute to show how such a case should be accepted a direct or value consideration for voting. dealt with; he would not like to decide it off-hard.] These were simple cases of bribery, and they took He did not ask his Lordship to do so. There was a different forms. One was a case in which he would fault in the law, and he thought it was a matter show that there were several voters at Macclesfield, which Parliament should take into their own and that their expenses were paid by the railway, hands. [BLACKBURN, J. remarked that perhaps and they also had 5s. for loss of time in coming to the Legislature had regarded such mistakes as vote. He presumed if he proved that, and that they so improbable that they never contemplated would not have given their votes had it not been the question would be raised.] The next point for the payment of that 5s., that was in referred to several voters objected to in Sept. point of fact nothing but bribery, and that 1868, whose names had been retained on the the votes would have to be struck off. There register by the express decision of the revising were one or two isolated cases, the particulars barrister. That, he believed, was a very proper and of which would be heard when the evidence was correct heading. The case of each voter was put given. The seventh was a very large class of against his name, and in preparing that head they objections, on the ground of persons being dis- believed they had complied with the Act of Parliaqualified to vote by reason of their having received ment. He would now refer to a head of objection parochial relief or other alms since the 31st July by his learned friends, and if he could get an 1867, or previous to the election. When he first expression of opinion regarding it, it would be very read this he thought it was 1868, but it appeared important for the sake of all parties. It was a that it referred to persons who received relief since matter which had already been the subject of an July 1867, up to the time of the election. It application to his Lordship. In conformity with the appeared by the 40th section of the Representation 7th rule prepared by the judges, and also with the Act, it was provided that the overseers ought to Act of Parliament, clause 17 of the respondents prepare a list of persons who had received parochial was, he submitted, so vague and bad that no evirelief. By the 36th Will. 4, c. 45, persons were dis- dence ought to be allowed to be given of any votes qualified who had received parochial relief, and the included under that heading, which comprised names overseers ought to prepare a list of such persons said to be improperly retained on the list of voters who had received relief within twelve months next by the revising barrister. There were eighteen previous to the 12th July previous to the election. names about which there was no information given There did not appear to have been any list made to the petitioners. There was no head of objection. out. [BLACKBURN, J. said the overseers ought to The head merely stated that each of the voters was mention the names of those who received relief, but objected to as not entitled to have his name retained it was not required they should make any separate on the list, the revising barrister having improperly list. Probably it would be worthy the attention of retained his name. He submitted that this was a the legislature that such should be the case, but it departure from the letter and spirit of the Act of was not so now.] That only accounted for those Parliament, and also the 7th rule made by the judges. OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. The question was, whether they would have to deal with this numerous list, without having the slightest information as to the ground of objection. BLACKBURN, J.-There should have been more information given. Edwards thought they would find that with the exception of one or two in classes 17 and 18 all the names were under one or other of the classes specified. BLACKBURN, J. said it would be competent to him to deal with objections that had been actually taken and overruled before the revising barrister. Probably there might have been previous matters, but he thought it would be giving a great deal too much latitude to allow any other objections to be raised without a distinct notice of objection. He was inclined to think the respondents had made the matter too vague to be of much use at the present time. Rodwell next referred to class 16 of the respondents, relating to persons retained on the list of voters by the revising barrister, although it was stated that they had not paid an equal amount in the pound on account of poor-rate in respect of their premises before 20th July. These, however, were cases in which it did not appear there had been objection raised before the revising barrister, and their claims had been allowed. This was a case which ought to have been raised before the revising barrister. Edwards said he would not deal with any case unless he could show that the attention of the revising barrister was called to it, and a decision given upon it. Rodwell. With regard to any voters who didn't pay their rates previous to July, we, in preparing our lists, never thought of putting them in at all, for the Acts of Parliament are so clear on the point. BLACKBURN, J.-My impression is that they could not make any objection to that without the knowledge of the revising barrister. Rodwell. Class 11 are the persons who were bribed. Class 12 is the list of voters who will be objected to, because on the 17th Nov. they did not occupy the premises, and I wish to ask your Lordship how you will deal with this as the facts arise. It appears that the agent and the overseer had an understanding, so that A. and B. have both stood for the same house. How can that for a moment represent two persons? [BLACKBURN, J.-This seems to me to be a sort of thing that ought to have been objected to before the revising barrister.] The case has probably arisen in the hurry of registration, and is probably one which Parliament has not provided for. [BLACKBURN, J.-I can do nothing in it now, the objection ought to have been raised before the revising barrister, but it could not affect the seat. Were I to touch upon it at all it would only be with a view to future legislation.] Class 13 is five aliens. [BLACKBURN, J.-I suppose it will be very much the same point as the infants.] Yes, my Lord. We come now to the tendered votes, class 14, and the Act of Parliament on that point is quite clear. [BLACKBURN, J.-Might it not be added and properly recorded, if correct, in the scrutiny?] What we want is your Lordship to add those which were not added up at the poll. [BLACKBURN, J.-If they are to be taken up simply because they are tendered, it will eventually come to the same result, supposing the vote to be good.] There are cases in which the voters were not added up at all, and I suppose we shall be entitled to add those now. {Blackburn, J.-Certainly.] Class | Held, that residence within the limits up to the time of the election is necessary, and therefore that the vote was bad. The vote of William Owen was objected to by the petitioners. William Owen said he voted at the last election for Hibbert and Platt. He formerly lived in Oldham, and removed in the third week in July to Halifax. from Oldham. BLACKBURN, J.-Of course Halifax is seven miles Edwards said this raised a very important question, and proceeded to interrogate the witness, who stated that he was placed on the list for the first time at this election, his house being under the value of 10. The simple question was whether, under this franchise, residence after the time of registration was at all necessary. He submitted that under the new qualification, if a person was properly upon the register, he was entitled to vote at the next election, whether or not he was residing in the town, or within seven miles, at the time of the election. A voter tendered his vote at the wrong booth, and it was recorded by the poll clerk: Held, that the vote must be rejected, but that if it affected the ultimate result the point would be reserved for the Court of Common Pleas. James Schofield was called upon by the respondents, and stated that he was a master plumber, and lived at 19, Mount Pleasant-street. He voted at the last election for Hibbert and Platt; he tendered his vote, and was told that someone else had voted for James Schofield. Rodwell here called upon another party of the same name as the last witness, James Schofield, and intimated that the last witness voted at the wrong polling booth, and this witness ought to have voted at another booth. The second James Schofield was then examined by Rodwell, and gave his address as No. 7, No. 2 Court, Side-o'th' Moor. He voted at the booth in Greenacres-lane. He was registered as a voter, but did not know the number of the booth where he voted. He produced his card, and his vote was taken. OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. BLACKBURN, J.-If you look on the register, you will see at which booth this man ought to have voted. It is a merely technical thing, and has nothing to do with the validity of the vote. In reply to Rodwell, the witness stated that the name had been changed, and the place used to be called Pleasant-street. In reply to Edwards, witness said he lived at No. 7. The Taxing Master (Mr. Reed), here referred to the poll book for the ward, at the suggestion of Edwards, and stated that there were only two James Schofields on the register, and neither of them resided in that ward. BLACKBURN, J.-Then it appears that both the James Schofields were entitled to vote, so that it is very clear that Hibbert and Platt are entitled to the one on their side. Rodwell referred to the decision in the Cambridge case, Wolferstan & Dew, which decided that a vote was not invalid by being recorded at the wrong booth. Herschell.-At the top of p. 29 it begins to speak about boroughs, and states that no person shall be allowed to vote except at the booth appointed for the particular district at which he lives. BLACKBURN, J.-I hardly think Mr. Rodwell this comes under the Cambridge case. It simply comes to this: the poll clerk should have refused the vote, and the voter have gone to the proper booth. It is not at all an intentional mistake, as it was the fault of the voter as well as of the poll clerk. Rodwell. The prohibition is a prohibition to say to the clerk you shall not do such and such things, but it does not, in my opinion, extend to the voter. BLACKBURN, J.-My impression is that the vote will have to be rejected, but, should the one vote turn the scale I will then reserve the decision in that case for the Court of Common Pleas. BAXTER'S CASE. Residence-Occasional sleeping place. It is for the judge to say whether the evidence shows a certain place to be the home of a voter. During twelve months B. slept sixteen or seventeen times at a public-house in the borough of O., and at two other places on other occasions. Vote held bad, a man's home being where he sleeps habitually. The vote of John Baxter, of the Highland Whisky Still public-house, Market-place, was objected to on the ground of non-residence. James Taft said: I am an occasional waiter at the Highland Whisky Still public-house, Market place. John Baxter, landlord, does not sleep there, except occasionally. Two waiters, the landlord's mother and his sister, sleep there. John Baxter, examined by Leresche, said: I voted at the last election for Hibbert and Platt. I live at | The ground floor is occupied by a vault, taproom, and newsroom, and on the second floor is the concert-room. The women sleep in a single-bedded room and the men in the double-bedded room. I sleep there occasionally, and have to share a bed with my brother, who resides there. By Edwards: During the past twelve months I have slept at the house about sixteen or seventeen times. The bed is there purposely for me if I like to occupy it. I am a single man, and have neither wife nor family. By Rodwell.-I consider Oldham my home. [BLACKBURN, J.-Is not that what I must decide?] I wanted to have his opinion on the matter. BLACKBURN, J.-The last decision in the Court of Queen's Bench on this subject was a very similar one to this, and we decided that we must consider the residence to be where the voter sleeps habitually. I must therefore strike this vote off. TAYLOR'S CASE. Identity-Amendment. The fact of a certain name being on the register is not conclusive evidence of the identity of the voter. The court will amend the lists by transferring a case from one class to another, and adjourn it for the purpose of inquiry. One James Taylor was called. He said he did not live in Garlick-buildings. He went to his house at Cowhill about nine months ago, and never paid any rates for Cowhill. He had always lived at Cowhill, but was in lodgings previously. He voted at last election for Cobbett and Spinks. Another James Taylor was called, and stated that he had a house at Garlick-buildings and Dentonlane; and he voted for Cobbett and Spinks. BLACKBURN, J. proposed to amend the matter by putting the vote out of the present list. Rodwell.-But it is clear that the older man was described as Taylor of "Cowhill and Cowhill." [BLACKBURN, J.-Yes, but he never was rated at all, and never was the person to be put on the overseers' list. There may be some explanation of that afterwards. The man was merely a lodger, and has paid no rates. It appears to be a case that should never be in the overseer's book at all.] However the name may have got on to the register, it is a fact it is there, and the fact of its being there is conclusive. [BLACKBURN, J.-Not conclusive that I am satisfied it is the man. Notice should have been given in which class it was placed. We ought to make inquiry. As it at present stands it has been put into the wrong class. If you require time to inquire into it, I may amend it by putting it into another class. If the facts remain unchanged, it will be placed in class No. 1, and time must be given till the day after to-morrow to make inquiry.] The case was thus adjourned. PEARCE'S CASE. Parochial relief. Oldham and at Stretford. My Oldham residence is Relief given on the 19th of the month does not vitiate a at the Highland Still. I do not carry on any business in Stretford. I went to Stretford about six months ago, previous to which I had lived about twelve months each at Timperley and Bowden. At the Highland Still there are three men and two female servants, who sleep in the house. There are three bedrooms: one is a single bedded room, the other a double bedded room, and the third is unoccupied, and is converted into a sitting-room. vote given on the 17th. George Pearce was called, and said: I am the relieving officer of Lees. I do not know William Shawcross, of Andrew-street, Lees. I know a man who goes by the name of William Shaughnessy, of Andrew street, Lees. Shaughnessy, from my books, had a parochial medical order on the 19th Nov. 1868 That was two days after the election. OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. In the case of Samuel Kirk, Mr. Evans, the relieving officer, in reply to Leresche, stated that on the 23rd Oct. 1868, he gave relief to a boy named Samuel Kirk. He was the grandchild of the voter, and lived in the same house with him. The child's father had absconded, and gone to America, and the grandfather kept the child. BLACKBURN, J.-I have forgotten whether the definition of "child" in the poor-law includes grandchild. Counsel informed his Lordship that there was no interpretation clause for the word "child,” and he consequently held that in the absence of such an interpretation child would not include grandchild. The vote was therefore held good. JOHN SMITH'S CASE. Loan by relieving officer. A relieving officer gave S. a coffin and some dues, on the understanding that he should be repaid: BLACKBURN, J.-If relief is given to the voter's family-himself, his wife, or children-it certainly will, but if given to a father or mother it will not. In this case relief was given to the father only, and the vote is therefore good. In the next case his LORDSHIP added.-It may be well to know that where relief has been given to ancestors, as I may term it, it does not affect the vote; but where the wife or the children have received relief it will vitiate the vote. Where relief is given between the date of the revision and the election it vitiates the vote. Herschell, in the course of the above cases raised a point of law upon which considerable discussion took place, submitting that the receipt of parochial relief between the revision of the list of voters and the election did not nullify the vote. Rodwell submitted that the receipt of parochial relief between the revision and the election did vitiate the vote. BLACKBURN, J. said, that he had almost taken for granted that parochial relief received after the 31st July annulled the vote, though he had not investigated the matter. To his mind, Parliamentary committees had already settled the point in their decisions, but if the respondents would produce him any decision since the Reform Act was passed and up to the present time, which would Vote held good, but point reserved for the Court of bear out their argument that the receipt of paroCommon Pleas. In the case of John Smith, 6, St. Peter-street, Mr. Heywood, relieving officer, stated that on the 9th Nov. he had given Smith a coffin and some dues, under promise that the amount should be paid back at 3s. per week, and he was informed that the money was paid back. Edwards contended that this was not relief in the ordinary acceptation, and that it was merely a loan. BLACKBURN, J. said he was rather inclined to regard it as a loan, and held the vote to be good, but he would allow it to be reserved for the Court of Common Pleas. M'DOWELL'S CASE. Relief-Father and son. Relief given to a father does not vitiate the vote of the son, though the son is responsible for his maintenance. Thomas Heywood said.—I am the relieving officer for the St. Mary's Ward district, Oldham. I do not know Michael M'Dowell, but I know No. 4, Wallwork-street. I know a Patrick M'Dowell living there; and he had a medical order on the 17th Oct. last. No one else lives in this house that I know of except Patrick M'Dowell's family, though, for aught I know, Michael M'Dowell may live there. Michael M Dowell said.-I am a spindle turner, and live at No. 4, Wallwork-street. Patrick M'Dowell, deceased, was my father, and lived at No. 4, Wallwork-street in October last. He died about six or seven months ago. I supported my father, and the parish doctor came to see him in October last. BLACKBURN, J.-The relief to the father does not vitiate the vote of the son, though the son is responsible for his maintenance. DUNKERLEY'S CASE. In this case, similar to the above, Leresche said.-I contend that if relief is given to any of the family it will vitiate the vote. chial relief after the 31st July and before the elec tion would not annul the validity of the vote, then he would reserve the question for the decision of the Court of Common Pleas. But in the absence of any such cases, and having cases in which the receipt of such relief had been held to vitiate the vote, he should hold to these decisions and rule that the votes of such parties were bad. If he were to rule to the contrary he should think himself wrong if he were to unsettle the matter. WHITTLE'S CASE. A voter at first plumped, but before leaving the booth added a vote for a second candidate : Held, that the question whether he had completed rendering his vote before he made the addition was one of fact for the decision of the judge. James Taylor was called by the respondents, as the deputy returning officer at No. 2 booth, in the district at which Whittle voted. He said: When Whittle came up, I asked for whom he voted. He called out the name Spinks. I entered the name Spinks; and after that some one called out, "And who else?" and he said "Cobbett." The party acting at the booth for Hibbert and Platt objected to my altering the vote. I called Mr. Blackburne, the returning officer, and he said I must not alter it. I don't know who it was that called out" who else?" Higgin.-You say the returning officer told you not to put down Cobbett. Were you going to put it down had it not been for that direction? Witness. No; I did not think about putting it down. The returning officer was about the place, and the voter had not turned to go away. I do not know whether the returning officer was out of hearing or not. I do not think he was attending to what was going on. Edwards said he thought he could not alter the evidence as given by the poll-clerk, and he would leave the matter with his Lordship. BLACKBURN, J.-It is a question of fact whether he had completed tendering his vote, and the ques OLDHAM ELECTION PETITION. tion is whether it was an imperfect giving of the vote. Upon the evidence as it stands I do not see why I should not add the vote. Edwards said the onus clearly lay with the petitioners to prove that the vote was properly tendered, when it appeared otherwise by the poll-book. Besides, there was the suggestion made to the voter when recording his vote. BLACKBURN, J. decided that the vote should be counted for Mr. Cobbett. KARENAPPUCK'S CASE. The female suffrage-Procedure. Infants and aliens, being men subject to legal incapacity, cannot be struck off on a scrutiny, the objection not being taken at the registration. But a woman, not being a man, was struck off, the point, if proving of importance, to be reserved. The respondents took up the cases in class 6, which related to aliens, and his Lordship remarked that, as there were six on each side, it seemed very unnecessary to decide the point. Rodwell.-I may remind you of the curious case on the list; that is the case of a female voter. BLACKBURN, J. said this was not quite the same thing, as the lady had never any legal capacity to vote, as she never was a man. After some conversation his Lordship said: I will do this. I hold that | infants and aliens being men subject to legal incapacity cannot now be struck off, the objection not being taken at the registration; but the woman not being a man at all is in a different position, and I strike the name off, but if it turns out to be of importance it will be a case for the Common Pleas. In the meantime Karenappuck will be struck off. MILLS'S CASE. If B., who is entitled to vote, chooses from fancy or even from a bad motive to be called Z., that fact does not vitiate his vote. The petitioners proceeded with the vote of William Mills. Thomas Lees, examined by Higgin, said: I live at Bank Mill, and am a farmer. I have lived there nearly fourteen years. I remember a person named Mills coming to reside a tew doors from me two years ago. That man was always known as Mills until shortly before the election, when some inquiries were made, and it turned out that the right name of this Mills was William Bradshaw. BLACKBURN, J.-If the person on the register was called by a wrong name it does not vitiate the vote. It certainly creates a little difficulty in the identity, but it does not annul the vote if he was the man who was intended to be described. The assistant-overseer, Mr. Chadderton, was called, and he stated that in the rate books for 1867 and 1868 Bradshaw appeared under the name of Mills, but in the 1869 book he appeared under his own name. BLACKBURN, J.-If Bradshaw, from fancy or even from a bad motive, chose to be called Mills, and if he was the occupier of the premises, and the person intended to be described, the vote is not vitiated. Higgin. That is so. BLACKBURN, J.-Then the vote is not bad. GARTSIDE'S CASE. Break of residence. On Aug. 12, a voter parted with his house, and went to Vote held good. James Gartside, in answer to Rodwell, said :-I voted at the election for Hibbert and Platt. I left Oldham for America on the 12th Aug., and parted with my house in Jackson-street. I left my wife and family in lodgings. I returned, after an absence of seven weeks, to Oldham. I went to America to better myself, but I soon found out my mistake. By Edwards: I was living in Oldham at the time of the election, in Glodwick. BLACKBURN, J. did not consider there was any break in the residence, as the man's family had been left, and held that the vote was good. MITCHELL'S CASE. Putting bribers in the list-Practice. Before Parliamentary committees, if a person was proved to have bribed, it was not necessary to insert his name in the list: Held, that this practice could not be followed, unless time were given to the other side to make inquiry. Rodwell, referring to the alleged bribery of Wm. Mitchell by John Andrew (the case being heard a short time previously), was again brought under the notice of the judge. The object of the peti tioners was to add Andrew's name to their case in order that they might get his vote struck from the respondent's list, on the ground that he bribed a voter. In intimating that Andrew's name was not in the list, he observed that the practice before the Parliamentary committees, when a person was proved to have bribed another, did not render it necessary to put the name in the list. [BLACKBURN, J.-I know what the practice was before. It was enacted by express statute. But it becomes a question whether this is a sufficient notice to have an inquiry.] Then I must ask to have it put in the list. BLACKBURN, J.-That would depend upon whether the other side had time to make the inquiry into it. OTTWELL'S CASE. A voter's fare from Macclesfield to Oldham was paid for him, and he received the amount of the return fare: Held not to be bribery, although it was an illegal pay ment. Isaac Ottwell was next called. He said he came over from Macclesfield to Oldham on the day of election with Benjamin Gallimore and others. He had some refreshments, which were paid for by Purdy. Purdy paid his fare to Oldham, and gave him 6s. 6d. to pay his fare back again. BLACKBURN, J. (to respondents' counsel.)—What do you say to this case? Herschell submitted that it was not bribery. Granting a railway ticket was given him from Macclesfield to Oldham, it would be nothing more than paying money, in fact, for conveying a voter to the poll. It was an illegal payment, no doubt, under the section of the new Act. BLACKBURN, J.-Yes, but not bribery. |