[*535

a proportionate share of the profits. According, therefore, to the principle which led the courts in those cases to hold that shares in the companies which came under consideration before them. did not constitute an interest in land, I am of opinion that the shareholders in this case have no such interest, legal or equitable, in this land, or in the income arising from it, as to confer upon them the franchise.

KEATING, J.(a)-I am of the same opinion. I think the shareholders in this company have no interest either legal or equitable in the land so as to acquire a right to vote in respect of it. The deed of settlement under which they claim clearly does not confer it. That deed creates a certain amount of capital, which is to be divided into a certain number of shares. Land is to be purchased and a cornexchange built; and the business of the company is to be conducted by a committee of management by whom the profits are to be divided amongst the shareholders. The shares are to be transferable as shares are usually transferable in joint-stock companies. Such being the nature and constitution of the company, what are the rights of an individual shareholder? Could he go at any time and receive any particular moneys for rent of rooms or standings in the market? Certainly not. All he is entitled to, is, the dividend upon his shares resulting from the profits made by the company. Unless, therefore, Mr. Hannen's proposition,-that it is not competent to parties so to deal with real property as to take away from it one of its incidents,. viz., its capacity to confer a vote,-can be sustained, the claim of the appellant in this case cannot be allowed. That that proposition cannot be sustained, is clearly settled by the cases of Watson v. Spratley, 10 Exch. 222, and *Myers v. Perigal, 11 C. B. 90, 16 Simons, [*536 533, 2 De Gex, M'N. & G. 599; nor is there any authority at all that I am aware of in its favour. And, although the court in Baxter, app., Brown (or Newman), resp., 7 M. & G. 198 (E. C. L. R.. vol. 49), 8 Scott N. R. 1019, 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas. 287, held, that, where real property was held by two upon trust for the benefit of themselves and their partners in an ordinary partnership as part of their partnership joint stock in trade, each partner had an interest in the realty corresponding with the amount of his share in the partnership, -they did not, I apprehend, intend to lay it down that the partners. might not, if so minded, have dealt with the realty in such a way as to disqualify themselves from voting in respect of it. For these reasons, I am of opinion that the revising-barrister rightly decided against the claim of these shareholders to be registered. Decision affirmed, with costs.

(a) Byles, J., was absent by reason of indisposition.

C. B. N. S., VOL. XV.—21

Borough of KIDDERMINSTER.

ALFRED WILLIAM CROWTHER, Appellant; GEORGE BRADNEY, Respondent. Nov. 23.

Where there are two lists of voters for a borough, the notice of objection should distinctly state on which the objector's name appears.

The parish of K. consists of the borough of K., the foreign of K., and the hamlet of L. M. (which latter is not within the parliamentary borough),—for each of which separate overseers are appointed and separate rates are made. Two lists of persons entitled to vote in K. are made out,-one, of persons so entitled in respect of property occupied within the borough of K.; the other, of persons so entitled in respect of property occupied within the foreign of the parish of K. the former is signed by the overseers of the borough, the latter by the overseers of the foreign:-Held, that a notice of objection signed "G. B., on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the borough of K., in respect of property occupied within the parish of K.," was insufficient.

AT a court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the borough of Kidderminster, George Bradney *objected to the

*537] name of Alfred William Crowther being retained on the list

of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster.

The notices of objection both to the overseers and to the said Alfred William Crowther were signed thus: "George Bradney, of Wharf Hill, on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster, in respect of property occupied within the parish of Kidderminster."

The ancient parish of Kidderminster consists of the borough of Kidderminster, the foreign of Kidderminster, and the hamlet of Lower Mitton, for each of which separate and distinct overseers, church wardens, highway surveyors, and other parochial officers are appointed, and separate and distinct rates are laid.

The hamlet of Lower Mitton is within the parliamentary borough of Bewdley.

The said George Bradney, in his notices of objection to the respective overseers of the said parishes or districts of Kidderminster borough and. Kidderminster foreign, addressed his notices respectively as follows: "To the overseers of the parish of the borough of Kidderminster," and "To the overseers of the foreign of the parish of Kidderminster."

Two lists of persons entitled to vote for the parliamentary borough of Kidderminster were made out and published in the present year, -one headed "List of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster, county of Worcester, in respect of property occupied within the said borough of Kidder minster," purporting to be signed by three persons describing themselves as 86 overseers of the borough of Kidderminster," and the other headed "List of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member *538] for the borough of Kidderminster, in the *county of Worces ter, in respect of property occupied within the foreign of the parish of Kidderminster," purporting to be signed by three other persons describing themselves as "overseers of the foreign of Kidderminster."

The name of George Bradney was on the first-mentioned list.

It was objected, on behalf of the said A. W. Crowther, that the notices of objection, which were in all other respects good, were insufficient, inasmuch as the said George Bradney stated himself to be on "the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster, in respect of property occupied within the parish of Kidderminster," whereas he should have stated on which of the said two lists of voters his name appeared.

The revising-barrister held that the notice of objection was sufficient; and, the said Alfred William Crowther having failed to prove a qualification, he expunged his name from the list of voters.

Twelve other persons whose names and qualifications were set out in a schedule annexed to the case were also objected to by the said George Bradney, and, failing to prove their qualifications, the revisingbarrister expunged their names; but, the like objection to the notice of objection in each of their cases existed and was taken before him, and he gave the same decision thereon, and consolidated them with the principal case.

If the court should be of opinion that such notices of objection were insufficient, then the name of the said A. W. Crowther and also the names of the several other persons mentioned in the schedule were to be restored to the respective lists of voters from which the same had been expunged, and the register of voters was to be altered accordingly. But, if the court *should be of opinion that such notices of objection were sufficient, the register of voters was to remain unaltered.

[*539

Karslake, Q. C. (with whom was The Hon. R. Bourke), for the appellant. This objection arises upon the 17th section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, which enacts that every person whose name shall have been inserted in any list of voters for any city or borough, may object to any other person as not being entitled to have his name inserted in any list of voters for the same city or borough; and every person so objecting shall give notices according to the forms numbered 10 and 11 in Schedule B., "to the overseers who shall have made out the list in which the name of the person so objected to shall have been inserted," and also to the person objected to. The forms given in the Schedule require the objector's signature thus:-" A. B., of, &c., on the list of voters for the parish of " The parish of Kidderminster consists of the borough of Kidderminster, the foreign of Kidderminster, and the hamlet of Lower Mitton,-for each of which separate overseers are appointed. Two lists of persons entitled to vote in Kidderminster are made out,-one, of persons so entitled "in respect of property occupied within the borough of Kidderminster," the other, of persons so entitled "in respect of property occupied within the foreign of the parish of Kidderminster:" the former is signed by "the overseers of the borough of Kidderminster," the latter by "the overseers of the foreign of Kidderminster." The notice of objection here is signed by "George Bradney, on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of a member for the borough of Kidderminster, in respect of property occupied within the parish of Kidderminster." This is clearly insufficient. The objector should have pointed out [*540 accurately the situation of the property he occupies, in order

to show to which list reference is to be made, to ascertain whether of not he is a person entitled to object. [WILLIAMS, J.-The objection to the notice is, that it would require the voter to search two lists, The point arose last year in a case of Samuel, app., Hitchmough, resp., 13 C. B. N. S. 3 (E. C. L. R. vol. 106), K. & G. 522. There, a notice of objection to a borough voter, in the form prescribed by the Schedule B. No. 11, described the objector as being "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 107. 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. But the court reversed his decision.] There, the objector had complied literally with the terms of the statute: there were two lists, both made out by the same overseers, and together forming one document. In Eidsforth, app., Farrer, resp., 4 C. B. 9 (E. C. L. R. vol. 56), 1 Lutw. Reg. Cas 517, the objector was described as "R. F., of, &c., on the list of voters for the borough of L." The register of voters for the borough of L. consisted of four separate lists, viz. one of 107. householders for each of three townships comprised in it; and one of the freemen of the borough. The objector's name was on the last-mentioned list only; and the court held the description insufficient. Maule, J., there says: "The Registration Act, the 17th section of which is the subject of contention in the present case, was passed chiefly to remedy certain defects and inconveniences found in the operation of the 2 W. 4, c. 45. One of those defects was, that, under s. 47 of the last-mentioned act, and the Schedule I. No. 5, appended thereto, viz. in the notice of objection to be given to the overseers or *town-clerk, there was a want of convenient particularity, and *541] that the act was totally silent as to notice to the party objected

to. The spirit of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, is, to afford additional facilities to parties in sustaining their right to be on the register, if they have it. The power to object is not given in respect of the party's franchise, but only in respect of his name being on some one list of voters for the city or borough. When a man has a power conferred upon him by act of parliament of dealing with the rights of another, he must show distinctly that he falls within the description of persons to whom such power is given." Here, there is no such list as the objector describes; for, the "parish" of Kidderminster consists of three separate divisions, one of which (the hamlet of Lower Mitton) is out of the parliamentary borough, and his property may be there. His right to object exists only by reason of his being on a particular list. In Tudball, app., The Town Clerk of Bristol, resp., 7 Scott N. R. 486, 5 M. & G. 6, i Lutw. Reg. Cas. 7, the objector was described as "W. T., of, &c., on the list of voters for the parish of Clifton:" the name of W. T. appeared on the list of freemen of the city of Bristol only, and on that list he was described as of the parish of Clifton; and the notice was held insufficient. Tindal, C. J., there says: "It appears to me that the party objecting in this case has failed properly to describe himself: he has followed the form No. 11 in the schedule more closely than he should have done. He has untruly described himself as being

'on the list of voters for the parish of Clifton,' whereas in fact his name only appears upon the list of the freemen of the city of Bristol.' It may be that the lists of voters for the city are very numerous: any informality, therefore, of this sort would necessarily throw upon the party objected to a greater degree of difficulty in ascertaining by whom the objection is made than the act of parliament con[*542 templated." [KEATING, J.-Suppose the objector had described himself as being "on the list of voters for the borough of Kidderminster," would not that have sufficed?] It may be: but he does not say so.

Welsby, for the respondent.-It is assumed on the other side that there are three parishes in Kidderminster. That, however, is not so: there is but one parish, which consists of three divisions which may be called townships, viz., the borough and the foreign of Kidderminster, and the hamlet of Lower Mitton. [BYLES, J.-Each has its separate overseers, churchwardens, &c., and separate rates are made for each.] It does not appear that there is more than one parish church. [BYLES, J.-There must be other places of worship: and the lists must appear on all,-6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 23.] The case of Samuel, app., Hitchmough, resp., is very little removed from this case. Both lists must of necessity appear on the church door. [BYLES, J.Both were in that case made out by the same overseers: here the lists are made out by two different sets of overseers.] Both form substantially one list,-the borough list. The revising-barrister finds that the objector's name was on one of the lists; he does not find that anybody was or could be misled; but he finds that the notice was sufficient.

ERLE, C. J.-Where there are two separate lists, the person objecting must state distinctly which of the two he is on. The notice here is equivalent to the party's saying, "I am on one of the lists of voters for the borough of Kidderminster." The decision of the revisingbarrister was wrong, and must be reversed.

The rest of the court concurring,

Decision reversed.

*City of EXETER.

SIDNEY RICE FORCE, Appellant; THOMAS FLOUD,

Respondent. Nov. 23.

[*543

The notice of objection given to a county voter was as follows:-" To Mr. Sidney Rice Force. I hereby give you notice that I object to the name of Force, Sidney Rice, being retained on the list," &c.,-inserting the name of the party instead of the pronoun "your," which is in the form No. 11, Sched. B. (6 & 7 Vict. c. 18): Held, a sufficient compliance with s. 17.

Held also, that, if necessary, this was an inaccuracy of description which was amendable under a. 101.

Ar a court held for the revision of the lists of voters for the city of Exeter, Thomas Floud objected to the name of Sidney Rice Force being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote as occupiers in the election of members for the city of Exeter.