Cockburn, for the appellant. The notice of objection must, according to the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 7, sched. (A.), No. 5, describe the objector precisely as he is described in the register or list of voters: and two of the judges of this court, in Gadsby, app., Warburton, resp., 7 M. & G. 11, 8 Scott, N. R. 775, held that such a description will in all cases suffice. MAULE, J., there says: "The seventh section of the registration act requires a notice of objection to be given according to the form numbered 5, in the schedule (A.), or to the like effect.' In that form, the words place of abode' are in a parenthesis, after the words A. B. of,' in order to show that the place of abode is there to be inserted. And it seems to me that this means the place of abode as inserted in the list of voters, in order to show that the objector is on that list and entitled to object; it being absolutely necessary *3] that the place of abode of a voter should appear on the list. Whether it would be necessary, in the case of a change of abode after the list had been published, to insert the latter place of abode in the notice of objection, it is not necessary to decide. The inclination of my own mind is, that it would not be necessary. I am confirmed in this opinion by the expression in the form A. B. of,' &c. The word of" is indicatory rather of a place of which a party is described, than of a place from which a notice is sent. In the latter case, the place is generally put without the addition of the word of,' and is used as a date. For instance, in the form given in No. 4, in the same schedule, the word of is not put; but it ends thus-(Signed) A. B. [place of abode.]' In the form of notice under consideration, I think it was meant that the place of abode should be stated as given in the list of voters. The seventh section says, the notice is to be to the like effect' with the form given in the schedule. What is the meaning of that? To effectuate the object intended by the notice, namely, to show that the objector is on the list of voters." And ERLE, J., says: "The barrister seems to have thought that the place of abode of the objector should be stated differently in the notice of objection from that which appeared in the list of voters. It appears to me that the 'place of abode' required to be stated by the act, has the same meaning in both instances; and this, as well under the reform act as under the registration act. And it is extremely convenient that the same description should be given; the main object of the description being that the voter may be enabled to ascertain that the objector has a right to object. I am even inclined to think, that, if the objector retained the same place of abode as that mentioned in the list, and purposely changed the description in his notice, by adding the parish, it might be invalid." *4] [MAULE, J. The words "on the register," &c., are merely inserted to show that the objection is made by a person who is qualified to object. ERLE, J. The notice surely is not vitiated by the addition of a particular giving the party further information.]

Byles, Serjt., (with whom was Grove,) for the respondent, asked for costs.

TINDAL, C. J. The notice in question sufficiently complies with the form given in the schedule referred to. It may be read as if « No. 398 High Street" was in a parenthesis. The case being so very clear, the decision of the barrister must be Affirmed with costs.

CITY OF LICHFIELD.

WILLIAM BARTON, Appellant, THOMAS ASHLEY, Respondent. Nov. 17.

A notice of objection delivered to the overseers under the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 17, sched. (B), No. 10, where there are more lists than one made out by the overseers, must specify the particular list to which the objection refers.

WILLIAM BARTON objected to the name of Thomas Ashley being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for that city. The objector gave in evidence, and duly proved the service of, a notice of objection upon the said Thomas Ashley, according to the form No. 11, in sched. (B) of the statute 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18; and he also gave in evidence and proved the service of a notice of objection upon the overseers of the parish of St. Michael, in the list of [*5 *which parish, containing the names of persons entitled to vote in the election of members of parliament for the said city, by virtue of the provisions of the statute 2 W. 4, c. 45, the name of the said Thomas Ashley appeared as follows; that is to say,

"The list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of Lichfield, in respect of property occupied within the parish of St. Michael, by virtue of an act passed in the second year of the reign of King William the Fourth, intituled, An act to amend the representation of the people in England and Wales.'

The last-mentioned notice of objection was in the following words:

"Notice of objection.

"To the overseers of the parish of St. Michael, in the city of Lichfield.

"I hereby give you notice that I object to the name of Thomas Ashley being retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of Lichfield. Dated, this 25th of August, 1845. WILLIAM BARTON, of Stone street, Lichfield, on the list of freemen for the city of Lichfield."

(Signed)

B

In the city of Lichfield, it is the duty of the overseers of the several parishes, and, amongst the rest, of the said parish of St. Michael,-to make out and publish two separate lists of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the said city; the one, in respect of per

*6] sons entitled to vote in the election of members for the said city, in respect of property occupied within the said parish, by virtue of the provisions of the statute 2 W. 4, c. 45; and the other, of persons not being freemen, entitled to vote in the election of members for the said city, in respect of any right other than those conferred by the said lastmentioned statute. The name of the said Thomas Ashley appeared on the first-mentioned list of voters only, namely, on the list of persons entitled to vote by reason of the provisions of the statute 2 W. 4, c. 45, and did not appear on the other list made out and published by the over

seers.

In the list of objections published by the overseers, the said Thomas Ashley was described as follows :—

agreeing with his description in the original list of persons entitled to vote in respect of property occupied within the said parish, by virtue of the said statute of 2 W. 4, c. 45, as hereinbefore set forth.

It was objected, on the part of the said Thomas Ashley, that the said notice of objection served on the overseers, was informal and insufficient, inasmuch as it did not comply with the directions given in schedule (B), No. 10, of the statute of 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18; there being two lists of voters made out by the overseers in that parish, and the notice not specifying, as it ought to have done, the particular list to which the objection referred.

The revising barrister held the notice to be informal and insufficient for that reason but, as the said Thomas Ashley was present, and then consented that the proof of his qualifications should be gone into, subject to the question of the validity of the said notice of objection, he proceeded to call evidence in support of his right to have his name retained in the said list; but failed to prove the same to the satisfaction of the barrister.

[די

The question for the opinion of the court is, whether, upon the facts stated, the above notice of objection to the overseers of the said parish of St. Michael, was or was not sufficient in law to call upon the said Thomas Ashley to prove his title to have his name retained in the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members for the city of Lichfield, in respect of property occupied within the said parish, by virtue of the said statute of 2 W. 4, c. 45. If the court shall be of opinion that

the said notice was sufficient, the name of the said Thomas Ashley is to be expunged from the register of voters for the said city; otherwise, to be retained thereon.

The cases of three other persons whose names appeared on the list of voters for the parish of St. Michael, and two whose names appeared on the list of voters for the parish of St. Mary, in the same city, are consolidated with the principal case.

Kinglake, Serjt., for the appellant. By the thirteenth section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, the overseers of every parish or township are required to make out two lists of persons entitled to vote-the one, a list "of all persons who may be entitled to vote in the election of a member or members to serve in parliament for such city or borough, in respect of the occupation of premises of the clear yearly value of not less than 107.," &c.—the other, a list of all other persons (except freemen) who may be entitled to vote in the election of such city or borough, by virtue of any other right whatsoever." And sect. 17 enacts, "that every person whose name shall have been inserted in any list of voters for *any [*8 city or borough, may object to any other person as not having been entitled on the last day of July next preceding, to have his name inserted in any list of voters for the same city or borough; and every person so objecting shall, on or before the 25th of August in that year, give, or cause to be given, a notice according to the form numbered (10) in schedule (B), or to the like effect, to the overseers who shall have made out the list in which the name of the person so objected to shall have been inserted; or, if the person objected to shall have been inserted in the list of freemen of any city or borough, except the city of London, then to the town-clerk of such city or borough; and every person so objecting shall also give to, or cause to be left at the place of abode of, the person objected to, as stated in the said list, a notice, according to the form numbered (11) in the said schedule (B), &c." Under the 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 47, the only notice of objection required was a general notice to the overseers, and the same lists were then required to be made out as now the seventeenth section of the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, for the first time requires notice also to the party objected to. The notice to the party is a mere general notice. To that required to be given to the overseers is appended a note, intimating, that, if there be "more than one list of voters, the notice of objection should specify the list to which the objection refers; and, if the list contains two or more persons of the same name, the notice should distinguish the person intended to be objected to." The only object of that note is, to require that, in cases where the voter's name appears on both lists, such information shall be conveyed to the overseers as to enable them to ascertain whether the objection applies to the qualification in both lists, or to which of themto point their attention to the particular qualification intended to be [*9 objected to. If the voter's name appears only upon *one list, the

information would be useless. All the overseers can require is, such a degree of information as will enable them to perform the duty imposed upon them by s. 18, of publishing a list of persons objected to, according to the form in schedule (B), No. 12: and that is done here. A strict and rigid compliance with the form is not necessary. It is enough if the direction is substantially complied with: Gadsby, app., Warburton, resp., 7 M. & G. 11, 8 Scott, N. R. 775. The case of Wansey, app., Perkins, resp., (a) though different in its facts from the present, somewhat approximates in principle. It was there held that the note in question is not applicable in the city of London, where the overseers make out only the list of householders, the list of freemen being made out by the secondaries. In Allen, app., House, resp., 7 M. & G. 157, 8 Scott, N. R. 987, in the case of a borough where the overseers had to make out two lists, one, being of parties entitled to vote under the 2 W. 4, c. 45, s. 27, the other, of potwallers, it was held that a notice of objection to the name of a party being retained " on the list of persons entitled to vote as householders," was sufficient, although the words "as householders" are not in the form given by the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 18. TINDAL, C. J., said: "It appears to me that this is substantially a good notice, although the words as householders' are inserted. If the insertion of those words could have misled the party objected to, then the notice, not being in strict compliance with the form given in the act, would have been bad. If the form had been exactly followed, it would have merely said, I object to your name being retained on the list of persons entitled to vote in the election of members, &c.' Here, the objector has stated every *10] *word that is given in the form, and has inserted some that are not there. I think, however, that the principle utile per inutile non vitiatur applies, it not being shown that the party was misled, or that he was put to any inconvenience or extra expense. And CRESSWELL, J., said: "If the departure from the prescribed form had been likely to divert the attention of the party to a wrong list, I think the notice would have been bad. But this notice could not possibly have that effect." So, here, it may be admitted, that if the overseer's attention could have been distracted by the form of notice given, the decision of the revising barrister would have been correct. But this notice could not possibly have such an effect. At all events, the clause being directory only, and the overseer having acted upon the notice by publishing the name of the party objected to, as he would have done if the notice had been in the specific form required, no exception can be taken to it. [MAULE, J. You contend that there is no necessity for proving the notice before the revising barrister, provided the overseer has inserted the name of the party in the list of persons objected to.] The object of the notice to the overseers is, to enable them to publish the list, which the parties objected to may see at the church door, and so ascertain the particular qualifications to (a) Quigley's case, 7 M. & G. 127, 8 Scott, N. R. 954.