Times (London)
Thursday, 29 November 1888
DRUITT, APPELLANT-GOSLING, RESPONDENT.
This case, reserved from Christchurch, Hampshire, raised a
question as to joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. The case stated that
two claimants of the name of Hake claimed in respect of "a house and land
joint." It turned out that they occupied a dwellinghouse, St. Michael's
vicarage, and there was no land except the garden. The vicarage was let to
both of them (the vicar residing elsewhere), and the value was far over
£20, the rateable value being £72; but only one of them was rated. It was
contended that the case came within the definition of a £10 qualification,
a house being a tenement. It was objected that use of the claimants was
already on the overseers' occupiers' list for the same house, and that the
alleged joint occupation was in respect of the same house, and that two
persons could not have a joint occupation qualification under 30 and 31
Vic., e. 102, a. 3. The Barrister was of that opinion and disallowed the
claims. The claimants appealed.
Mr. M.J. Druitt appeared for the appellants and argued on their
behalf that both were entitled to be registered, not, indeed, for a
"dwellinghouse," but for a house or "tenement," if the value is
sufficient. The main objection, he said, was as to the joint occupation of
the dwellinghouse, though there were two subsidiary objections-one as to
misdescription of the qualification and the other as to one of the
claimants being already on the overseers' list of occupiers for the same
house. He urged that the claimants came within the definition of the
borough household qualifications in the Reform Act, the value being amply
sufficient for both claims. {MR JUSTICE MANISTY.-One only of the claimants
was rated.} That is not material; the rating of one is sufficient, the
rates being paid by either of them; and that is not an objection taken.
{LORD COLERIDGE.-What is the objection?} It is difficult to say.
Mr. ROBSON, who appeared for the respondent, said it was certainly
difficult to make out from the case as stated. {LORD COLERIDGE.-What
objection can you suggest?} It is impossible to rely upon the objection
taken as to joint occupation. That qualification exists. {LORD
COLERIDGE.-I should say so.} There is no doubt an enactment that no one
shall claim is respect of the joint occupation of a dwellinghouse. {LORD
COLERIDGE.-The claimants do not claim for a "dwellinghouse."} That is so,
no doubt; but section 27 of the Reform Act is repealed.
Mr. DRUITT pointed out that in the 48 Vic., e. 3, a. 5, it was in
substance re-enacted. {LORD COLERIDGE.-Subject to the like conditions,
i.e. MR. JUSTICE MANISTY.-That would require rating, would it not?} Then
in section 7 it is enacted that the borough occupation franchise shall be
doomed to be that defined in section 27 of the Reform Act. And that
section, coupled with section 29, confers the occupation franchise for the
joint occupation. {LORD COLERIDGE.-So it should seem, certainly, what can
be said against it?}
Mr. ROBSON said he confessed he hardly knew that anything could be
said against it. {LORD COLERIDGE assented and asked what other objections
there were?}
Mr. ROBSON urged that one of the claimants being already on the
overseers' list of occupiers, both could set claim for the same
qualification. {LORD COLERIDGE.-He did not put himself on the list, the
overseers put him there; and that does not preclude them from making a
joint claim.} There would be duplicate entries for the same qualification.
{LORD COLERIDGE.-The Barrister should have struck out the entry in the
overseers' list.} There is a misdescription of the qualification. {LORD
COLERIDGE.-There is nothing in any of these objections. Appeal dismissed
with costs.}
The Case sent to be amended, will, his Lordship said, be taken on
Saturday.
