not be necessary that the same shall be assessed to the land tax." [BYLES, J.-Unless you can make out that the appellant was qualified to vote in respect of his office before the passing of the Reform Act, you do not advance a single step. Welsby, who appeared for the respondent, intimated that he did not mean to contend that the Reform Act took away from the appellant any right which he had before.] There clearly is nothing in the Reform Act which is at all inconsistent with this claim. [WILLIAMS, J.-Suppose the office be one the duties of which are to be performed in two or more counties, how would it be registered?] If the office be in any way connected [*113 with land, upon a fair and liberal construction of the statute of H. 6, the claim to vote must prevail. This, at all events, is as much connected with realty as tolls are: and, as to these, Mr. Elliott says, p. 38: "Tolls which are incorporeal hereditaments, and which, when issuing out of and collateral to land, are tenements within the definition of Lord Coke (Co. Litt. 6, a), though not there enumerated by him, appear to be of a real nature, and sufficient to confer the elective franchise." [BYLES, J.—In no instance, since the resolution in Ord's Case, has a parish clerk been allowed to vote.] That must be admitted; and, if the resolution of 1804 be binding upon this Court, and the office here is not sufficiently connected with realty to distinguish it, the present claim must fail.

Welsby, contrà, was not called upon.

ERLE, C. J.-I am of opinion that the decision of the revising barrister in this case was right. I do not stop to inquire whether the office of parish clerk is one which comes within Lord Coke's definition of a freehold tenement. But I am clearly of opinion that a parish clerk is not entitled to vote in respect of his office. The resolution of the Middlesex Committee in 1804 has uniformly been acted upon. since by persons whose duty it was to deal with these questions. And the whole frame of the Reform Act is consistent with the supposition that the legislature were well aware of that resolution, and is not consistent with the claim put forward upon the present occasion. On the first point, therefore, I am against the argument urged by Mr. Macnamara. I am also against him upon the second point. There is nothing in the statement of *the case to connect the emoluments of this [*114 office with profits arising from land. I think the revising barrister put the right construction upon the evidence before him when he held that the fee received by the parish clerk was in the nature of a remuneration for services rendered in conducting the funeral rites, and not a payment or emolument issuing out of or charged upon the land. For these reasons, I think the objection to the vote was well founded.

The rest of the Court concurring,

Decision affirmed, with costs.(a)

(a) The respondent declined to take the costs, the case having been stated under an arrangement, for the purpose of determining the point.

County of KENT.-Eastern Division.

WILLIAM HALL, Appellant; CHARLES EDWARD LEWIS, Respondent. Nov. 19.

One of the "six preachers" of the cathedral church of Canterbury claimed to be registered in respect of a "freehold office." The appointment was by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the office held during good behaviour, provided the party remained in the diocese and preached at least twice a year in the cathedral. He received an annual stipend of 321. from the dean and chapter of Canterbury, which was paid out of the chapter revenues, which were derived from lands in various places vested in the dean and chapter:-Held,-reversing the decision of the revising barrister,-that the claimant had no such freehold office or equitable interest arising out of land as to entitle him to be registered.

The like as to the lay clerks and the bell-ringer.

AT a Court held at Canterbury for the revision of the list of voters for the Eastern division of the county of Kent, the Rev. Francis James Holland, Joseph Burr, and Thomas Parnell severally claimed to be placed on the list of voters for the said Eastern division, in respect of property situate wholly or in part within the parish called the Ville of Christ Church, in the city of Canterbury, and were duly *115] objected to by Benjamin Eastes, a person on the register of voters, on the ground that they did not possess the requisite qualification. The claims were set forth in the following form:

As regards the claim of the Rev. Francis James Holland, the facts proved before the revising barrister were, that the said Rev. Francis James Holland was appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury one of the six preachers of Canterbury Cathedral; that he held his office during good behaviour, provided he remained in the diocese and preached at least twice a year in the said cathedral; and that he received an annual stipend of 327., as preacher, from the treasurer of the dean and chapter of Canterbury, at the audit-room in the Cathedral precincts, situate within the ville of Christ Church. It was further proved that each of the six preachers formerly received an annual stipend of 201. a year and a house to live in, but that the stipend was afterwards increased and the house taken away.

As regards the claim of Joseph Burr, the facts proved, were, that, at a chapter held in July, 1834, the said Joseph Burr was appointed by the said dean and chapter of Canterbury Cathedral one of the eight lay clerks of the said cathedral; that the appointment was *for life, and was made by a resolution of the chapter, a minute *116] of which resolution was recorded in the records of the chapterhouse and signed by the said Joseph Burr: that a salary of 801. a year

was attached to the office of lay clerk, and was paid annually to the said Joseph Burr by the treasurer of the said dean and chapter in the said audit-room of the said cathedral, situate within the said ville of Christ Church; and that the duty of the said Joseph Burr as lay clerk, was, to attend and officiate as clerk a certain number of times in each year, during the celebration of Divine Service in the said cathedral.

As regards the claim of Thomas Parnell, it was proved, that, in 1857, the said Thomas Parnell had been appointed by the said dean and chapter one of the eight bell-ringers in the said cathedral; that the appointment was for life; and that an annual stipend of 207. a year, payable out of the cathedral funds, was attached to the said office of bell-ringer, and was paid annually to the said Thomas Parnell by the said treasurer of the said dean and chapter at the said audit-room in the said ville of Christ Church; and that it was the duty of the said Thomas Parnell to attend from time to time to assist in ringing the bells at the said cathedral prior to the celebration of Divine Service therein.

It further appeared that the appointment to these different offices, the duties incident to them, and the amount of salary payable to the holders or occupants of the said offices, were regulated by certain statutes of the Metropolitan Cathedral of Christ Church, Canterbury, which were produced in Court and read; and it was agreed that these statutes should form part of the present case, and, if necessary, should be referred to as evidence in support of the claims of the respective claimants.

*It was further proved that such salaries were paid out of [*117 the chapter revenues, which were derived either wholly or in part from certain lands and tenements situate in the parish of Christ Church Ville and other parishes in the said eastern division of the said county, and elsewhere out of the said county, and which lands and tenements were vested in the dean and chapter of the said cathedral. Upon this state of facts, the revising barrister retained the names of the said Francis James Holland, Joseph Burr, and Thomas Parnell on the said list of voters.

The names of nine other persons objected to under circumstances similar to the above were likewise retained on the list, and the appeals in those cases consolidated with the principal case.

If the Court should be of opinion that the decision of the revising barrister was incorrect, the names of the several persons above referred to were to be expunged from the register. If the Court should be of opinion that his decision was correct, the list was to remain without amendment.

Welsby, for the appellants.-After the decision in Bushell, app., Eastes, resp., antè, p. 106, it must be assumed that a mere appointment to an office,-supposing these to be offices,-unconnected with any interest in land, will not confer a right of voting. In this respect, therefore, all these three claimants stand upon the same footing. Each is to receive a certain stipend which it was proved was paid out of the chapter revenues, which revenues are derived either wholly or in part "from lands in the parish of Christ Church Ville and other parishes in the eastern division of the county of Kent, and out of the county," vested in the dean and chapter. This differs in no degree from the

*case of any gentleman who pays the wages of his butler or *118] his gardener out of his general funds from whatever source derived. It does not appear that any one of these claimants receives 40s. a year out of lands of the dean and chapter within the county.

Macnamara, for the respondents.-The revising barrister has found as a fact that the stipends of the claimants are paid out of the chapter revenues, which are derived from lands. There was no question about the value. It is submitted, that, under the circumstances, the dean and chapter are trustees for these parties; and, if so, they clearly have such an equitable interest in the land as to entitle them to vote. That these persons are appointed to "offices," there can be no doubt: and the revising barrister has so found. They hold offices to which public duties are attached; and they hold them for life, provided they perform the duties attached to them. [ERLE, C. J.-What is there to make their salaries a charge upon any land?] Nothing, unless the finding that they are paid out of the revenues of the dean and chapter, which are derived from lands.

ERLE, C. J.-I am of opinion that the decision of the revising barrister in this case should be reversed. It is not necessary to make the determination of this case turn upon whether or not these claimants held "offices," because, if they were appointed and had an equitable right to have their salaries paid out of the proceeds of lands (within the district), that would give them a sufficient qualification. But I am unable to find any equitable interest which they can possibly have in any lands anywhere, There is a mere agreement to pay them certain stipends at the audit-room in the cathedral precinct. I cannot distinguish between the case of these functionaries and that *119] of any private gentleman's servants. The payment is made out of the general funds of the dean and chapter. There is no vestige of any equitable interest in land.

WILLIAMS, J.-I am of the same opinion. It may be that the claimants have certain functions for life, and that they are entitled to receive certain yearly sums out of the revenues of the dean and chapter. But there is nothing to show that they have any interest whatever in any land.

BYLES, J., and KEATING, J., concurred.

Decision reversed.

END OF THE REGISTRATION CASES FOR 1861.

*120]

*MEMORANDA.

IN the course of the Vacation succeeding this Term, the Hon. Mr. Justice Hill resigned his office of Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench.

John Mellor, Esq., of the Inner Temple, one of Her Majesty's Counsel learned in the Law, was appointed a Judge of the Court of Queen's Bench, in the room of Mr. Justice Hill, resigned. He gave rings with with the motto, "Lex ratione probatâ.”

The learned Judge took the oaths and his seat in Court on the second day of the Term. He shortly after received the honour of knighthood.

The Judges who usually sat in banco in this term, were—

ERLE, C. J.
WILLIAMS, J.

BYLES, J.
KEATING, J.

SMITH and Others v. SMITH and Others. Nov. 5.

Testator by his will, made before 1838, gave all his real and personal estate to trustees, in trust, after payment of his debts, &c., to convert the personal estate into money, to be placed at interest. He then gave all "the profits" arising from his real estate and the interest of his personal estate to his wife, to be applied to her maintenance and support at the discretion of the trustees, if she should need the whole of it, during her life. He then gave a legacy of 5007. to his niece. He then willed that his trustees should put his kinsman G. S. into possession of a close called The First Close,' which he gave to the said G. S.; and then followed this devise, -" Then I give all that my close or piece of land called The Second Close' with all the appurtenances, unto my kinsman W. S., son of my late brother W. S. :”—

Held, that a sufficiently clear intention to give W. S. an estate in fee was shown, to countervail the absence of words of limitation.

THIS was an action of ejectment brought for the recovery of a close or piece of land called "The Second Close," situate in the lordship of Pailton, in the county of Warwick; and by consent of the parties, and under a Judge's order, pursuant to the Common Law *Proce

dure Act, 1852, the following case was stated for the opinion [*122

of the Court:

Joseph Smith and Thomas Smith being seised in fee as tenants in common of the said close called "The Second Close," the said Joseph Smith duly made and executed his last will and testament in writing, dated the 17th of March, 1824, and thereby gave and devised all that his undivided moiety or half part, and all other his right, share, and interest of and in all those several closes, pieces, or parcels of arable, meadow, and pasture land of which he was seised jointly with his brother Thomas Smith, and containing sixteen acres or thereabouts,