under conveyances from grantors who had no fufficient title. A notice had been served on the agents for Ld. S. and Sir Eimitation. R. P. to produce the deed of conveyance from Mr. Trefry to the trustees. Their counfel objected to the whole of this evidence, and to all other evidence which tended to fhew that those perfons, who had been admitted, and who stood on the roll as prince's tenants, were not prince's tenants: that fuch a question belonged to the peculiar jurisdiction of the court of King's Bench; that had application been made there, and informations in the nature of quo warranto been obtained against thefe voters, due diligence would have been used to obtain juftice from the proper court: but till that was fhews, the committee would not entertain the objection. It was also faid, that this evidence went to contradict the laft determination of the House of Commons upon the right of election. It was answered, that there was no way of impeaching the rights of these persons directly, by any procefs in the courts of law; that the only way by which their rights could be queflioned, was by profat may be ceeding against Mr. Mein, who had been elected by them; impeached and that this proceeding had been adopted, an information in the nature of quo warranto having been filed against committee, Mein. And it was denied that this evidence interfered with gal proceed the determination of the houfe, the only question now being, ings could be whether thefe perfons had been duly admitted? The com Rights of electors de at any time before a where no le had against them. 9 See R. v. Mein, 3 Term Rep. 596. E. T. 30 G. 3. It was there deeided that although it is a general rule, (See Cowp. 507.) that the titles of electors may not be tried, by impeaching the right of the perfon elected by them, yet that there is an exception of those cafes, where there is no other way of trying them; as here. That no que warranto could be obtained against the Prince's tenants, who were merely freeholders, having an incidental power of electing the portreeve of the borough. The following note is subjoined to that cafe: "In the cafe of the borough of Hortham, Hil. 36 G. 3., the Court held that an information in nature of que warranto would lie against a perfon claiming to have a right of voting by virtue of a burgage-tenement; and they faid that the point had been so often ruled, that it was too late to raise the queftion and there the rule was made abfolute against one who claimed such right." Ib. 599. note. See alfo 5 T. Rep. 376. not.; as to offices not corporate, for which fuch information have been granted. must be veyance voter's title. become a mittee decided that the evidence was admiffible. It was Premifes then objected again, to the production of the truft deed, that identified it should be firft fhewn by the production of the deeds of before a conconveyance to the voters themselves, that the premises men- then. tioned in the deed, were thofe in refpect of which they had been admitted. It was refolved, that the deed offered in evidence is not admiffible to impeach the titles of the voters as they are described on the court rolls, without producing the title deeds themselves, under which they claimed admission, or proving their contents by parole evidence. Evidence was Parole evithen given to prove the declarations of the voters themselves dence of as to the titles upon which they claimed to be admitted, in Nov. 1789. The first witness called was J. W. Carlyon, who being examined on the voir dire, faid that he had voted One who as a freeholder at the election, in right of an eftate conveyed had parted to him about five or fix years ago by Mr. Rafhleigh; that tereft, on he had never received any rent, nor paid any confideration purpofe to for it and that he had conveyed it away in fee about three competent witness, ador four days fince, in confideration of 201., for the exprefs mitted." purpose of becoming a witness, and by the advice of counfel. He did not confider himself entitled to retain the 201.; nor to have any claim to the eftate. The committee, after argument, decided that he was an admiffible witnefs. The witness then said, that he had attended at the courts held in Nov. 1789 and March 1790; that Mr. Gryll attended on behalf of all the persons who claimed under Mr. Trefry's eftate; and Mr. Rafhleigh, for a number of perfons of the other party, who claimed under conveyances from the family of Rafhleigh. The declaration of Mr. Gryll as to the titles under which the voters on his fide claimed to be admitted, was objected to and rejected by the committee. The entry on the roll of the admiffion of one of the voters in 1790, the fame having been read at the election, in the presence of the voter himself, and at his defire, as the foundation of his right to vote, was then, after argument, permitted to be r See ante, p. 479, S The entries in the Court Rolls were in this form; "A. B. for one burgage tenement in Fowey, formerly the eftate of C. D., and for which the VOL. I. faid A. B. hath been admitted tenant M m read read in evidence. He had been objected to at the poll; 1. as not having been duly admitted; 2. as voting for premifes not within the manor; 3. as deriving his title from the trustees of Mr. Trefry's eftate, who had only a term. The remainder of the 51 voters were proved to have referred generally to the roll, as the proof of their title; and upon infpecting the roll, it appeared that fome of them claimed under a conveyance from Mr. Trefry or his daughters; others, under Mr. Thomas, one of the trustees. This evidence having been completed, it was now again propofed to read the deed of conveyance in 1775 from Mr. Trefry, to the trustees. After argument, the committee refolved, "that the deed which has been offered in evidence is now admiffible to impeach the titles as they are defcribed in the entries on the court roll referred to by the refpective voters at the election, for proof of the claim under which they were admitted to vote." The deed was then read; it purported to be a conveyance of all Mr. Tretry's land in Cornwall, to Mr. Buller, and Mr. Thomas, for 400 years, in truft. Mr. Trefry died about the year 1776, leaving a fon, who furvived him only two years, and two daughters, Mrs. Auften and Mrs. Dormer, in whom the equitable eftate vefted under the trust deed, and who were proved to be in the poffeffion of Mr. Trefry's manor of Fowey. The courts of that manor were held at the king of Pruffia public-house, where the conventionary rents were received. Then followed evidence of a. confiderable length, as to the bounds of the prince's manor, the locality of the public houfe called the king of Prussia, and also of several tenements, in right of which certain perfons had voted for Ld. S. and Sir R. P. In the cross examination of one of the witneffes, a queftion was asked tending to impeach fome of the voters for Ld. V. and Mr. R. The competency of this evidence was objected to; becaufe there was no allegation in the petition of Ld. S. and Sir R. P. that Mr. Mein had admitted perfons to vote for their opponents, who had no right. The confi deration of this question was agreed to be deferred '. See poft. The dente lite not The copy of a notice on the agents of Ld. S. and Sir Notice penR. P. dated the 14 Feb. 1791, was read, and propofed fufficient. to be proved, requiring the production of the title-deeds of certain voters; it was objected to, as ferved pendente lite; and the cafe of Cricklade 1783 was cited from Mr. Petrie's report. The committee decided "that the notice was not given in time to entitle the counfel for Ld. V. and Mr. R. to call for the production of the deeds." The counfel on the other fide hereupon proceeded to fubftantiate their objections against eight perfons who had voted for Ld. S. and Sir R. P. as inhabitants paying fcot and lot. There being no decifion upon any particular vote, it is unneceflary to detail the evidence refpecting them, and it needs only to be obferved, that the committee required the No evidence mifconduct of the parish officers to be proved, before they permitted, of rateability permitted evidence to be given of the rateability of perfons except where not rated in the rate of 12 Mar. 1790, the rate produced at in the parish the election. The day of the election is not stated in the officers. minutes; but the writ for affembling a new parliament was tefted in June 1790. mifconduct being closed, Mr. Dou- In the cafe counfel for Ld. S. and of a double return, and determined, The cafe for Ld. V. and Mr. R. glas proceeded to contend that the Sir R. P. could not object to the admiffion of any vote crofs petifor his clients received by Mr. Mein, there being no fuch tions, the petitioners in allegation in their petition; that they were not entitled to whofe favor the privilege of fitting members; becaufe that privilege the return is arofe from the circumstance of a fitting member having no may imopportunity of stating his cafe: here, Ld. S. and Sir R. P. had an opportunity, and ought to have alleged all the mat- under that ters which they meant to prove. The committee determined, "that it was competent to the counsel for Lord S. be no fuch and Sir R. P. to impeach any votes standing on the poll in their petifavour of Ld. V. and Mr. R. "" peach the votes taken return, although there allegation in tion. R. P. Mr. Piggott then opened the cafe of Lord Shuldham and Cafe of Ld. Sir Ralph Payne, their petition having first been read. S. and Sir He defended the titles of the 52 Prince's tenants, who had voted for his clients, against the objections made to • See a fimilar decifion in the case of Downton, 3 Lud, 204, Notice to voters, and S. M. to produce deeds. them, and infifted that the 8 perfons, who had voted for Ld. S. and Sir R. P. as inhabitants paying fcot and lot, were duly qualified as fuch; and that they had used due diligence to have their names inferted in a rate made Nov. 1789. That the scot and lot men rejected for Ld. V. and Mr. R. had no right to vote, having been for the first time inferted in the rate in March 1790, that they were barred by Mr. Nicholls' act ", and were occafional voters. He also gave an aufwer to the other objections made on the part of Ld. V. and Mr. R. He then proceeded to object to the poll for Ld. V. and Mr. R. and infifted upon ftriking off for occafionality, many of their voters, who had voted as Prince's tenants. It appeared that notice had been given to all these voters to agent of to produce their deeds: but no notice had been given to the agent of Ld. V. and Mr. R. It appeared however that he knew the fact of the notice having been ferved upon the voters, and that most of the deeds were in his cuftody, though not in his actual poffeffion; that he had been ferved with a notice to produce his own deed, and that he said he should carry all the conveyances to town with him. He refused to tell where they then were. The committee after argument, refolved, "that under all the circumftances the counsel for Lord S. and Sir R. P. may prove by parole evidence the contents of the deeds, which the voters have had notice to produce." The title of each voter was then read from the court rolls, and evidence was given to identify the premises, and to fhew that the grantees had no real poffeffion. Ividence admitted to fhew a frau of 20 years. One voter appearing to have been admitted in 1767, it was objected that no evidence should be received to impeach dulent title a title of 20 years standing. It was faid, that although it was not neceffary to fhew any proceedings in quo warranto against the voter, his title not being to be impeached by that process, it should at least be fhewn, that an application had been made to the fteward to ftrike him off, and that it must now be fuppofed the steward had that power, fince St. 26 G. 3. c. 190. |