THOMAS LYON'S CASE. Voted for Ewart, objected to for having been at the time he voted incapacitated from drunkenness. After the evidence had been gone through, the most material parts of which are alluded to in the argument of the case, it was Resolved-That the Committee is unanimously of opinion that the vote is good, but they do not give their judgment till they know whether counsel acquiesce in their view of the case. Mr. Thesiger felt it to be his duty to call the attention of the Committee to those parts of the evidence which bore on the real question before them. A great deal of the evidence which had been given in the case had no bearing on the real issue. It had been attempted to be proved that the voter had promised his vote to Mr. Ewart before the election; evidence had also been given to shew that the voter had promised his vote to Mr. Kearsley, but the whole of this part of the inquiry was irrelevant. It had also been proved that the voter was objected to at the poll, and a great deal of time had been occupied in attempting to determine when the objection was made, whether it was before or after the voting. But this was also irrelevant. The true and only question in the case was, whether the voter was in a fit state at the time he voted to perform any deliberate act. On this part of the case the evidence is perfectly uniform to prove that the voter was completely drunk at the time of his offering himself to vote. One of the witnesses, in support of the vote, stated that the voter was "not particularly drunk at nine," but that he was more drunk at ten," which was 66 1839. 1839. the last time he saw him. The other witnesses, on both sides, traced the voter's career from ten till he went to the poll, and they shewed that he continued to drink unremittingly, and became more and more drunk till he was quite incapable of knowing what he did, and in this state, at twelve o'clock, he was dragged up to the poll between two supporters. It has been shewn, that at that time of the day other voters came up between two supporters. There was nothing then peculiar to attract attention in this circumstance, yet the bystanders did immediately exclaim upon his condition and called the attention of the assessor to him. The assessor, being present, having an opportunity to observe the state of the voter, and acting under the impression which carried to his mind the certainty of irresistible conviction, decided against the vote. Have the Committee sufficient facts before them, to enable them satisfactorily to overrule the decision of a competent impartial judge, who was present on the spot, and who, on the view pronounced a decision in which he could scarcely have been mistaken? It is proved that the voter was in such a state that no one would have thought of putting the oath to him. The witnesses on the one side say he was insensible; the witnesses on the other side reluctantly admit that he was very drunk. It is clear that no tribunal could decide that the voter was in a state to make any civil contract, can it then be decided that he was in such a state as to entitle him to exercise the electoral franchise? If the case rested only on the evidence which has been produced before the Committee, it would be dangerous to give such a sanction to drunkenness as to allow a vote, given under such circumstances, to be good; but when it is recollected that the present vote cannot be held good, without formally overruling the decision pronounced on the spot by an impartial person, perfectly competent to decide the question, the sanction given to immorality by upholding the vote would become doubly dangerous. Vote held good. On this decision being made, Mr. Kearsley retired from the contest, and the Committee, after making the usual resolutions, reported to the House that Mr. Ewart was duly elected. 1839. INDEX ΤΟ FALCONER AND FITZHERBERT'S REPORTS. ADJOURNMENT OF THE COMMITTEE. See COMMITTEE refused during the Easter holidays, 150, 151. consideration of a vote adjourned to enable petitioners to call ADJOURNMENT. See REVISING BARRISTER'S COURT-Polling. AFFIDAVIT. See CERTIFICATE-POLL-BOOKS. is defective if made by two deponents, and omits to state, that parol evidence permitted to be given to supply the defects of the affidavit signed "Edward Barry," and the name inserted by the held not to be invalid, though it omitted to state that the quali- AGENCY. See BRIBERY. facts held not sufficient to prove it, London, 660. - AGENT. See OBJECTION TO VOTERS-MESSENGER EVIDENCE. how far the principal is bound by the statement of his agent, 521. |