Hudson v Louth

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judgment Date: 29 November 1879
• Date: 29 November 1879
• Court: Unspecified Court

Appeal.

Before MAY, C. J., and DEASY and FITZ GIBBON, L. JJ.

HUDSON,

APPELLANT;

and

LOUTH,

RESPONDENT

Bishop v. HelpsENR 2 C. B. 56.

Bayly v. Overseers of NantwichENR 2 C. B. 118.

Lewis v. EvansELR L. R. 10 C. P. 297.

Noseworthy's CaseELR L. R. 9 C. P. 240.

Cooper v. CoatesUNK 5 M. & G. 98.

In Hickton v. AntrobusENR 2 C. B. 82.

Cuming v. TomsUNK 7 M. & G. 34.

Wanklyn v. WoollettENR 4 C. B. 88.

In Bayley v. The Nantwich OverseersENR 2 C. B. 120.

Parliament County vote Notice of objection Service through Post Office No postal delivery 13 & 14 Vict. C. 69, s. 113.

Von. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DWISfONS. Parliament-County vote-Notice of objection-Service through Post Office-No postal delivery-13 4. 14 Vict. c. 69, s. 113. Objection to the name of C. being retained on the supplemental list of parÂÂliamentary voters. The " place of abode" of C., as described in the list, was " Regeens, Lusk ;" the notice of objection was directed to " C., Regeens, Lusk," was stamped at the Post Office, Dublin, as of the 18th of August, and would have, in the ordinary course of post, reached Lusk, which is very near Regeens, on the morning of the 19th of August. The 20th was the last day for giving notice of objection. There was no postal delivery at Lusk, and the notice might remain in the office till called for. Held (DEASY, L. J., diss.), that there was evidence, under the 113th section of the 13 & 14 Vict. c. 69, of the notice having been given to C. at Regeens, Lusk, on or before the 20th of August, in the ordinary course of post. APPEALS from the Revising Barrister for the County of Dublin in two cases. The following was the statement of the Revising Barrister in Caffrey's Case :-" At a Court for the revision of the lists of voters for the County of Dublin, held at Balbriggan on the 13th of October, 1879, for the polling district of Balbriggan, Benjamin Hudson objected to the name of Patrick Caffrey being retained on the supplemental list of voters for the said. district. The place of abode' of the said Patrick Caffrey, as described in the list of voters, was Regeens, Lusk.' The stamped duplicate of the notices of objection was produced by the Appellant, who had posted it in Dublin, and. it was directed on the back, and also inside, to Patrick Caffrey, Regeens, Lusk.' It was stamped at the Post Office, as of the 18th August, and it is to be taken as proved that the notice, in the ordinary course of post, would reach the post-office at Lusk, which is very near Regeens, on the mornÂÂing of the 19th of August ; that there is not any postal delivery at Lusk, and that the notice might remain in the office till called for. No further evidence having been given by the Appellant as to the service of the notice, I was of opinion that there was not (1) Before Mir, C. J., and BEASY and Frrz Grum, L. M. VOL. VI. LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. R. I. any evidence within the meaning of the 113th section of the 13 & 14 Viet. o. 69, that the notice had ever been given to Patrick Caffrey at his place of abode, as described in the list, and I reÂÂtained his name on the list. If I was wrong, his name is to be expunged. The question for the opinion of the Court of Appeal is whether, under the circumstances as stated, there was any eviÂÂdence under the 113th section of the Act referred to of the notice having been given to Patrick Caffrey at Regeens, Lusk, on or beÂÂfore the 20th of August, in the ordinary course of post. The facts of the cases of the voters named underneath are similar to that of Patrick Caffrey. If the Court of Appeal shall reverse my opinion, the names of these voters are to be expunged, as the cases are to be considered as a consolidated appeal." There was no material difference in the statement in BermingÂÂham's Case, except that it was stated that Lusk was the nearest post-office to " Corduff Hall," the voter's place of abode, and that " the notice would remain in the office till called for." The Solicitor-General (Holmes), Monroe, Q. C., Boyd, Q. C., and Kisbey, for the objector the Appellant. M. Johnson, Q. C., O'Brien, Q. C., and. O'Hea, for the Respondent. The cases cited during the argument are referred to fully in the judgments. Cur. adv. mat. Nov. 29. Day, C. J. :-[After reading the ease as given ante, p. 69, proceeded.] Nothing is stated as to Caffrey, and these other voters, except that there was no postal delivery of letters from the post-office of Lusk, which would appear to be the proper post-office to which the notices should have been sent. Consistently with everything stated in the case, Caffrey and these other voters may have been in the daily habit of calling for their letters either by themselves or an agent or servant. The Revising Barrister has decided apparently, as matter of law, that if it shall appear that there is no postal delivery from VOL. VI.] Q. B., C. P., & EX. DIVISIONS. any post-office, the enactments of the 113th section of the Act do not apply with respect to all notices of objection directed to that post-office, as the objector must prove what may be called actual service under the 26th section. And the point seems to be material, as I take it for granted that, in rural districts, there is, in the large majority of cases, no postal delivery from the local post-offices ; so that if the decision be correct, the larger portion of Ireland will be withdrawn from the operation of the 113th section. But I think it may be fairly assumed that the legislature when dealing with this subject was aware that such was the practice with regard to postal delivery of letters in rural places, and with such knowledge enacted the 113th section of the Act. And it seems to me that the policy of the legislature has recently been rather to dispense with proof by oral evidence in matters relating to the qualification and registration of voters. Reliance is rather placed upon the regular discharge of duty by persons in official positions ; and in this particular case the legislature appears to have considered that the presumption that letters duly posted will reach their addresses is a strong and reliable presumption, as much to be depended upon as the statement of a witness, even on oath. The 113th section provides-That it shall be siifficient if the notice shall be sent by the post-postage prepaid-directed to the voter, at his described place of abode. The section, having stated in general terms what is to be done, proceeds to define further details and particulars, and the notice is to be delivered in duplicate at parÂÂticular post-offices at particular hours, subject to prescribed regulaÂÂtions with respect to the registration of such letters, and the fee to be paid for such registration. Then the Post Office authorities (having received the fee) are directed to forward one of the duplicate notices to the address by the post. The other is to be returned, stamped, to the sender, and the production of such stamped duplicate by the party who sent the notice is to be eviÂÂdence of the notice having been given to the person at the place named in such duplicate (L e. the address of the voter), on the day on which such notice would in the ordinary course of post have been delivered at such place. As to the interpretation of G2 LAW REPORTS (IRELAND). [L. It. I. this section, I rely on the judgment of the Court of Common Pleas in England in the case of Bishop v. Helps (1). The Court there held that the sending of a notice by the Post Office in the manner described by the section of the English Act (6 & 7 Vict. c. 18, s. 100), which is identical with the 113th section of the Irish Act, the statutory conditions being complied with, was a substitute for actual service by manual delivery to the person, or leaving the notice at his place of abode ; and the Court held that if the obÂÂjector had done all that the statute required, he is entitled to call on the voter to prove his right, whether the notice arrived or not, and whether it was prevented from arriving by insufficient descripÂÂtion of the...