Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Elections - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 16 cases, and was prepared on 21 May 2019.

 
John Stephenson Robson v Lawrence Lawson Brown [1856] EngR 899; (1856) 1 CB NS 34; (1856) 140 ER 14
14 Nov 1856


Elections
Appeals cannot be consolidated under the 6 and 7 Vict. e. 18, s. 44, unless they depend upon the same precise point of law.-Where, therefore, a consolidated appeal contained a different statement of facts as applicable to the several voters, requiring several decisions in point of law, the court declined to entertain it.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Tozer v Child (1857) 7 El and Bl 377; (1857) 119 ER 1286
1857


Elections, Torts - Other

1 Citers


 
Regina v The Inspectors Of Votes For No 5 Ward Of The Parish Of St Pancras [1857] EngR 663 (A); (1857) 7 El and Bl 954
11 Jun 1857


Elections

[ Commonlii ]
 
Regina v Henry Moore Griffiths [1857] EngR 661; (1857) 7 El and Bl 952; (1857) 119 ER 1501
11 Jun 1857


Elections
The high sheriff of a county, in August 1854, appointed G. election auditor for the county, under The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854 (17 & 18 Vict. c. 102, S. 15), to act at any elections for and during the year then next ensuing, and until another appointment should be made. No fresh appointment was made in 1855. In March 1856 the then high sheriff appointed W. election auditor for the current year. - On a rule for a quo warranto against G. :-Held, that it was not necessary that the appointment for 1855-1856 should be made during the month of August: that W. was well appointed ; and that, on his appointment, Q. ceased to be election auditor : and the rule was made absolute.
Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854
[ Commonlii ]
 
The Queen v Leatham [1861] EngR 313; (1861) 3 El and El 658; (1861) 121 ER 589
12 Feb 1861


Elections, Crime

[ Commonlii ]
 
Henry Smith v George Huggett [1861] EngR 908; (1861) 11 CB NS 55; (1861) 142 ER 714
11 Nov 1861


Elections

[ Commonlii ]
 
Charles Edward Lewis v Thomas Nichols Roberts [1861] EngR 906; (1861) 11 CB NS 23; (1861) 142 ER 702
11 Nov 1861


Elections

[ Commonlii ]
 
Henry Smith v William Albert James [1861] EngR 937; (1861) 11 CB NS 62; (1861) 142 ER 717
15 Nov 1861


Elections

[ Commonlii ]
 
Henry Smith v William Hall [1863] EngR 964; (1863) 15 CB NS 485; (1863) 143 ER 874
17 Nov 1863


Elections

[ Commonlii ]
 
Henry Smith v Frederick Foreman [1865] EngR 98; (1865) 18 CB NS 144; (1865) 141 ER 396
12 Jan 1865


Elections

[ Commonlii ]

 
 The Shrewsbury Petition: Young v Figgins; 1869 - (1869) 19 LT 499

 
 The Wakefield Case XVII; 1874 - (1874) 2 O'M and H 100
 
Williams v Mayor of Tenby [1879] 5 CPD 135
1879
CCP
Lopes J, Grove J
Elections
The defendant had not given appropriate notices under the act and complained that his petition had been struck out: "It is said that there would be hardship supposing money deposited, if mere omission of notices should prevent a petition. I see no more hardship than may occur in any case where a definite time is to be observed, and I see good reason why it should be so. There are two alternatives given, and it is reasonable that the parties should know which has been adopted, viz deposit or recognisance, and, if the latter, that he should be set instantly on inquiry whether the securities are good and valid or not. [The judge then referred to the relevant rules which provided for any objection to the proposed security to be made within five days] So not only is the person depositing security limited by the rules as to time, but the person objecting to the security is limited likewise. If we were to carve out of this procedure what is permissive and what is peremptory, we should launch persons into greater litigation than even they embark on, for we should be asked to vary the particular time in each case. I think the petitioners in these cases are advised by competent persons, and ought to pursue the provisions of the Act. One other argument was founded on rule 44, that 'all interlocutory questions and matters, except as to the sufficiency of the security, shall be heard and disposed of before a judge, who shall have the same control over the proceedings under the [1872 Act] as a judge at chambers in the ordinary proceedings of the superior Courts …'. That rule seems to leave the question where it is. If it is matter of procedure, then the judge will have some powers. But if the Act does not give these powers, then he has them not. The question still is whether the provisions of the Act are or are not peremptory. I think they are peremptory, and that the terms not complied with are conditions precedent which ought to be complied with before the petition could be presented. The appeal must be dismissed."
Municipal Elections Act 1872 13(4)
1 Citers



 
 Bradley v Baylis; CA 1881 - (1881) 8 QBD 195
 
Re Lancashire Darwen Division, Case (1885) 2 TLR 220
1885


Elections
Strong grounds for making an order for inspection of uncounted ballot papers must be shown, and the court must be satisfied that the application for it is made in good faith, and will rarely, if ever, grant it unless a petition or prosecution has been instituted or is about to be instituted and it is shown to be really required. The court refused to allow an inspection of the ballot papers in the absence of a petition, and doubted whether it had jurisdiction to make such an order unless on a petition.
Ballot Act 1872
1 Citers



 
 Sunderland Borough Case; 1896 - (1896) 5 O'MandH 53
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.