very clear matter. The statute authorises the local board to make an order for the paving of a street, and by the interpretation clause the word "street' may mean any part of a street; therefore the board may make an order for the repair of either an entire street or a part of a street; but when they come to apportion the expenses they have only one duty, namely, to apportion the expenses upon the whole of the property which they order to be repaired, and they cannot divide a street to see how the property in particular sections may be assessed. If this were otherwise, great injustice might be done; thus, suppose you take a long street varying in character and value to a great extent, if you take a particular piece and say on that part shall fall all the expense of its repairs, you would be apportioning very unjustly and harshly, for you might be thus assessing a very poor property to as great an amount as very valuable property. I think, therefore, the decision of the magistrate was wrong. [Q. B. This was an appeal against an assessment for the relief of the poor of the township of Weaverham, in the county of Chester, made the 29th April 1864, tried on the 21st Oct. 1864, at the Quarter Sessions for the county of Chester, when the sessions confirmed the rate, subject to a case. The case stated that the township of Weaverham, in the county of Chester, is one of several townships which together constitute the parish of Weaverham. Weaverham township, however, is a place separately maintaining its own poor, and for which two overseers are annually appointed. The hamlet of Gorstage is locally situate within the said township of Weaverham, and has from time immemorial maintained its own highways quite separately and distinctly from the rest of the township of Weaverham, and a surveyor of highways was annually appointed for such hamlet until the date of the order of sessions hereinafter referred to. Gorstage was not, however, a place separately maintaining its own poor, but has always been assessed to the BLACKBURN, J.-The board came to the deter-poor-rate made for the whole township of Weavermination to pave the whole of Latymer-road; that ham. The app., Robert Heath, is the owner in feebeing so, they had to apportion the expenses, and simple of a mansion-house, certain farms and lands although they have a discretion upon the subject, situate in the hamlet of Gorstage, called Hefferstonthey cannot be allowed to apportion capriciously; grange, and being formerly part of the possessions they must apportion equally, and divide the entire of the dissolved monastery of Vale Royal. The said estimate amongst the owners. It may be likened to mansion-house, &c. are now occupied by the apps., a poor-rate for a parish consisting of tithings, in John Heath, John Gerrard, and John Newall. From which case it would be wrong to divide the rate time immemorial the owners and occupiers of Hefamongst the tithings according to the burden of ferston-grange have been liable to repair, and have each. Here the board have said, "We will apportion repaired at their sole expense, a certain road or the expenses of each section to each section." This highway in the hamlet of Gorstage leading from is not following the statutable direction, and is Acton-bridge to Tarporley, both in the county of wrong. Chester, and have in consequence of such liability been exempt from repairing or contributing to the repairs of the other highways in the said hamlet of Gorstage. The occupiers of Hefferston-grange have always been rated in respect of the same to the relief of the poor. An order of the Court of Quarter Sessions for the county of Chester was made on the 4th March 1863, a copy of which forms part of this case. (This was an order made under the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61 (Highway Act), and directed that the several townships and places and parts of townships and places mentioned in the fifth schedule hereunder written, save and except such of the same townships and places, &c. as by the 7th section of the said Act are directed not to be included in any highway district, shall be a highway district, and shall be known by the name of "The highway district of the west division of the hundred of Eddisbury." In the fifth schedule referred to the above-mentioned township of Weaverham was included.) Judgment for the app. Attorney for the resps., J. Bird, Hammersmith. Attorney for the app., Vining, Moorgate-street. Nov. 18, 1865, and Jan. 24, 1866. REG. v. HEATH AND OTHERS. Highway rate-Exemption of lands from the rate- The 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61 (Highway Act) does not alter rates. H., who was the owner of lands in a hamlet in the township of W., which township maintained its own poor, was, before the passing of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, exempt from the payment of highway rates for that hamlet in respect of those lands, by reason of his liability to repair (ratione tenure) a certain road in such hamlet. After the passing of the above statute the township of W. was, by an order of Quarter | Sessions, together with other townships, constituted a highway district, and the highway board directed a precept to the overseers of such township to pay a certain sum to the treasurer for the purposes of the Act. Upon this, the said overseers made an equal pound rate in respect of all the lands in the township at the rate of 1s. in the pound, being 8d. in the pound in respect of the poor-rate, and 4d. in the pound in respect of the amount required by the highway board. H. was accordingly assessed to such rate in respect of the lands above mentioned: Held, that, as such lands were exempt before the coming into operation of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, they remain so exempt, and that they should have been assessed to 8d. in the pound only in respect of the poor-rate. The case went on to state that since the making of the said order of sessions no surveyor of highways has been appointed or any separate highway rate been made for Gorstage, but the highways therein which were formerly repaired by that hamlet have been repaired by the highway board at the expense or on account of the township of Weaverham. For the purpose of obtaining the sum necessary to repair the roads in the said township of Weaverham, including the highways in the hamlet of Gorstage, the West Eddisbury highway board, on the 13th April 1864, directed its precept to the overseers of Weaverham, under sect. 21 of the said Act of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, requiring the said overseers to pay the sum of 3001. by two equal instalments of 150%. each to the treasurer of the said highway board. To enable the overseers of Weaverham to pay the first instalment of the said sum of 300l. to the treasurer of the said highway board, and to raise the sum necessary for poor-law purposes in the half-year ending 29th Sept. 1864, the overseers made the rate appealed against. It is a rate made upon every occupier of property liable to Q. B.] REG. v. HEATH AND OTHERS. [Q. B. be rated to the relief of the poor in the whole township of Weaverham, the rate assessed upon each occupier is 1s. in the pound. Of this sum 4d. in the pound, or thereabouts, is the sum necessary to be raised for the payment of the sum of 150, being the first instalment of the sum required to be paid by the precept before mentioned for the repairs of the highways, and 8d. in the pound, or thereabouts, is the sum necessary to be raised for the relief of the poor of Weaverham. Each of the apps. is rated in the sum of 1s. in the pound. The apps. contend that they are by this rate assessed in too high a sum, and that no portion of the sum of 300% pay-under the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, divided the county into able under the precept of the West Eddisbury highway board should be levied upon them, as they are exempt from contributing to the repair of the highways in Gorstage, whether that hamlet be separated from or amalgamated with the rest of the township of Weaverham, and that they ought only to be assessed at 8d. in the pound, or thereabouts, being the sum necessary to raise the money required for the relief of the poor. If the court should be of opinion that the apps. ought to be assessed in respect of the sum payable under the precept of the West Eddisbury highway board, then the sum assessed upon them is to be at the rate of 8d. in the pound, or thereabouts, and the said rate is to be amended and reduced accordingly; otherwise it is to stand confirmed. Mellish, Q. C. and McIntyre appeared for the resps., and contended that the apps., as occupiers of property rateable to the relief of the poor of the township of Weaverham, were liable to contribute in respect thereof to the repairs of the highways within such township, and that the hamlet of Gorstage, by the operation of the order of Quarter Sessions, ceased to be a place maintaining its own highways, and became for the purposes of the Highway Act part of the township of Weaverham, and consequently that the apps., as occupiers of land situate in such hamlet, are liable to contribute to the repairs of all. Temple, Q. C. and Heath, for the apps., argued that, as the lands of the apps. were exempted from the highway rate of the hamlet down to the passing of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, such exemption is not affected by such statute, and that the assessment should have been in respect of the poor-rate only. That inasmuch as the liability of the owner and occupier of the lands in question to repair the road mentioned in the case still continues, they will be saddled with a double liability if compelled to pay also the highway rate: 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50, ss. 20, 27, 33, 62; 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, ss. 4, 20, 21, 22, 34, 35, 42; Cur. adv. vult. Jan. 24.—LUSH, J.-This was an appeal against a poor-rate for the township of Weaverham, in the parish of Weaverham, in the county of Chester, whereby 1s. in the pound was assessed upon the occupiers of all the rateable property in the township. Of this rate 8d. in the pound was raised for the relief of the poor, the remaining 4d. being for the repairs of the highways. The ground of appeal was, that the app. was not liable to contribute to the repairs of the highways, and therefore that the rate upon him was in excess, and ought to be reduced by the amount assessed for the highways. The sessions confirmed the rate subject to the opinion of this court upon that point. The township is a place separately maintaining its own poor, and it contains within its area the hamlet of Gorstage, which hamlet has from time immemorial maintained its own highways. The apps. are occupiers of a mansionhouse and certain farms and lands within the hamlet, the owners and occupiers of which have from time immemorial been liable to repair, and have repaired at their sole expense, a certain road or highway in the hamlet, and have in consequence of such liability been exempt from repairing and contributing to the repair of the other highways therein, but they have always been rated to the relief of the poor of the township. The Court of Quarter Sessions of the county, by an order made highway districts; and amongst other things ordered under sect. 7 is, that "in case any township which separately maintains its own poor is divided into any tithings, hamlets, or places, each of which separately maintains its Own highways, such tithings, hamlets, and place, shall be combined, and no separate waywarden shall be elected for such tithings, hamlets, and places, and such township shall be subject to the same liabilities in respect of all the highways within it which were before maintained by such tithings. hamlets, and places separately, as if all their several liabili ties had attached to the whole township, and one waywarden shall be elected for such township as a whole." By virtue of this order the hamlet became, for highway purposes, merged in the township, and the poor-law parish and the highway parish became conterminous. The highway board, for the purpose of obtaining the sum necessary to repair the highways in the township, including those which had theretofore been repaired by the hamlet, issued their precept to the overseers of the township under sect. 21 of the before mentioned Act, requiring the owners to pay the sum of 300l. to the treasurer of the board. To enable them to pay the first instalment of this sum, and to raise the sum necessary for poor-law purposes, the overseers made the rate against which the appeal was lodged. It was contended by the apps. that, inasmuch as they were, "before the order of sessions, exempted from highway rates in the hamlet, they are equally exempted from contributing by means of the poor-rate to the sum required for highway purposes. On the other hand, it was urged by the resps. that, as the maintenance of the highways in the hamlet is transferred from the hamlet and charged upon the poor-rate of the township, which is and must be raised by an equal pound rate upon all the assessable property in the parish, the exemption which the lands in question before enjoyed is by necessary implication abolished. Until the passing of the 25 & 26 Vict. c. 61, the fund for maintaining the highways had been raised by a highway rate upon the parish, township, or hamlet liable thereto; and by the 33rd section of the Highway Act (the 5 & 6 Will. 4, c. 50) it was enacted that "when the property, or the owner in respect thereof, has, previous to the passing of this Act, been legally exempted from the performance of statute duty, or from the payment of any composition in lieu thereof, or of any highway rate, the said property, and the owners or occupiers thereof, shall be exempt from the payment of the rate hereby imposed." That Act is still in force, and by the 42nd section of the recent Act it is to be construed as one with the latter Act, so far as the provisions of the one are consistent with those of the other. Is there, then, anything in the recent Act inconsistent with the provision here made for continuing the exemption to which the property had before been entitled? The 21st section enacts that, "for the purpose of obtaining payment from the several parishes within their district of the sums due from them, the highway board shall order precepts to be issued to the overseers of the said parishes, stating the sum to be contributed Q. B.] TRIGGS (app.) v. LESTER (resp.) [Q. B. be more than one such parish, shall apportion among such parts the amounts to be levied in such parish.' Where, in the case contemplated by this section, the overseers require to raise money for the maintenance of the poor as well as for the highways, they must, in order to comply with the statute, adopt the course contended for by the apps. For these reasonswe are of opinion that the order of sessions confirming the rate should be quashed, and the rate amended by reducing the assessment upon the apps. to 8d. in the pound. Order of sessions quashed; rate to be amended Attorney for the apps., Cheshire, Nortwich. Saturday, Jan. 20, 1866. TRIGGS (app.) v. LESTER (resp.) By sect. 3 of the Islington Parish Act 1857 (20 & 21 The app. on a Sunday was seen driving in the said parish horses drawing a van in which were fourteen calves being conveyed to the cattle market: Held, that this was not a conducting or driving within the meaning of the section. by _each_parish, and requiring the overseers of | required by the board is to be levied; and if there each parish, within a time to be limited by the precept, to pay the sum therein mentioned to the treasurer of the board; and the overseers shall comply with the requisition of such precept by paying the sums to be contributed by their respective parishes out of any moneys in their hands applicable to the relief of the poor, but no contribution required to be paid by any parish at any one time in pursuance of this Act shall exceed the sum of 10d. in the pound, and the aggregate of contributions required to be paid by any parish in any one year in pursuance of this Act shall not exceed the sum of 2s. 6d. in the pound, except with the consent of four-fifths of the ratepayers of the parish in which such excess may be levied, present at a meeting specially called for the purpose, of which ten days' previous notice has been given by the waywardens of the parish, and then only to such extent as may be determined by such meeting: provided that in any parish where, for a period of not less than seven years immediately preceding the passing of this Act, it has been the custom for the surveyor of highways for such parish to levy a highway rate in respect of property not subject by law to be assessed to poor-rates, the moneys payable in pursuance of the precept of the highway board shall not be paid by the overseers, but may be raised and paid by the waywardens of such parish out of a highway rate to be assessed and levied in manner and in respect of the property in and in respect of which the same would have been assessed and levied if this Act had not passed." It appears clear to us that the object of the Legislature in passing this Act was not to alter the liability to highway maintenance, but only to extend the area of management, equalise the costs of repair, and simplify the machinery for providing the necessary funds, and it is plain that, if there had been in this township lands liable to contribution to the poor-rate, but not to the highways, the lands in question would, by virtue of the 33rd section above quoted, be exempted as they were before. If, therefore, these lands are now chargeable, it must be as a necessary consequence not intended by the Legislature, of their having in cases like the present substituted the poorrate for the highway rate as the fund out of which the supplies for maintaining the roads are to come. But we are of opinion that no such consequence follows. So much of the rate imposed for both purposes as is raised for the support of the poor must, no doubt, be an equal pound rate upon all the occupiers of property liable to be assessed for that purpose; but that being so, the rate cannot be objected to because so much of it as is raised for the highways is imposed upon only part of the property, the residue not being liable to that charge. The two assessments will appear on the face of the rate, so that the ratepayers may see how much is for the maintenance of the poor, and how much for highways, and why one occupier who is liable to both is charged with the aggregate, and another who is liable to one only with that one. There is no inequality in this, for every occupier is equally charged with the burden which belongs to him. This mode of working out the requirements of the Act, it appears to us, is sanctioned, if not required, by the 22nd section. That section enacts that, "Where any parish defined by this Act, and in this section called a highway parish, is not a parish separately maintaining its own poor, in this section called a poor-law parish, the highway board shall issue their precept or precepts to the overseers of the poor-law parish, or of the several poor-law parishes, if more than one, of which such highway parish forms part, and in the precept or precepts so issued shall specify the part or parts of the poor-law parish or poor-law parishes constituting the highway parish in which the sum At the Clerkenwell Police Court in the county of Middlesex, on the 26th July 1865, before me the undersigned John Henry Barker, Esq., one of the magistrates of the police courts of the metropolis, sitting at the police court aforesaid, a complaint preferred by Thomas Lester, hereinafter called the resp., against George Triggs, hereinafter called the app., under the Islington Parish Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 21), charging, for that he, the said George Triggs, on Sunday, the 9th July 1865, in the parish of St. Mary, Islington, in the county of Middlesex, and within the metropolitan police district, did conduct in and through the Canonbury-road, within the said parish of Islington, to wit, fourteen calves, in a van, between the hours of eleven and twelve o'clock in the morning of the said 9th July 1865, contrary to the provisions of the said Act, was heard and determined by me, the said parties respectively being then present, and upon such hearing the app. was duly convicted before me of the said offence, and I adjudged the said app. for his said offence to forfeit and pay the sum of 1s. and 2s. costs, to be paid and applied according to law. And whereas the app. being dissatisfied with my determination upon the hearing of the said complaint as being erroneous in point of law, hath, pursuant to sect. 2 of the statute 20 & 21 Vict. c. 43, applied to me in writing within three days after the said determination, to state and sign a case setting forth facts, and the grounds of such my determination as aforesaid, for the opinion thereon of Her Majesty's Court of Q. B. at Westminster : Now, therefore, I, the said J. H. Barker, in compliance with the said application of the app. under the provisions of the statute aforesaid, do hereby state and sign such case as aforesaid, as follows: At the hearing of the aforesaid complaint it was proved on the part of the complaint, the resp. in this appeal, that on the day and at the time alleged Q. B.] REG. V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF GLOSSOP THE UNION. in the complaint, the deft. was seen driving horses, drawing a van, in which van there were fourteen calves, being conveyed to the cattle market, and that he had the care and custody of the said calves, and was taking them to the cattle market. It was contended on the part of the deft., the app. in this appeal, that the fact of the app. being engaged in driving horses drawing a van containing calves did not constitute an offence under the before mentioned Act, and the fact of driving the horses drawing the van so containing the calves, did not come within the terms of the 3rd section of the statute, not being conducting or driving the said calves, and that it was essential to show that the deft. was conducting or driving the said calves through the said streets while on their legs, and not conveying them in a vehicle, and that the so conveying the said calves in the van was not conducting or driving the said calves as required by the before-mentioned statute. I, however, being of opinion that the evidence given before me brought the case within the terms and operation of the 3rd section of the said Islington Parish Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 21), and that the passing of large numbers of cattle in vans was calculated to cause great inconvenience and annoyance to Her Majesty's subjects, gave my determination against the app. in the manner before stated. The question of law arising on the above statement, therefore, is, whether conveying calves in a van drawn by horses is a conducting or driving within the terms of the before-recited statute, which statute is to be taken as forming part of this case; whereupon the opinion of the Court of Q. B. is asked upon the said question of law, whether or not I, the said magistrate, was correct in my determination as aforesaid, and as to what further should be done or ordered by the said court in the premises. By the Islington Parish Act 1857 (20 & 21 Vict. c. 21, local) it is by the 3rd section enacted, That it shall not be lawful for any drover or other person to conduct or drive in, upon, or through any of the roads, lanes, streets, squares, or other places, or on or over any of the footpaths which now are or hereafter may be within the parish of Islington, any oxen, sheep, swine, or other cattle between the hours of twelve of the clock on any and every Saturday night throughout the year, and twelve of the clock on any and every Sunday night throughout the year, under a penalty. Underdown appeared for the resp., and contended that the conviction was right, for that the app. had brought himself within the terms of the local Act. [COCKBURN, C. J.-Can it be seriously contended that these words apply to the driving of animals in a vehicle?] The words "conduct or drive cattle" cannot apply only to driving animals on their legs. [BLACKBURN, J.-It is no doubt often said that a coachman drives his master, who is inside; but that is an abbreviation-he drives the horses. You can hardly contend that a railway company drive cattle, within the meaning of this statute, in their cattle trucks.] It has never yet been decided. The Act was directed against desecrating the Lord's day. [BLACKBURN, J.-I think not. Ordinary vehicles may be driven; the object was, apparently, to avoid danger to passengers from cattle being driven in the streets on that day.] Besley, for the app., was not called upon. COCKBURN, C. J.-If the enactment had been intended for maintaining the due observance of the Sabbath, it would have applied to all conveyances. What was really aimed at was, the conducting of cattle in the ordinary way in which cattle are driven. There must be judgment for the app. Attorney for app., T. Beard. Attorneys for resp., Edwards and Layton. Wednesday, Jan. 24, 1866. [Q. B. REG. V. THE GUARDIANS OF THE POOR OF THE Order of removal-Break of residence. A. B., who lived with her mother in the parish of C. for more than three years, hired herself as a domestic servant with a person in the parish of D., it being agreed that she should serve her mistress for a month upon trial, and at the end of that time, if both parties agreed, she was to continue in the service. At the end of the first month she left the service and returned to her mother. She had no right so to return, nor had she left anything at her mother's house when she went into service: Held, that there was a break of residence. At upon an appeal against an order of removal. Bristowe and J. F. Stephen appeared in support of the order of sessions, and argued that there was no break of residence, for that the absence was merely temporary, and there was an intention to return: Reg. v. Stourbridge, 34 L. J. 179, M. C.; Reg. v. Stapleton, 32 L. J. 102, M. C.; 9 L. T. Rep., Reg. v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, 13 L. T. Rep. N. S. BLACKBURN, J.-Most of the cases turn upon whether or not the pauper was away from his home for a merely temporary purpose, for if so, there was no break of residence, but when he goes for a permanent purpose it is otherwise. In the case of had no house, but was a wanderer in the parish, the Reg. v. St. Leonard's, Shoreditch, where the pauper judgment proceeded upon the ground that, although he sought for some nights a shelter in a refuge in an adjoining parish, he had never really left the parish in which he was wandering by day. It is, however, quite an abuse of language to say that when a man goes away from his parish for a month together, having no place of residence at all to which he could intend to return, there is no break of residence. Here the pauper was absent for a month, and she had no place in the parish to which she had any right to return. LUSH, J. concurred. Order of sessions quasked. Judgment for the app. C. P.] NORRISH (app.) v. HARRIS (resp.)—GILHAM (app.) v. HARRIS (resp.) COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. Reported by W. MAYD and W. GRAHAM, Esqrs., Barristers at-Law. REGISTRATION APPEALS. Nov. 19, 1865, and Jan. 17, 1866. NORRISH (app.) v. HARRIS (resp.) Election law-Borough vote-Occupation—Building— Shed-Ejusdem generis-2 Will. 4, c. 45, s. 27. A stone building consisting of four walls and a roof standing on land occupied by a farmer at a yearly rent of more than 10l., and used by him for the purpose of storing guano in, is "a building" within the meaning of the Act. This was an appeal against the decision of the revising barrister for the parish of Totnes, in the borough of Totnes. The voter occupied a piece of land at the rent of more than 10. per annum, with a stone building roofed upon it; the building had four walls and a door which was kept locked; the voter kept in the building guano and other manures which he used for the purposes of the land; the building was full. It was objected that the building was not a building within the meaning of the 27th section of the Reform Act, which objection the revising barrister held to be good, and expunged the claimant's name. Mellish, Q.C. (Kingdon with him) for the app.The claimant is entitled to vote, as this is a building of a durable nature used for storing guano in, with which it was actually filed at the time: (Powell v. Boraston, 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 734.) I also submit that a building used for storing matter relating to farming is as much a building within the meaning of the statute as one used for mere commercial purposes. In Whitmore v. The Town Clerk of Wenlock, 1 Lutw. 10, the building was a cowhouse or stable substantially built, and in that case Maule, J. | says: "The Act does not require that the building, in order to confer the right of voting, should be used for trade, although it certainly does mention those which are used for that purpose. But suppose goods were put into this cowhouse or stable, it would then become a warehouse, and if sold there it would be a shop." Therefore, if it is a building which may be used for a certain purpose, it does not matter whether it is used for that purpose or not. In Powell v. Farmer, 18 C. B. 168; 11 L. T. Rep. N. S. 736, the vote was allowed, and the only difference between that case and this is, that there the building, which was of wood, was used by a market gardener for storing his potatoes, whereas here the building was used by a farmer for the purpose of storing guano. Cooke for the resp.-The barrister was right in expunging the claimant's name. The principle laid down in Powell v. Boraston is, that the "building" should give the primary qualification, and that land should be a secondary resort, if the building was not worth 10% per annum; but land would become the primary qualification if a shed of no value, added to land of the required value, was held to qualify. The whole question is, is this building ejusdem generis with the buildings mentioned in the statute, namely, houses, warehouses, countinghouses, and shops? I contend that it is not, and that therefore the claimant is not entitled to a vote. Cur. adv. vult. LALE, C. J.-According to the statement of this case, the building now in question was not deficient in respect of form and durability, and it w13 used for the purpose of keeping guano. It was suggested [C. P. in argument that the revising barrister decided against the qualification because the guano was to be applied to the claimant's own farm, and the building was used solely for agricultural purposes; and that in thus deciding he intended to follow the opinion of this court supposed to have been expressed in Powell v. Boraston. In that case we held that a few boards nailed to some posts for the sole purpose of pretending to the revising barrister that it was a shed, did not qualify; and we dissented from the opinion expressed in 2 Lutw. 88, that any building, however slight and unsubstantial, would be sufficient to qualify, provided it had a roof and was capable of holding any articles: (see 18 C. B. 186.) We drew attention to the words of the statute to which the revising barrister had to give effect, and under which we are bound as much to prevent unlawful votes from being introduced by fallacious pretensions as to support the franchise where the Legislature has given it; and we come to the conclusion that the pretence of a shed was not a building within the residentiary clause, or within the clause connected with commercial industry, to which the statute related in its language. We do not mean to contradistinguish commercial from agricultural industry, so as to exclude agriculture; on the contrary, in applying this statute, we consider that the agriculturist carries on business, using the word "commercial" in its widest at the same time what may be termed a commercial extension, and taking all products of industry having value to be subjects of commerce, and that the building really used, or intended to be really used, for the purpose of keeping such products, may qualify, whether they are intended for home consumption or exchange: (see Whitmore v. The Town Clerk of Bridgnorth.) Then, as the building now in question appears to have been really used for warehousing guano, we are of opinion that it was sufficient to qualify so far as its use was concerned, and the decision to the contrary must be reversed. Decision reversed. With respect to the other cases from Totnes, we are unable, without further information, to come to a decision. We therefore send them back to the revising barrister, and we will thank him to answer Is the land with the building of more real value to the following question at his earliest convenience:let than it would be without the building? In answering this question all notions of value from a vote are to be excluded. The descriptions of the buildings are not the same in cach of these cases, and the revising barrister may adapt his answers accordingly if he thinks there is any substantial difference between them in respect of value. Election Nov. 19, 1865, and Jan. 31, 1866. A stone building, worth about ten shillings per annum, consisting of a roof and three sides, the fourth side being open, used by the claimant for the purpose of milking his cow in and storing his hay, is " a building" within the meaning of the Act. 66 This was an appeal from the decision of the revising barrister for the parish of Berry Pomeroy, in the borough of Totnes. This and the following five cases were sent back to the revising barrister, for him to find whether the land was of more real value to let with the building on it than it would be without. The voter occupied during the electoral year a |