HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.slavery/ssactsengr1007 and id is 1 raw text is: EASTER TERM, 9 GEO. i1. 1769
give his vote. The Court of B. R. held clearly it was conclusive evidence against the
defendant Pitt, and gave judgment for the plaintiff. Lord Mansfield said, Shall the
defendant be allowed to defend himself by saying that A. B. had no right to vote,
when it is clearly proved that the defendant gave him money for his vote ?
Certainly he shall not. Wilmot J. said there could be no stronger evidence than
A. B.'s being admitted to vote. This case in B. R. was relied upon, as directly in
point for the now plaintiff.
For the defendant it was insisted, that the averment or allegation in the declara-
tion that the persons corrupted had a right to vote, is material, and substantive, and
must be proved ; that an intention to commit an offence cannot be punished; but if
these persons had no right to vote, the offence is not committed, therefore it was
necessary to prove they had a right, by proving they were inhabitants of Mitchell, and
paid scot and lot there. That suppose an action of scandalum magnatum was
brought for speaking slander of a peer or a Judge, &c. it must be proved that the
plaintiff was that great person which the declaration alledges him to be, or he will
fail in his action. That suppose it had appeared that Buddle and Hockin had no
right to vote, the declaration would fail, because the averment therein would not be
supported. That the poll-book is not evidence of a person's [399] right to vote, for
although he voted, it does not follow that he had a right to vote. Suppose in an
action for criminal conversation it be proved that the defendant had said that he
had laid with the plaintiff's wife, that would not be evidence to he left to a jury,
without proving the marriage of the plaintiff and his wife; and so it was said to
be determined in a case of Dr. Smith v. Miller, which was an action for criminal
conversation with the plaintiff's wife. The proof at the trial was, that when the
defendant was caught in bed with her, he begged the doctor might not know it, and
said, For God's sake let it not be known. The plaintiff could not prove his marriage,
and it was held that the defendant's apprehensions that the person, with whom he
was caught in bed, was the plaintiff's wife, was not sufficient to convict him, as there
was no proof that he knew her to be such, of his own knowledge. From this case it
was said, it follows that no belief or report that a person has a right to vote is
evidence.
Curia.-We are of opinion that it is not necessary in this case to alledge in the
declaration, or to prove that Buddle and Hockin had a right to vote; that the giving
money to a man for his vote, and he standing by the presiding officer at the election,
and giving his vote, which is received, and not objected to, or controverted, is con-
clusive evidence against the defendant, and that, as against him it is the most
decisive and best evidence that can be; and the case cited of Comb v. Pitt governs this
case, and is exactly like it. As to the case mentioned of criminal conversation, to be
sure a defendant's saying in jest, or in loose rambling talk, that he had laid with the
plaintiff's wife, would not be sufficient alone to convict him in that action; but if it
were proved that the defendant had seriously or solemnly recognized that he knew
the woman he had laid with was the plaintiff's wife, we think it would be evidence
proper to be left to a jury, without proving the marriage. We think that the proof
that these two persons voted at the election, and their votes not then disputed or
controverted, is evidence of their having a right to vote, proper to be left to a
jury; although it be not conclusive evidence of such their right. Judgment for the
plaintiff per totam Curiam.
[400] EASTER TERm, 9 GEo. III. 1769.
HOLDER, ON THE DEBISE OF SULYARD, ESQ. Lord of the Manor of Haughley in
Suffolk, versus PRESTON. C. B. A copyholder surrenders to the use of his will,
and by his will orders and directs two persons to sell, and to apply the monies
arising thereby, for the purposes in the will; they may sell without being
admitted, and the lord shall admit the vendee, and shall have but one fine.
[Principle applied, Glass v. Richardson, 1852, 2 De G. M. & G. 662. Not applied,
In re Townsend's Contr-act [1895], 1 Ch. 723.]
Ejeetment of copyhold lands held of the manor of Haughley, tried at the last
assizes held for the county of Suffolk, when a verdict was given for the plaintiff,
subject to the opinion of this Court upon the following case; which states,
2 WI - K- B. $99.](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.slavery/ssactsengr1007&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)