View report page

133
§ 6.—LEGAL DECISIONS.
Effect of "Kent v. Fittall.
The difficulty is the decision of the Court of Appeal in Kent c. Fittall
(75 J.P., 378; The Times Law Reports, July 19, 20). The unceasing efforts
of the Devonport objector have at last brought about a threatened disfranchisement
of very many voters, though the probable effect of the decision may well
be misunderstood in view of the different reasons assigned in giving judgment
for the appellants by the Divisional Court and the Court of Appeal.
The Point in Dispute.
There have been four cases in which the various parties have been represented
by "Kent" and "Fittall," though the same point has not always been the
cat,tlx belii, whatever the final cause of the dispute might have been. Suffice it
to say, however, that the chief point in dispute has been this : that the names
of certain persons were retained on the list in Division I. of the occupiers' list
(occupiers in Division I. must be doubly qualified—first, as Parliamentary
electors, and secondly, as County Council electors) as occupiers of premises,
whereas in fact tho-e persons had not occupied the premises either as owners
or as tenants for the 12 months immediate.y preceding July 15th in the year.
The three facts relied upon to support the objector were (1) that the dwellinghouse
formed part of a house which itself was what would be generally
described as an ordinary dwelling-house; (2) that the landlord resided in the
house; and (3) that the landlord was rated for the whole of the house.
These three facts constituted prima facie evidence by the objector that the
landlord still retained a right of control over the premises let; and the persons
objected to were not able, to the satisfaction of the Revising Barrister, to displace
that prima facie, evidence, notwithstanding the findings (1) that they
enjoyed the sole and exclusive use of the various rooms let to them ; (2) that
no services were rendered in the rooms by the landlord ; (3) that the landlord
claimed no right to enter into or exercise any control over the rooms, nor had
he in fact ever exercised such rights; and (4) that the persons objected to
had free access at all times by means of a key provided by the landlord. These
four findings on behalf of the persons objected to sufficiently indicate the class
of voters to be on the border line between those inhabitant occupiers who are
popularly known as "latchkey" voters and "lodgers." It is extremely difficult
satisfactorily to distinguish legally these two classes of voters; and the
element of dominion or general control by the person letting the rooms,
irrespectively of the nature or structure of the premises, is the only trustworthy
test.
General Control of the Landlord.
The Divisional Court decided the ease purely upon this question of general
control; and, had the case stopped there, the persons objected to would have
had to rely upon being reinstated at some later date as " lodgers." It is conceived
that their plight would have been worse than it is under the decision of
the Court of Appeal. The latter Court decided against them upon a totally
different ground - namely, that, not having been rated in respect of the separate
rooms occupied by them, they were on that ground alone not entitled to
be placed on the register of voters as inhabitant occupiers. In fact, Lord