christian louboutin website5qSTCalles Villamandos

milegreen
Perfil

Amigos

Amigos de

Blog

Ficheros
Páginas

matter of law or of fact? It appears to me that it may involve both. Where the description points to some locality in which the objector may be found, ami the description given is not such as to answer this Christian Louboutin Shoes purpose, that would be matter of law; as, for example, suppose the objector were to state his abode to be Kingstreet, and nothing more. Now, as there are so many Kingstreets, it would be bad on the face of it, as no one could tell in what town in England to look for the right one. It would be a matter of law to determine the sufficiency, or rather insufficiency, of such a notice. But, if the description were such as, on the face of it,christian louboutin website, would import a locality where, beyond all others, the objector might be found, then, whether it was in other respects sufficient to answer the statute may be a question of fact, to be decided on by the revising barrister. In Wooilett, App., Davis, Resp., the Court held the notice insufficient,christian louboutin barbie, on the ground that the revising barrister had decided it as a matter of law, and had, although admitting the notice to be insufficient in itself, considered that it might be aided Tory Burch Outlet by being coupled with the register. This, the Court there said,louboutins9hOOCelebrity Shoes Renee Zellweger at, the barrister was mistaken in, and that, as a matter of law, there was not in the notice a

MBT Shoes Clearance sufficient description within the statute. In Gadsby, App., Warburton, Resp , it nppears,christian louboutin brown3eWiDiscount Christian Louboutin Men’s Shoes Ghd Pure, that the notice described the objector as of "Poplargrove, Didsbury," Didsbury being a town within the polling district of Manchester. The revising barrister there considered the description to be sufficient in fact, and left for the opinion of the Court the question,christian louboutin pumps online,'whether the notice was sufficient in law, that is to say, whether it was sufficient to be deemed in law a description of the objector's place of abode, without the addition as " Lancashire,louboutins3hEvlouboutin sale stores from real-estate advanta," or " near Manchester," or the like. There was nothing in that case, Tory Burch as in Wooilett, App., Davit, Resp.; from which it must appear that the barrister thought that the notice was, on the face of it, insufficient in fact, and the Court accordingly, having decided that the requiring any addition to the description was incorrect in law, held' the notice sufficient, and reversed the decision of the barrister. Now, the notice in the present case states the abode of the objector to be "5, Sherbornestreet." The question is,