Maule  J.    With  respect  to  the  first  rate,  it  is  con-

<:eded  that  the  appellant  did  all  that  was  necessary  to

enable  him  to  reap  the  benefit  of  the  thirtieth  section  of

-the  Reform  Act.     To  decide  the  question  raised  as  to

the  other  rate,  we  must  look  at  the  rate  itself,  and  upon

referring  to  it,  there  does  not  appear  any  room  to  doubt

that  the  appellant  was  rated.     The  revising  barrister

seems  to  have  been  embarrassed  by  what  one  of  the

overseers  said,  but  the  true  construction  of  the  rate  is

to  be  ascertained  by  reasoning  quite  irrespective  of  what

the  intentions  of  the  overseers  might  have  been,  in

pkcing  the  name  of  the  appellant  upon  the  rate.     It

might  be  that  they  did  no|  intend  to  let  him  have  a

vote,  but  their  saying  so  would  have  no  more  effect

than  if  an  obligor  who  had  signed  and  sealed  a  bond

were  subsequently  to  say  that  he  had  no  intention  of

binding  himself  thereby.    The  real  question  is,  whether

die  appellant  was  rated  or  not,  and  as  his  name  was

placed  upon  the  rate,  and  the  blanks  left  opposite  his

name  are  juht  as  effective  as  if  the  word  *^  ditto "  had

been  inserted  in  each  column,  I  think  the  decision  of

the  revising  barrister  ought  to  be  reversed.
446  HILARY  TERM,

1846.  CaESSWELL  J.    I  am  of  the  same  opinioD.     Lookicm:

PAmuMtK^    ^^  the^extract  firom  the  rate-book|  I  think  we  are  boiuc^^
to  hold  that  the  appellant  was  suflBdently  rated.     Tft:^  ^
number  in  the  first  column  is  quite  enough  to  shew  tim.  ^amX
he  was  rated  in  respect  of  the  previous  inhjrrt  mutt  i^     i
of  the  rate.
