§ * MR. SEALE-HAYNE (Devon, Ashburton)I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board, whether his attention has been called to the case of Albert Norrish and others, petitioners, v. Joshua Bancroft and other, respondents, in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, 22nd May 1896, in which it appears that at the parish meeting, held at Widecombe-in-the-Moor on 9th March last, the chairman (who was the assistant overseer) declared ten nominations for parish councillors void; and, a poll having been demanded, nine candidates were declared to be duly elected by the returning officer; that 1678 subsequently an election petition was instituted, and these nine candidates were made respondents, although they had not at that time held any council meeting or exercised their office; and that immediately after their first meeting they gave notice of their intention not to oppose; nevertheless on judgment being given in favour of the petitioners, declaring the election void, they were adjudged to be personally liable for a considerable amount of the costs of the petition, in which they had been involved in consequence of the erroneous ruling of the chairman and declaration of their election by the returning officer; and whether, under the circumstances, these costs can be charged against the parish?
§ THE SECRETARY TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. T. W. RUSSELL,) Tyrone, S.The President understands the Court ordered that the costs referred to should be paid by the respondents personally, and if this is so he is not aware of any provision under which the costs could be charged against the parish.