This case raised the question whether, in new parishes under the Church Building Acts, it is necessary that Churchwardens shall be residents in the parish or whether it is enough that they are rated occupiers. The question had arisen under these circumstances. There was a new Church built and consecrated in Beckenham, Kent, in 1875, and by an Order in Council in 1878 a district was constituted and annexed to it under the Church Building Act, 59 Geo. III, cap. 134, sec. 16, constituting a "district chapelry." In 1885, on the death of the Incumbent, all the fees of the district became due and payable to the Minister of the new Church, and then, by the operation of Lord Blandford's Act (19 and 20 Vict., cap. 104), the district became a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes; and the question was what effect this had as to the election of Churchwardens. Under 8 and 9 Vict., cap. 70, sec. 6, it was provided that "two fit and proper persons should be annually elected Churchwardens, they residing within the district;" and if that statute applied, it was admitted the Churchwardens must be resident. But it was disputed whether it did apply, or whether at common law Churchwardens must be resident. In Lord Blandford's Act it is provided, in sec. 14, that wherever and as soon as banns of marriage are authorised to be published in a consecrated Church or Chapel to which a district belongs, and the Incumbent is by such authority entitled, for his own benefit, to the fees arising from the performance of such services, then such district shall become and be a separate parish for ecclesiastical purposes, as is contemplated in 6 and 7 Vict., cap. 37, sec. 15, and all the provisions of the same shall apply; and then, under that Act, sec. 15, when any Church or Chapel shall be built, etc., such district shall from and after consecration be deemed to be a new parish for ecclesiastical purposes. This, however, did not in terms, it will be seen, deal with the present question, and appeared to leave it open, and so it will be seen it was discussed in the alternative on the ground that at common law Churchwardens must be resident, and that is not altered by one Act, and is re-enacted in the other. However, in the present case it appeared that it had not been so understood, and on April 25, 1889, when, at Easter, two Churchwardens were chosen for the new district parish of Christ Church, Beckenham, one of them was a gentleman who had been chosen in previous years, and who is not a resident, though he is a rated occupier in the parish. The gentleman in question, a Mr. Matthews, was elected by a majority of three; no objection was taken at the time, but afterwards his opponent, a Mr. Hayland, desired to raise the objection, and on June 24th last obtained a rule _nisi_ for a _mandamus_ to the vicar to hold a new election of churchwarden on the ground that the election of Mr. Matthews was invalid, as he was not a resident in the