parish, he having premises there, a "store" and some stabling for which he was rated, but not living in the parish. The case now came on to be argued. Mr. Dibden appeared for the applicant. Mr. Jeune, Q.C. (with Mr. Houghton), appeared on the part of the vicar to show cause. Lord Coleridge said, in giving judgment, that the party elected was not entitled to hold the office. The effect of the statute was that the new parish was to be treated for all purposes as the old one--that it was to be subject to the same law. Now, it was necessary under the old law that churchwardens should be living in the parish. This gentleman was not so; and therefore was not under the old law "a fit and proper person" to hold the office of churchwarden. The Churchwarden had to discharge various duties which required knowledge of the parish and parishioners. It was said that there were authorities to the contrary in the Ecclesiastical Courts; but speaking of them with the utmost respect, those were ecclesiastical cases, and this was a common law case--that is, a case to be decided by the common law--and he did not think that by the common law a party not living in the parish, and perhaps living at a distance, was qualified to be elected, and, if elected, bound to serve the office of churchwarden. It appeared to be clear, rating would not be enough. It was admitted that there must be some kind of occupation equivalent to actual residence, and in the present case there was nothing of the kind. No doubt the parishioners were glad to have a respectable gentleman to fill the office. No doubt the word "residence" had received under different statutes different interpretations, the sense being necessarily different. Sometimes it meant where a man could be found during the day; sometimes it meant where he slept or lived; and for some purposes perhaps this gentleman might be deemed a resident, but for this purpose it was necessary that he should live in the parish, be acquainted with the parishioners, and thus be able to exercise the duties of his office, which were to be personally exercised. The rule for a _mandamus_ to the vicar, therefore, must be made absolute. Mr. Justice Mathew concurred. Rule absolute for a _mandamus_. From the _Times_, Nov. 29th, 1889. APPENDIX II. 7 Gul. IV, and 1 Vict., cap. 45, sec. 3. Be it further enacted that no such notice of holding a Vestry shall be affixed on the principal door of such Church or Chapel unless the same shall previously have been signed by a Churchwarden of the Church or Chapel, or by the Rector, Vicar, or Curate of such parish, or by an Overseer of the Poor of such parish; but that every notice so signed shall be affixed on or near to the principal door of such Church or Chapel. APPENDIX III. 58 Geo. III, cap. 69, 3rd June, 1818. _An Act for the Regulation of Parish Vestries_.