The Express.
London, England, 1852-10-23 00:00:00

EAST SURREY REOISTRATIOX.

Sir W. Riddell, the revising barrister, held a court
yesterday at Kingston•on•Thames in order to ratite the
lists for the several parishes comprised within that district.
The proceedings were of some interest in con•equeoce of
there being a considerable number of claims an• oc out
of property passed to the parties through the inehold
Land Society, arid of objections to those claims by the ccm.
*creative..

Mr. Bastropp attended as agent for the conservv'oe
party, Mr. Bunton end Mr. James represented the Free-
hold Land and Free Trade Society, and Mr. Corner nil
Mr. Jeans attended on behalf of the Hint Surrey Reform
and Registration Society.
Mr. John Thomas Bedford was objected to by the i.
genitives. This was one of the cane referred to. It is -
peered that Mr. Bedford was the proprietor of a pie,e of
freehold land at New Malden. which he had purchased
1141. It was at present merely fenced io, and no use war,
ever was made of it. Mr. Bedford stated, however, that it
was intended to be need for budding purposes, and he sall
he had recently refused 91. a year for it.
Mr. Bastropp contended upon these facts, that Mr. lied.
ford bad not made out a clear yearly value of forty shillings.
such as was required by the act of parliament to entitle a
party to a vote. The land in question was origioaily noth.n;
but common land, whisk had been enclosed, but he -Lb-
mined that it was still, in point of fact, almost valueless. rend
ought not to be takeu as ground for qualifying a person to
have his name upon the register of voters.
Mr. Bastropp then called a witness, who said that he was
a farmer and market gardener, and that be was very well lc-
quinted with the nature of the land in question. He con-
sidered that for farming or garden purposes the land was of
no value whatever, and that no one would give 20s. an arra
for it a year. The pkce of land which formed the subject
of the present claim was not more than half an acre.
Sir W. B. Riddell asked the witness whether he was able
to express any *plain upon the value of the land for build-
ing_,PurPoses ?
Me replied that he was not. All he could say was that
be considered it of little or no value for farming purpose..
The Revising Barrister said he thought that in this case
Mr. Bedford was entitled to have his name retained upon
the list. It was very passible that for farming purposes
the land in question might not he worth 40e. 'leer, but
there was evidence before him to chew that it was not in-
tended to be used for that purpose, but for building, and
also that gf. a year had been refused for it. The case was
somewhat similar to that of those gentlemen who in the
northern parts of the kingdom maintained large deer forests
for sporting purposes, and who not only did not derive any
benefit from the laud, but actually went to very large ez-
pense every year to maintain it es a deer forest; but it
would he very hard under such circumstances to say that
the owns? was not entitled to a vote because no actual
benefit was derived frees the property. The true question
to be considered was, whether the land for which the claim
was nude, was peeved to be fairly worth 40§. a year, and as he
considered that fact was established in the present case, Mr.
Bedford's am* would be retained in the list.

Mr. Bedford appbed for costa, but the Reviling Barrister
said that the objection was a perfectly fair one, and there-
in', no costs could be allowed.
Mr. Buckler was objected to by the conservatives.
This wee another of the New -Malden cues. The claim-
ant had purchased two pieces of land, known u Chomut
having one hundred feet frontage, and a hundred and
eltj feet In depth.
he conveyance of the lend wu produced, and Mr.
Buckle► stated that he considered the land was worth
foot per annum for the frontage. He admitted, however,
that he *u unacquainted with the nature of building ope-
rations, cad that be had made no attempt to let the pro•
petty, and had not lied any offer lee it.
Mr. Bnrgoa endeavoured to support the claims by cellist
Mr. Havant, who stated t►et he wu a bruhmaker, ud
Mr. Cullanford, who described himself as a comedian, and
who were also the owners of some adjoining pieces of lead.
Both thus persons expressed their opinion that the
wee worth considerably more than 40s. a year for

The Revising Barrister said that in this cam he did art
think that the value of the land had been suMcsatly
tinny proved to justify him in allowing the vote.
The name was, therefore, expunged.
The case of Mr. Culleafoed himself was then gone into.
and he stated that he had paid SOL for his allotment, 50,1
he had since laid out more than 201. upon the land is
draining and planting it with Aruba. Be considered that
it W•B worth at least 34. a year.
The Revising Banister expressed an opinion that Mr
Callenford had not made out his ease. It was true tho he
had himself given an opinion that the land would teach
31 pet annum; but taking into consideration the t
paid for it—only 301.—he felt that there must he cons.,:er•
able doubt whether it would produce that amount If Mt.
Cullenford had called any respectable surveyor aequaint..l
with the neighbourhood, who would have pledged hi, 110-
fariosal audit for the fact, it would have been a did. rent
thing; but in the absence of such evidence, he felt com-
ponent to decide that the qualification had not been out-
bliabed.
This decision governed a great many o'her cares, and the
DAMN of all the parties were expunged from the list.
Mr. Robert Brown was objected to by Mr. Burton.
Mr. Brown attended, and clearly established his qualifi-
elation. He complained that the objection should have been
made, and said that he was one of the larFest ratepayers in
the parish, and that there was not the slightest ground for
the objection that had been made to his vote
Mr. Burson said there was some mistake in the matter,
and he regretted Mr. Brown should have been put to the
trouble of attending,
Meirrlromstinwncoceteiciered that he was entitled to eons
the uni!er
The Revising Barrister awarded him ro., which we' at
once banded over to him by Mr. Burgon.

RAILWAY TRAFFlC.—According to the returns of
the railway companies which are inciuded in our umial
it will be seen that the week's time amounts to 31i
othae6,cogtres6 aipotionrg47wlee• IP:tit:Sleeve;
miles, or 4,1. 2s. a mile; and for 18.50 of 270,0951. on 071
miles, or 481. lifts. a mile, showing an increase of 7- iv.'
mile over 1851, and 31. its. per mile over 1550.-10,:.
rewhi3ols7t.sthweirrotnurcl,l:s.4,f