The Express.
London, England, 1847-10-16 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

OTT OF LONDON.—At the meeting of the court
yesterday. two eases occurred which gave rise to an important
question an reference to coins. In All Hallows, Lombard-
street, Thomas Cams&le, of 15, Skinner's-place, was objected
to by Mr. Smith, on the ground that he was nut rated. It
was proved that he was rated, and, besides the vote being
allowed, 15s. was awarded to him as coats.—Thos. Fricker,
of Ship Tavern-passage, was also objected to on the same
ground, but, similar proof having been given, the vote was
allowed, and 10a. awarded.—Mr. Smith then said that he
should not oppose the awarding of costs in the above eases, as
the objections proved to be groundless. The parties were
rated fur Leadenhall-market, and though they did not ap-
pear in the rate-bock as living there, it new turned out that
Ship Tavern-pssaage and Skinner's-place were within the
market boundary. While, however, he admitted that the
objections ought not to have been made, he felt
booed to observe generally, that his friends and
himself were placed in this difficulty with regard
to the absence of cases for objecion, that one year
they had a learned gentleman laying down one set of prin-
ciples, and the neat another judge laying down principles of
an opposite nature, so that between the two they
scarcely
Iknew how to proceed. In the cases which had just been
'disposed of, the parties had received notice beforehand that
their claims would not be opposed, and it might be waves

most for the /smart to state whether, if parties upon whoa
notice of objectism had been acreed, received letters intone,
log them that they need not attend, and, nevertheless,
attend, the court would take into consideration these ei
stances in awarding carts. That question was one of
importance, because many persona who received letters Ist
log them that they need not trouble themselves, •
in coming merely for the purpose of obtaining costs. The
agents on both sides united in this appeal. Mr. M'Chritle
said he would not pledge himself not to award costa*
groundless objection, even where the party was told, in the,
to prevent his attendance, that it had been withdrawn.
he could say was that the Peculiarity of the case might
in some degree influence hint in his decision of the question.
—ln the parish of All Hallows, Lombard-street, John
Parker, of No. 2, Bell-yard, Gracechurcbstreet,wu objected
to by Mr. Smith, on the ground of nonpayment of rata.
—The Vestry Clerk stated that Parker was the sexton of the
pariah and received a salary of 301. a year, from which his
rates were deducted. There was no actual payment of rates,
nor was any receipt given, but the balance was always is
Parker's favour. In reply to Mr. Smith, the witness further
said that the salary was paid out of the poor-rate, which Mr.
Ledger contended was a mel-administration of the rate. The
objection was overruled.--T. E. Tay for, the window-cleaner
of the parish, was objected to by Mr. Smith on the same
ground, and the vote was allowed.—ltobert Barnett, of the
parish of St. Edmund the King and Martyr, was objected%
by Mr. Brown, on the ground that he was not rated. The
name was returned on the list of voters, end the
fact of its omission from the rate-book led to an
interesting discussion. It appeared that a claim to
be rated had been made. On ascertaining this fact,
the Revising Barrister was proceeding, as in many
former cases, to inflict a fine on the overseers, when Mr.
Gude, the vestry clerk, read a lengthened written defence
of the omission, of which the following was the substance •
In this perish, for several years past, the housekeepers who
paid the rates were alone entered in the rate-books. The
practice of rating each counting house keeper had previously
occasioned great trouble, confusion, and loss of rates, and
another object of the alteration was to prevent parties from
obtaining the right to relief, and to a share of some charitable
funds, greatly to the advantage of the poor. Previous to
the alteration in the poor-taw, it was a common occurrence
fur persons to hire themselves as servants for twelve months,
and at the expiration of their servitude to claim relief.
These circumstances were brought before the late Revising
Barrister (Mr. Arnold), who, after carefully considering
them, was of opinion that he tiuld not fine the overseers
under the Registration Act for non-compliance with
a clause of the Reform Act, otherwise provided
against. The latter act directed that any occupier
claiming to be rated should be held to hare been rated for
the purpose of registratior.. The overseers did no injury,
therefore, to a party by merely omitting his name from the
rate book. It was true that the Reform Act gave a right of
action for 5001. against the overseers to a party aggrieved,
but there was no party aggrieved if the name were inserted
in the voting list, and they, fore no action could be brought.
The Reform Act alone required the claimant's name to he
put on the rates, and the overseers could not he punished
under the Registration Act for an offence against the Reform
Act. The course taken by the parish, in making out its
list, was " first to insert all the persons on the register for
the preceding year, continuing in the parish, and tken all
other persons on the rate, or who have claimed to be rated ;"
and it could be exceedingly bard if the overseers should be
fined for "malting out their lists in the usual way,
and after the preceding revising barrister had de.
cided that he could not in•erfere." As the fran-
chise was not dependent upon rating, it was sub-
mitted, in conclusion, that the provision should be alto-
gether abolished.—Mr. Smith said that, notwithstanding
Mr. Gude's defence, he must observe that, under the act,
rating was imposed as a duty on the overseers.—Mr. Gude
But there is a clause which save that, if a demand to be
rated be made, whether a party be actually rated or not, he
shall be inserted on the list.—Mr. 111• Christie : That is meant
for the protection of the voter against your negligence.—Mr.
Smith : It has been declared plainly that the object of the
omission was to deprive parties of the opportunity of form-
ing a settlement; whereas the act expressly says that the oc-
cupier shall have his name inserted in the rateibook.—Mr.
Brown: I will not address the court, bat I agree, in set.
stance, with Mr. Gude.—Mr. bl'Chriatie : Mr. Gade's de-
luxe might form a very good speech in parlia-
ment, hut it will notjdo here. It is the undoubted duty of the
overseers to insert the names of occupiers in the rate-book.
—Mr. Glide : An occupier does not lose the franchise if the
complies with the Reform Act by claiming to be rated.—Mr.
M'Claristie: That view of the law will not satisfy me.
The learned gentleman then inflicted a fine of 5/. for neglect
of duty. In several other cases parties were disfranchised
because they had not claimed, and were not therefore in.
seated in the overseen' list, this constituting the sole difference
between their position and that of Mr. Barnett—The vestry
clerk pleaded, in mitigation, that there had been nothing be-
yond an error of judgment.—The learned gentleman could
not admit the excuse, but limited himself to the iiiffetion of
fines of 31., in each of four cases selected from the rest.
The following was the result of the day's revision Liberal
claims allowed, 3; disallowed, 10. Conservative allowed,
none; disallowed, 3. Liberal objections sustained, 35;
failed, 40. Conservative sustained, 94; failed, 51. Objec-
tions by both parties : sustained, 34 ; failed, 1.
The court will proceed this day with the ward of Portsokc n.