The Express.
London, England, 1846-09-22 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.—At the sitting of the court,
yesterday morning, Mr. Arnold, after disposing of two or
three cases which bad stood over in the livery lists, proceeded
with the householders' list for the parishes comprised in the
ward of Aktersgate within and without. lathe case of John
Tubb, of Dove Court, a liberal claimant, evidence was given
of a claim to be rated on the 2nd December last, which the
overseer (St. Anne and St Agnes parish) had negleeted to
attend to.—Mr. Waneey said he should have occasion to
make sane very strong noseas on the conduct of overseers,
for negleotiag their duty in this respect—fir. Arnold &aid it
was no use making strong observations; be had been doing
It for three or four years, hut with no effect; and he did not
believe anything would make the overseers attend to their duty,
until some actions were brought against them. He feared
he had no power to fine them for this neglect, inasmuch as
the right of claiming to be:rated was given by the 30th section
of the Reform Act, while the power of the court to fine
overseers in certain cues, arose under the late Registration
Act (6 and 7 Viet.), which had no reference to the right of
claiming to be rat-rd.-Ih° overseer, in defence, rain that
Tubb had received parochial relief—Mr. Wansey contended
that this was no excuse, in which the barrister concurred.—
Evidence was further given of claims to be placed on each of
.the subsequent rates, and of tenders of the amounts
due. When the agent, Mr. W. Aime, served Mr.
Oarsmen, the overseer, with the claim, and asked
the warast due, the overseer said he did not know,
whsesspea Mr. Aime tendered Si., as being more than mai&
cleat he sever the rate ; but this was refused. On a subse-
quest oessieon, Mr. Bunny, another oversee!. said he knew
pi about the amounts due, as the paid overseer at-
to that business. The witness did not enquire who
pad overeats was. Tubb gave • written authority to
sake the claim and tender ; but the witness made the
tesder with his own money.—Tubb, on the question being
put to him by the Barrister, said he had authorised no one
:may any money for him ; and the authority to make the
had not been read over to him before he affixed his
mark to it ; he could neither read nor write.—The Barrister
said this looked very much like an attempt to manufacture a
vote.—Mr. Wansey submitted that the only steps had been
taken by which a person in such circumstances could paness
himself of the franchise.—Mr. Arnold : lie ought at least to
know what he is 'abort.—Being further questioned by the
Banister, Tubb said he had no recollection of putting his
marks to any of the papers produced (the authorities to
claim to be rated).—Alexander Cathie proved waiting on
the claimant in November last, and'obtaining his authority
to make the claim. He put his mark to four or five papers
at the time. The object was explained to him and the paper
read.—On hearing this evidence, Tubb said he recollected
the gentleman calling, but did not remember signing the
papen. He did not say he wanted to pay the rates.—
Mr. Arnold having read to him the papers to which his
mark was affixed, he said he did not remember
hearing a word of them before. One if the papers—the
claim to be on the list of voters—bore his signature without
any mark which Mr. Cathie explained by stating that his
daughter bed written his same to it, in his presence, and by
his authority.—Mr. Wansey submitted that this was one of
the numerous cues in which the legislature had clearly
intended to confer the franchise. In proof of this he cited
the 30th and 32nd clauses of the Reform Act, and submitted
that the overseer himself, not the assistant-overseer, was
the party on whom claims to be rated ought to be served.—
Mr. Brown said that he should not offer any opposition in
this case, nor in any other claim; he should leave them
entirely in the hands of the court.—Mr. Arnold said he was
clearly of opinion that this party had no right to be regis-
tered. The case was full of extraordinary circumstances ;
and he would briefly recapitulate the facts which led him to
decide that the claimant was not entitled to vote. In the
first place, be seemed singularly indifferent about the matter
himself ; and, though that circumstance alone was not Patel,
it was an important consideration in a case where the party
throughout had taken no active steps whatever. It was
quite obvious no sufficient explanation had bceu given him
of the nature of the documents he signed ; the fact of his
signing four at once was a suspicious circumstance ; and It
was very doubtful whether, in point of law, these prospective
claims to be rated were valid. One document, however,
had been signed in blank, and that was clearly nugatory ;
and on this he should at once decide the case.
The document signed on the 19th of August last, the
claim to be registered, was also had, as he had
authorised his daughter to sign it without knowing
what it was. On this point also the claim was
bad. Then as to the tenders, though Mr. Justice Maule
had said that a strictly legal tender might not be ne-
cessary (Bishop e. Smedley) in these four eases, the that and
second were very doubtful, and the third was clearly not a
sufficient tender, as Mr. Aims had been told that the paid
overseer attended to that business, and had yet not inquired
who the paid overseer was. On the fourth occasion, though
the paid overseer was named, Mr. Aims had not gone to
him, and therefore that tender was bad. Again, all the
tenders were insufficient, because there was no proof of the
money being Tubbs, and the authority he had signed was
not strong enough to warrant the payment of money on his
account, as it would not, in such a case, create a debt on the
part of Tubb. On these several grounds, the claimant was
not entitled to vote. He hoped he should not have any
more such cases as this brought before him. Mr. Wansey
said there were a great many in which the facts were nearly
the same. Mr. Arnold thought the parties would do well
not to bring them forward.
Wm. Appleby, of 4, Lauderdale-buildings, St. Botolph
Without, hat, in October last, claimed to be rated, and had
been rated accordingly, but the overseer had omitted him
from the list. Having established his claim, Mr. Wansey
applied, under the 51st clause of the Parliamentary Regis-
tration Act, for a fine on the overseer for this omission. Mr.
Piper, the collector, gave some explanation ; sad the bar-
rister said he did not think it a case for a fine, as the words
in the act were very strong, " wilfully and without just
cause."
James Avery, of Lauderdale buildings, and Thomas Ay-
liffe, of Maidenhead-court.—These were also cases of claims
to be rated, and tenders of money ; but here Mr. Aime had
waited on both the overseer and the collector, the latter of
whom (a Mr. Piper, evidently a strong political partisan,
who was with great difficulty kept quiet in court), refused
all information on the subject.—Mr. Arnold said the over-
seers were bound to furnish copies of the rates on payment of
a certain sum. The evidence as to the authority for paying
the money was the same as in the other case.—Mr. S. Smith,
who attended for the Liberals, submitted that the general
authority of the voter " to do all things necessary for placing
his name on the register" was sufficient to warrant the pay-
ment of money on his behalf, and that such an authority
would forms ground for an action. The claimants having
attached their immature to the authority, were bound by it,
and must take all the consequences, even though they might
not have known its contents.—At the request of the court
Mr. Smith was sworn, and asked out of what fund he should
have repaid Mr. Aime, had that person paid any money to
the different overseers ? Mr. Smith said, if Mr. Aime had
paid away any of his own money, he (Mr. Smith) should
have repaid him, deriving the money out of another fund ;
but he should have held himself personally responsible, in
the first instance, to Mr. Aime. Had anything been patbz
Mr. Aime, the money would not have been claimed
from the voter, though it might have been so in law.—
Mr. Arnold said it was very creditable to Mr. Smith to
make this statement, which was perfectly voluntary on his
part, as it was only by getting all the facts that the Court
could come to a proper decision.—Mr. Smith said his only
wish was to obtain a settlement of the question, and, if neces-
sary, an alteration in the Reform Act to meet such cases as
these.—The barrister dcferred his decision.
In a subsequent ease, that of Thomas Barnwell, the same
facts were proved as to the application to the overseer and
the collector; and Mr. Arnold said he should have been
strongly disposed to inflict a fine on the overseers, had it
been clearly proved that they knew the applicant to be the
agent of a rate-payer. The collector had certainly departed
from his duty in refusing the information asked for. The
claimant stating that the authority he had signed extended
to the payment of money, the claim was allowed.
Some further evidence wa then taken in Aylife's ease.
It appeared that Mr. Cathie had waited on him, and obtained
his signature to the authority to make claims to be rated, and
also to the claims—stating that Mr. Smith would take all the
responsibility on himself, free of all charge to the claimant.—
Ayliffe said that had Mr. Smith required repayment of the
rates, he should have repaid him.—l'he vote was allowed, in
consequence, the barrister said, of this last piece of evidence.
Leonard Posbrook, of Cox's-court, a liberal claimant, was
on the rates, but the overseer stated that some rates due on
the sth April had not been paid on the 20th July, as required
by the act.—Evidence was given of a tender ty Mr. Aime,
with the like result es in the former cases—the parish func-
tionaries declaring that they knew nothing about it.—The
Barrister held that in this case a tender was not sufficient, as the
27th section of the Reform Act, under which the case arose,
required payment of the rates, without making any mention
of a tender, thereby recogosing the distinction between a
tender and an actual payment.
The court adjourned at five o'clock.—ln the course of the
day, twelve liberal claims were established ; there appear to
be none on the other side. The objections in none of the
parishes were entered into.
MARTLEBONE. The revising barrister held his
court, by adjournment, yesterday morning, at the vestry-
room of SL Pancras parish, Gordon-square, for the revision
of the list of voters for this district.—Mr. Crickney was ob-
jected to by the Conservative agent, because of not having
paid his rates. As this case, in a great measure, tended to
affect no less than 1,500 inhabitants of St. Pancras, much