The Express.
London, England, 1846-10-13 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

Los Dov.--.ii;:Arnold,;;;;;cloitnorning, delivered
judgment in the case of Thomas Parsons, who claimed to be
regkered in respect of the occupation of "Rooms, Alder-
manbury." The claimant occupied, under the same land-
lord, two rooms, communicating internally with each other,
upon the third floor, and a cellar or workshop on the base:
meat of the house. There is a separate and distinct entrance
from the street into the workshop, which hos no internal
communication with the rest of the house. The value of the
two rooms and ellar together is more than 101. per annum,
but the value of the two rooms by themselves or of the cellar
by itself, is less than that sum. Mr. Parsons was not rated to
the only rate made in the parish in the course of the year;
but a claim was made after the making of that rate, and
when the rate in respect of the whole house had been paid.
The claim to be rated was for "two rooms."—Mr. Arnold
said the case involved two points: first, whether the two
rooms on the third floor and the cellar on the basement do
not constitute two separate and distinct buildings, and are
not, as such, incapable of being joined together for the pur
pose of conferring a qualification under the 27th section of
the Reform Act ; and secondly, assuming that they con-
stitute only one building, whether the claim to be rated,
being for two rooms only, is sufficient as a claim to be rated
for the two rooms and the cellar. Upon the latter point he
enterthined some doubts, bat was inclined to think, if the
case had rested upon that point alone he should have con-
sidered it a virtual rating. But he thought the case
must fail on the first point, the cellar and work-
shop being to all intents and purposes a separate and
distinct tenement from the two roams on the third floor.—
Mr. W. Hitchcock, of Lad-lane, also obtained costs from
Mr. Brown, to the amount of 201., which he handed over to
Mr. Wansey, the agent for the Liberals, amidst considerable
laughter. —Mr. Arnold, during the day, went through the
lists of the following parishes : St. Faith under St. Paul ;
tit. Martin Ludgate; St. Matthew Friday-street; St. Mi-
chael le Quern ; St. Peter Westeheap ; St. Vedast, alias
Foster; St. Andrew Holborn ; St. Bartholomew the Great ;
and St. Bartholomew the Leas.—The following is the result
of the day's resish.n : Liberal objections sustained, 8;
failed. M. Conservative objections sustained, 69; failed,
98. Double objections sustained, 15 ; failed, 1. Liberal
chins sustained, 9; failed, 8.
MlDDLESEX,—Yesterday, L. Shadwell, Esq., the bar-
rister appointed to revise the list of voters for the county, held
a court at White Conduit House, Islington, for the revi-
sion of the lists of the district comprising the following
pa.righes and liberties : St. Luke's, St. Sepulchre, Stoke
Newington Gray's-inn, the Rolls, St. Pancras, St. Maryle-
bone, Paddington, St. Botolph Without, Aldersgate, Saffron-
hill, Hatton-garden, Ely-place, St. George, Bloomsbury, St.
Giles-in the-fields, and St. Andrew's, Holborn. In the list
of St. Andrew's, Holborn, and St. George-the-Martyr, a
chummade by Bryan Holme, on account of a rent-charge
o,
IN., was objected to by the Liberals. Mr. James
put in a deed, bearing date 13th December, 1845,
worrying the rent-charge to the claimant, the first
not being made payable on the day subsequent to the date
of the deed, and having e npaid on the day the deed was
dated. The barrister allowed the claim. Mr. Payne asked
th" banister if he considered that the rent, having been paid
b..efore it was due, was a good payment.—Mr. Shadwell
tnought it was. Mr. Payne observed, that this was one of
the numerous votes manufactured through the intervention
theof league. The barrister could not help that. He would
not alb,w the claim if he could avoid it. Mr. James was