The Sun.
London, England, 1855-09-25 00:00:00

MORTLAKE.

The overseers made arid sustained eight objections,
and nine claims were allowed. •
A gentleman attended from the office of the Clerk of
the Peace, in consequence of a 'list of 17 voters whose
claims had been allowed by the Cunt of C _minion Pleas
in an appeal of A:stbury v. Henderson, reported in our
paper of Nov. 24, having been omitted from the copy of
the register furnish by the Clerk of the Peace to the
overseers, and conifevently the names of those parties
had not been published on the church door.
It appeared by the Registration Act of the 6th Vic-
toria 0:18, s. 67, whenever any decision of any revising
barrister shall be reversea or altered, so as to require any
alteration or correetibwofthe register of. voters, notice
should be forthwith given by one of the masters of the
court to the sheriff, who shall alter or correct the regis-
ter accordingly, which has been done ; but the act makes
no prevision for any notice of such alteration being given
to the Clerk of the Peace, who therefore had received no
notice of the, decision. _ _ _ _ • _

The Revising Barrister observed that this seemed a
casusolnissus in the Act of Parliament, and although
the question was one for the exercise of his own discre-
tion he would be harpy to hear any observations on the
point.
Mr. Corner said the point came upon him by surprise.
He bad supposed that all the parties whose votes bad
been,in question before the Court of Common Pleas bad
been on the register except Mr. Astbury, the appellant,
the omission of whose name certainly appeared to be
inexplicable, unless,he had parted with his qualification,
as some others had'done. In fact he believed many of
them did not now possess the same qualification, and
their names not having appeared in the published list
no opportunity had been afforded to object to them. If
the Revising Barrister should now insert these 17 names
he might insert two•thirds of them without any qualifi-
cation, or any claim or application by themselves. All
these parties had had the same notice of the omission of
their. names as any one else, viz., the copy of the regis-
ter on the church door, and it was their duty to come
here and object to such omission in the proper manner ;
but it appeared most singular, that of 17 persons said
to have been improperly omitted, not one appeared to
complain, and it was only on application to the Clerk.
of the Peace to correct what was certainly no error
of his or of the overseers, that their names was pro-
posed to be inserted without any notice to the public,
or any opportunity of objecting. Mr. Corner submitted
to the Revising Barrister that if these names could be
considered as having been accidentally omitted from the
list, Aether by thfault of the overseers or the clerk of
the peace, the parties should come, as in other cases of
omission ; and having proved their right to the qualifica-
tion, their names might be inserted in the register ac-
cording to sec. 37 of the Registration Act.
The Revising Barrister said his attention baying been
previously called to the circumstances, he had fully con-
sidered the case, and the law applicable to it, and be
was of opinion that no blame attached either to the
sheriff, the clerk of the peace, or the overseers, but he
should consider the names as upon the register, as un-
doubtedly they ought to be, having been accidentally
omitted from the register, as if a street was lost, and he
should insert the names accordingly, as in his opinion
sec. 37 applied to persons claiming, and not to persons
on the register.