The Sun.
London, England, 1855-09-29 00:00:00

[PRIoz 4D.

STAMPED SD•

THE REGISTB aTIONS.

MIDDLESI.3X.
Yesterday Mr. Shadwell held his court at the Wind-
sor Castle, Hammersmith, and proceeded with the revi-
sion of lists of voters for Chisv rick, Fulham, Hammer-
smith, Chelsea, and Kensingtoi t.
Mr. Joseph Davies attended en behalf of the Liberal
interest. The Conservatives were represented by Mr. T.
Alley Jones and Mr. Beaumont Maclure.
FREEHOLD LAND ; SOCIETIES.
In the parish of Hammersm ith William Cecil Taylor
claimed to be placed upon the r egister, in right of a plot
of freehold land, situate in Blyt he-lane, on an estate be-
longing to the West London Freehold Land Society.
The claim was objected to by Mr. Jones, on the
ground-that the value was insufficient.
The-claimant said that he had. purchased a plot (No.
253) on the above estate, for which he paid 351. in Oct.
last. He was a member of a building society, but he
had paid for the land, and prod used his deed of convey-
ance.

The Revising Barrister—But there is no proof before
me that it is worth 40s. a year. What property have
you placed upon the land since October ?
The claimant said that he intended to build a house
upon the plot, but had not yet c ommenced.
Mr. Jones could settle the question at once, by calling
the overseer to prove that the whole 200 plots upon the
estate were rated to the poor at 51. a year.
The Barrister said that, as thie land had not been let,
and as no property had been pl aced upon it, there was
no proof that the property was worth 40s. a year, clear
of all charges.
The claim was accordingly di' {allowed.
William Davies, of 4, Albion; place, Brook-lane, Ham-
mersmith, another member of tine West London Society,
claimed the right to vote, in rig lit of a freehold plot on
the mune:4state. noised yrts.APnveyipd to-hire in coo-
.tober last. 13.erhad paid the pu'rchase-money, 351. -
Mr. Jones said that the same objection applied to this
case as to the last.
The Revising Barrister—Has any property been placed
upon the land since October T
The claimant said that he bad commenced building a
house upon the land in March last, but it was not yet
finished.
The Revising Barrister—Then there is no proof that
the property was of sufficient value six months prior to
the 31st July as required, and there is nothing before
me to show that prior to the 81st of January the land
was worth 403. a-year ; the claim cannot, therefore, be

allowed.
The claim was accordingly disallowed.
William Snooks claimed in right of another plot upon
the same estate, for which he had paid 351. two years
ago ; since then he had laid out 1001. upon the land,
which was unencumbered.
Mr. Jones also objected to this claim ; but
The Barrister decided that, as it had been shown that
the claimant had expended 1001. upon the land since the
conveyance of the deed, two years ago, and that there
was no mortgage, the claim had been clearly made out.
Claim allowed, accordingly.
Richard Turpin produced his deed of conveyance for
land purchased en the same estate for 1051. in October,
and claimed to vote in right thereof. This claim was
also allowed.
Mr. Jones objected to 14 similar claimants, 12 of
which he sustained.
Thomas Humble, Walker, of. 6, Wellington-square,
Chelsea, then claimed to be upon the register in virtue
of freehold land in Blythe-lane, in the occupation of
Frederick Faulkner.
Mr. Jones Objected to the claim, as the freehold was
held by the claimant in trust for the members of the
West London Freehold Land Society.
The Barrister examined the deed, and was of opinion
that the property had been conveyed to the claimant
and a Frederick Gaskell, for their own benefit, and not
in trust ; it was unusual thus to make a conveyance in
joint tenantcy. The purchate•money appeared to be-
-6,5001. He presumed that the parties had purchased the
land upon their own speculation, and not in trust for
other parties. -
The claimant said that he had. conveyed away about
two-thirds of the property at cost, price ; the rest he re-
tained, and it was more than sufficient to entitle him to
the franchise. The property had been originally pur-
chased with money borrowed upon his own and Mr.
Gaskell's Security. He was not an officer of the society,
only one of the trustees.
The claim was eventually allowed.
. .
APPLICATIONS FOR COSTS.
In the parish of Kensington, the Rev. John Bakewell,
dissenting minister, of Chancloa-road Villas, claimed to
vote upon a house rental of 66/. a year, and was objected
to by Mr. Jonei, on the ground. of want of sufficient evi-
dence.
The Barrister said that as the objection arose simply
out of a change of residence, the .claim would be allowed
to occupier in the third column. -
The Claimant remarked that be had been frequently
subjected. to the same ahnoyalibe,' and-hoped- that the-
Barrister would allow the expmees. It was hard that
these vexatious quibbles should be raised.
Mr. Madywell could corroborate all that the claimant
had said. He had noticed the same conduct on the part
of the barrister, and certain parties attending the court,
for some years.
The Barrister—lf these remarks are repeated, I shall
order the attendance of the police. You had better leave
the court.
Mr. Maydwell declined to do so, and expressed his in-
tention to watch the proceedings of the barrister, as he
had done for some years. The only power the barrister
had was to adjourn the court.
The Barrister—l am not to be dictated to. The claim
cannot be allowed.
The Claimant—l have no doubt that if the claim bad
been made on the other side, it would have been listened
to. The decision was moat unjust.
The Barrister could not put up with such remarks.
A man must be mad to make use of such expressions.
Mr. Wilkins remarked that it was highly indecent,
and unbecoming the dignity of the court, to apply such
remarks to a respectable clergyman.
The Barrister—l do not care whether he be a clergy-
man, or who he is. Such remarks should not be made
by any man, and I will put a stop to them.
The landlord was directed by the Barrister to obtain
the attendance of policemen.
The application for costs was refused.
Wright Madywell was objected to by Mr. Jones OR
similar grounds, and produced his lease, which satisfied
the Barrister as to the value, and the name was retained,
with the alteration in the address.
The voter applied for expenses, and upon being re-
fused by thelßarrister he accused him of great partiality,
and stated that he treated the decision and the court with
the greatest contempt.
The Barrister said that it had been laid down as a rule
by his predecessor not to allow expenses in cases of new
claims ; he would reconsider the question before the
next revision. Where the alteration was an immaterial
one he should not in future refuse costs. He said this
with every respect to his predecessor, who had estab-
ished the precedent.
The Barrister holds his court this day at Brentford.