The Sun.
London, England, 1852-09-23 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX.

DISFRANCHISEMENT OF FREEHOLD LAND SOCIETIES.
Yesterday Mr. Lawrence Shadwell, the revising bar-
rister, held a court at the Belvedere, Penton street, Pen-
tonville, to revise the list of voters for the King's cross
district. The court was crowded during the day.
Mr. T. Alley Jones appeared for':i, the Conservatives,
and Mr. James for the Liberals. Vhe freehold land
societies were represented by Mr.'s, Wells, solicitor,
and Mr. Sidney Smith and Mr. Robert Russell.
Philip Samuel Bardons, of No. 11-Stanhope-street,
Hampstead-road, claimed to be cODth.a't :-
egmter-se the-
holder of a freehold, No. 1, Freehold-street, Long Sands,
Holloway. He gave 28/. 6s. for the plot, and produced
-
his deed. The land was worth 41. a year.
Mr. Jones expressed a doubt as to the value of the
land, and called upon Mr. Prickott and Ntr. J. M. Ma-
cdure, surveyors, who had inspected the land, to speak
as to its value.

Mr. Prickett said that as grass land it was worth
thirty years' purchase, but when covered with small
buildings it would not be worth more than twentrfive
years' purchase.
purchased the land
from the
M oorrtiigmineariTviemndposroniora
lb:gdols!,
Since the purchase
was made 2,9001. had been laid oat upon it in sewers,
drains, and roads. The plot consisted of 12 acres,which
was divided into 238 allotments.
Mr. Jones—By this statement you are then making a
profit of 9001. a year.
The BARRISTER—Each plot is sold for 281. 65., is
it not?

Mr. Timpson—That is the case.
The BARRISTER could not allow the claim. Had the
land been worth 50/, and yielded 40s. clear of all
charge, then it would be a cass for conferring the fran-
chise.
Further evidence having beat gone into,
The BARRISTER decided Out the claim could not be
admitted.

This decision disfranchises no less than seventy-three
shareholders in one society.

Joseph Bolton claimed for a plot of freehold land on
the Stoke Newington E3tat, which he had purchased
from the National Freehold Land Society,
declared to be of the annual value of 51. a year and up-
wards. and which he

Mr. Sidney Smith demanded proof of the notices on
he overseers.

The BARISTER held copies of the notices, which he
deemed sufficient. The evidence he required was as to
the value of the property.
Mr. Smith persevered in his demand of proof of ser-
vice; and refusing to give evidence as to qualification.
The BARRISTER disallowed the claim.
The next claim was that of J. Coxford, which was
similar to the preceding, and disposed of on the same
ground.
Mr. Sidney Smith then claimed on behalf of William
Harvey.

The BARRISTER asked for evidence as to the valve of
she property.

Mr. Smith again asked for proof of the service of no-
tice on the overseers, which
The BARRISTER deemed sufficiently proved, and struck
out the name.
Mr. Smith asked for a case for appeal to the Court of
Common Pleas, referred to a decision of that Court, and
The BARRISTER emphatically refused.
Upon which Mr. Smith said he would take the case
before Parliament.

Sir Joshua Walmsley, through the strenuous exertions
of the Conservative agent, narrowly escaped being dis-
franchised, as a member of a similar society.
The Court sat till a late hour, and the greatest excite-
ment prevailed.

viPWESTER.OR
TA
NMTI NBSETC
ISION
Mr. Macqueen resumed his sittings yeste"day at tho
Lords Justices' Court, Westminster, for the revision
omfinthsetelri.stsof
The voontleyrsqufoerstitohneofciimtypaonrtdsoliobeerty of West-
before the Court was one arising under the Act lelhancrl2e
Viet., c. 90, commonly known as General. Evans's Act,
which provides that " no person shall be required, in
order to entitle him to have his name inserted in any
list of voters for any city,
such as shall have become payable from him
to have paid any poor-rates or assessod taxes except
In the to the sth day of January in the same year.'
case of W. S. Ford, a claimant in the parish of St. Cle-
ments, who had been returned as a defaulter to the as-
sessed taxes, it appeared that
mas had been paid on the 6th of April, but that those
for the half-year ending sth of April had not been paid
prescribed
till the 30th of July—ten days before the
time. town,
or
taxes

said: The
His Hoerourt now gave judgment.
question revived by this claim was decided
Mr. Bayley, and was decided in 1451 by myselfiley's con-
formity with, though in ignorance of Mr.
Baallow this
de-
cision. I have now, however, been asked to
to
the question to be re-argued, and have assented
overlooked
re-
quest, on the assurance that important topics,
I think it
iu the former discussion, would be advanced.
not been
my duty to state at once that my opinion
hasone of the
altered in any degree. By the Reform Act,
was ll
ei
n
by
tests of qualification for the elective franchisewere due.
de-
clared to bo the payment of taxes when
sed taxes
on or before the 20th day of July, all
assesin respect
which should have become payable from him
of April.
The statute required that the claimant shtoaulleclahave paid,
of his premises previously to the 6th
Therefore, he was to show that by the 201
6th of
had cleared' off his assessed taxes down to
upon the re-
April; otherwise he was not to be °lced ance, from
gister of voters. From the: want of 1.
Tigect that many
accident, and from other causes, it happen
leaving persons allowed the 2Uth of July to
puss, leaving
to
un-
paid taxes which ought to have been
paidfrom the lists,
the 6th of April; and they were excludedlir respects
although their qualifications in all gtohfeJuly he
other
to be the
were freo from objection. Such
continued the Reform
law, and such its operation, from the date ofre
u was pre-
Act to Use year 1848, when the
Legislature
Oct, the 11th
veiled upon, with some difficulty, to pass a
period of per-
missible 12th: Viet., cap. 90, enlarging
the of ao-
missiblo arrears, apparently for the sole
purpose This statute
cornmodating tardy and recusant taXD Y
.a- ers' to have his
provided that, in order to entitle any
Pesrhall not be re-
name inserted in the list of voters, he
except such as
quired to have paid any assessed taxes,
Previously to the
shall hew) become payable from
him
PSo that no per-
-sth day of January in the same year. list unless the as-
son shell be entitled to be on any °piously to the sth of
sessed taxes payable from him Pre
before the 20th day
January shall have been paid on or before
taxes are imposed
of July next following. The assessed eatd quarterly, on
by statutes which declare them to r
the 20th of June, the 20th of e September, and the 20th
of March. Those statutes, how
To save expense, andever, do net contem-
plate a quarterly collection.
the
collect
ion
to promote convenience,
at Michael is to
mas and
be by half-yearly moieties,
e
Lady- day. This is the
greater strict-
under special circumstances, requiringtneral rule ; but
in
Bess, the collection maY be guar erly.Keeping
the 20th of Jul view
that the claimant is, on or before y, to
Pay all taxes which shall have become payable from him
previously to the sth of Jamul* it seems clear that the
1 - quarterly payment fadingdue °ll the 20th of December
t, But then it is said that
is included in this requiremen.
of L'ecenaber is not
the quarterly tax due on the otl3,
the sth of January, and
usually demanded previous to
vi
is not to be regarded as
therefore, in the eye of the la. ,
of
January. In other
payable previously to the a
stntil it has been demanded.
words, a debt is not n Y
• 3-
able
until
in this case, be-
But I am bound to hold the
tehe taxes and the instruc-
cause the statutes imposing •
i declare that, although
tions to the collectors express L., , .
they
are payable
the taxes are collected half- 1Y
Ytehat the quarterly tax of the
quarterly." My Opinial i 9,
20th December last was duo and became payable pre-
viously in the present year,
viously to the sth day of ' eret on or before the 20th of
July forfeits his vote.
and he who fails in paying
/it appears by the evidence
W
that the present claimant,illiam Simpson Ford, has,
during the last year, been
uniformly behind in the pay-
ment of taxes. Thus, taxes demanded in the beginning
of December, he does not pay till Lady-day, and taxes
A demanded on the 10th ofr
Beth of July thereafter.April he does not pay till the
30
1 have, therefore, no difficulty
iatra; and I reject it on the
in rejecting th® present c
iv tax of the 20th of December
ground that the quarter-i
claimant till the 20th of July
last was not paid by the
Even if this decision were wrong,
in ~© present year. I. _..a point in the Consider-
ationit has the merit of conform). y
next to justice itself.
standing
of arbitrary rules stall
Clain rejected.