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 Ring's-cross
district. The court was crowded during the day.
Mr. T. Alley Jones appeared for the Conservatives,
and Mr. James for the Liberals. The freehold land
societies were represented by Mr. J. Wells, solicitor,
and Mr. Sidney Smith and Mr. Robert Russell.
Philip Samuel Bardons, of No. 1, Stanhope-street,
Hampstead-road, claimed to be on the register as the
holder of a freehold, No. 1, Freehold-street, Long Sands,
Holloway. He gave 281. 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. Prickett and Mr. J. M. Ma-
clure, 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 twenty.five
years' purchase.

Mr.llortimer. Timpson, a builder, purchased the land
from the original vendor for 1.0401. Since the purchase
was made 2,9001. had been laid out 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 504, and yielded 40a. clear of all
charge, then it would be a case for conferring the fran-
chise.

Further evidence having been gone into,
The BARRISTER decided that 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 Estate, which he had purchased
from the National Freehold Land Society, and which he
declared to be of the annual value of 51. a year and up-
wards.
Mr. Sidney Smith demanded proof of the notices on
the 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 value of
,he 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 Consevative agent, narrowly escaped
dis-
franchised, as`a member of a similar social.
and the g
The Court sat till a late hour, reatest excite-
ment prevailed.being

IMPORTANTE DECISIONSMINSTER
Mr. Macqueen resumed his sittings yesterday
Lords Justices' Court, Westminster, for the revision
of the lists of voters for the city and liberty of
roe
West-
minster. The only question of importance which.
and 12
before the Court was one arising under the Act 11
Act,
Vict., C. 90, commonly known as General
Evani'reci, in
which provides that "no person shall be requi.o
any
order to entitle him to have his name inserted
-Pei lend,
list of voters for any city, town, or borough in
such as shall have become payable from hin re egxcept
to have paid any poor-rates or assessed at the
taxnesreyiously
to the sth day of January in the same year St. chi-
case of W. S. Ford, a claimant in the parist of the ments, who had been returned as a defaulter toas-
sessedMichael-
taxes, it appeared that the taxes due at In the
rot been paid
for the half-year ending sth of April had ro-
escribed
Michael-
mas had been paid on the 6th of April, bet that those
till the 30th of July—ten days before the Pr
time.
His HONOUR now gave judgment.
113
said: The
1849 by
question revived by this claim was decided in con-
Mr. Bayley, and was decided in 1651 by mr,ailey's de-
formity with, though in ignorance of Mr. Bailey
this
cision. I have now, however, been asked
ti
to the question to be re-argued, and have assent°
; overlooked
re-
quest, on the assurance that important topLo
in the former discussion, would be advancei•
tas not been
my duty to state at once that my opinion --one of the
altered in any degree. By the Reform Aetcb,oo was de-
tests of qualification for the elective fran ,
9 were due.
Glared to be the payment of taxes when to eeTe paid,
The statute required that the claimant shou:
taxes
on or before the 20th day of July, all assessed
in respect
which should have become payable from hie
of April.
of his premises previously to the 6th Id july he
Therefore, he was to show that by the 2oic
the 6th of
had cleared off his assessed taxes down tt re-
I think it
on the
gister of voters. From the: want of
April; otherwise he was not to be dpiece gig'Plance, from
accident, and from other causes, it haPPes, leaving un-
persons allowed the 20th of July to Pass, previously to
paid taxes which ought to have been
Pa from the lists,
the 6th of April; and they were excludedothar respects
although their qualifications in
alitinued to be the
nel that ManY
law, and such its operation, from the e'lflt
were free from objection. Such oen-
leature was pre-
Act to the year 1848, when the lieglsaa Act, the 11th
veiled upon, with some difficulty, to pass 0
• h period of per-
and :12th Viet., cap. 90, enlarging
sole purpose of an-
missible arrears, apparently for the
Byers. This statute
conernodating tardy and recusant taxi)
person to have his
provided that, in order to entitle enB9_ e
h shall not be re-
name inserted in the list of votert,B2o3,
except such as
gaited to have paid any assessed
him of the Reform
previoasly to the
shall have become payable from
year' So that no per-
-sth day of January in the game
yeuch list unlese the as-
son shall bo entitled to be on
auypareviously to the sth of
ceased taxes payable from
of July next following. T- him or before the 20th day
January shall have been P
o be paid quarterly, on
by statutes which declare there ke
September,
and the 20th
the 20th of June, the 20th of
Ler, do not contem-
plate March. Those statutes, ho
To save expense' and
plate a quarterly collection.
t_ 0
h collection is to
to promote convenience, at Michaelmas and
be by half-yearly moieties,
general tale ; but
Lady day. This is the
requiring greater strict-
under special circumstances,
haiedarsessed taxes are imposed
ness, the collection may be Li,
q tare the 20th of July, to
that the claimant is, on or be Keeping in view
pay all taxes which shall have
it seems clear that the
previously to the sth of January,
on the 20th of December
quarterly payment falling due payable from him
on.•
I 9 included in this requirera
00th of December is not
the quarterly tax due on the
the sth of January, and
usually demanded previous ti,
sc, is not to be regarded as
becomeY.ut then it is said that
of January. In other
therefore, in the eye of the
payable previously to the
contrary
it has been demanded.
words, a debt is not payable in this case, be-
But I am bound to hold
.the
taxes and the instruc-
tions
cause the statutes imposing y
I declare that, although
toil erßl
tions to the collectors exPrfe-"early, " they are payable
the taxes are collected hal y
and became payable pre-
20th December last was il_
quarterly." My opinion
of January in the present year,
is,ethat the quarterly tax of the
viousl to the sth day 0-
it ou or before the 20th of
and ho who fails in paying
July forfeits his vote. It appears by the evidence
uniformly behind in the pay-
that the present claimant,
during the last year, been
: demanded in the beginning
pay-
ment of taxes. Thus, taxes
till Lady-day, and taxes
V7illiam Simpson Ford, has,
of December, he does not pa
I have, therefore, no difficulty
30th of July thereafter.
demanded on the 10th of
claim; and I reject it on the
pay
yril he does not pay till the
in rejecting th® presentic
tax of the 20th of December
ground that the quarter
YlMmant till the 20th of July
last was not paid by
conformity—a point in the consider-
it has the merit of confo .
min next to justice itself.
ation of arbitrary rules standing
Claim rejected.
in the present year. the claimant
this decision were wrong,