The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-04 00:00:00

EAST SURREY.

Yesterday Messrs. Turner and Brett completed the re-
vision of the lists of the parishes of St. Mary, Lambeth,
Streatham, and Clapham, the first two being taken by Mr.
Turner, and the ast by Mr. Brett. The Liberals were re-
presented by Messrs. Corner and Miller ; and Messrs.
Edward Meytnott and Luttley attended on behalf of the
Conservatives.

(Bcfore Mr. TURNER )
The name of a voter having been strucil off the list on the
ground of his having lost his qualification by bankruptcy,
and the adjourned cases having been disposed of (which did
not possess any interest), Mr. Turner proceeded to revi,e
the lists of the parishes he had taken.

- (Before Mr. BRETT.)
Robert Clements was objected to on Monday by the Con-
servatives for want of value. This objection, however, was
not sustained, when

Mr. Meymott further objected that this voter's qualifica-
tion was wrongly described in the list. It appeared that he
derived his qualification from houses, whereas it was de-
scribed in his original claim and in the list as " house" only.
Mr. Corner said it was a mere clerical error, an insertion
of the singular for the plural number, which might happen
to the most correct transcriber. He contended that, as the
Barrister had in one instance during this registration, in a
case of change of residence, substituted " Bromwell's•row"
for " Clifton-street," he had power to alter the list in this
case.

Mr. BRETT, having adjourned the consideration of this
point, nom decided that he had no power to alter the re-
gistry as required, and must therefore expunge the name of
Mr. Clements, but would recommend him to rectify the
error in his next claim.

LAND-TA X.—Mr. William Adam Franks, who was re-
gistered as having a vote in respect of land-tax, purchased
under the 42d Geo. 111., cap. 116, sec. 154, (the Land-tax
Act), such right to tote being also us it was alleged, recog-
nised by the 51st Geo. 111., cap. 99, was objected to by
Mr. Corner.

Mr. S. Williams (who appeared specially to support the
vote) contended that this vote could not now be objected
to, and he grounded his opinion on the 38th, 39th, and 42d
sections of the Reform Act, which, in his view, clearly
established the following position—viz., that where it
voter's name has been on the list of voters for more than
one year, no person except the Overseers has the power of
objecting.
The Learned BARRISTER gave judgment, and after re-
capitulating the facts of the case as stated before him, said
that, on referring to the several sections of the Act 4'2
Geo. 111., c 116, the distinction between redemption by
parties having an interest in the property on which the land-
tax is charged, and that by persons not having such interest,
appeared to him (Mr. Brett) so clear and obvious as not to
leave any doubt on his mind as to the correctness of the
decision to which he had conic, and in which his Learned
Colleague perfectly concurred. The certificate proved that
the party redeeming had a lease of the house. He was
therefore no tenant at a rack-rent, but was a person autho-
rised by the Act to redeem the land-tax. Then follows
section 123, " having any estate or interest other than an
estate of inheritance," which was the section under which
claimant's father redeemed, meaning he conceived that
when parties having a leasehold interest or estate for
life, in the property they had a charge upon the land,
for the amount of the money paid for redemption of the
land-tax and for payinent of a yearly sum for interest
equal to the annual land-tax. This charge was by the
express words of the statute made personalty, and there-
fore is incapable of conferring a vote. He also found
that by the 38th George 111., cap. 60, see. 193, all
such purchased land-tax (with one exception) was consi-
dered as personalty. This case appeared to resemble canal
and other shares, which had been directed by the statute
to be considered as personal property, and have been held
not to qualify the holder to a vote—(De/mie's Decisions in
Revising. Courts, pp. 285, 386-7.) The 51st Geo. 111.,
c. 99, seemed also to confirm the view he (Mr. Brett) had
taken of the 42d Geo., 111., c. 116, which recognises "the
right to vote to be solely in those who have purchased under
the 154th section:of the latter statute. The objection taken
to the vote was allowed, and the name of Mr. Franks ex-
punged from the list.

'rue following are the objections and result, on Monday,
Oct. 2, and Tuesday, Oct. 3
LAmat.Tit PARlSlL—Overseers' objections, 28—sus-
tained, 27 ; failed, 1. Reformers, 32 ; sustained, 29 ;
failed, 3. Tories, 12—sustained, 9 ; failed, 3.

. -
STREATHAM PARlSH.—Overseers' objections, 10—sus-
tained, 10. Reformers, 3—sustained, 2 ; failed, 1. Tories
2—sustained, 2.

CLAPHAM PARlSH.—Reformers' objections, 48—sus-
tained, 28 ; failed, 14 ; adjourned, 6. Tories, 58—sus-
tained, 45 ; failed, 11 ; adjourned, 2.

BOROUGH OF GREENWICH.
Yesterday morning, according to previous arrangement,
the Revising Barristers, Messrs. Tyndale and Bonsanquet,
presided in the same Court, for the purpose of deciding upon
the claims of Sir Richard Dobson, and others, who are con-
nected with Greenwich Hospital.

The name of Sir Richard Dobson was expunged from the
registry on former occasions by the Revising Barristers ;
the case consequently excited considerahlo interest.
After a protracted examination of the claimant, Mr. 80.
BANQUET said—This is a ease of great importance ; and as
it has often been decided before, we shall reserve it for con-
sideration,--Decision accordingly reserved.
(Before Mr. BO3ANQUET).
ST. PAUL, DEPTFORI).—Wra. Anderson stood upon the
overseer's list as qualified for a house in Chatsworth-build-
ings. no was objected to.
The decision of the Barrister was reserved until the ad-
journed day.