The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-02 00:00:00

LONDON GAS COMPANY.

After hearing arguments upon the claim of Messrs. Spot-
tiswoode and Meux to be inserted in the list of voters for
the Prince's liberty,

Mr. TURNER said there were two questions arising on
the claims of Messrs. Spottiswoode and Meux. First, whe-
ther there was a sufficient beneficial occupancy ; and, se-
cond, whether there was a sufficient rating? As the cir-
cumstances of this caw were somewhat peculiar, he would
cansider of his judgment, and give his decision on the claim
on Monday (this day) for which purpose he would adjourn
the Court.

The revision of the Lists (with the exception of the above
claim) was concluded on Saturday.

WEST KENT.

On Saturday the Revising Barristers resumed their sit-
tings at the Mitre Tavern, Greenwich.
Mr. TYNDALE, on taking his seat, observed, that after
consulting his Learned Colleague, Mr. Bosanquet, the
Court had determined in the case of Mr. Angus, a mem-
ber of the Society of Friends, who claimed to vote in respect
of the corn-mill at Lewisham-bridge, and who, it appeared,
had succeeded a decca.ed brother to the property, and not
taken out letters of administration, that the claimant had no
right to be place 1 upon the registry, as he had taken the
burden upon himself in his own wrong.
The objection, which was made by the Conservatives,
was therefore sustained.

The Learned BARRISTER next proceeded to give judg-
ment in Mr. Ke:th Barnes's case, who possessed a rent-
charge on freehold land belonging to Mr. Leigh, at
Lewisham.

The claim was objected to by the Liberals—first, that
the grant had been made for the mere purpose of creating
Faggot totes ; and, secondly, that it had not been regis-
tered with the Clerk of the Peace for the County, pursuant
to the 3d George 111.

Mr. TYNDALE gave his decision at considerable length,
and declared that the deed conveying the grant was in-
sufficient for the purpose of creating a vote, inasmuch as
the provisions of the Act referred to had not been com-
plied with, and Mr. Barnes's name must therefore be ex.
punged, which was done accordingly.
(Before Mr. TYNDALE.)
SALEM CHAPEL, WOOLWICH.-Mr. William Ellen.
borough claimed a right to vote in respect of being a joint
lessee with Mr. Tame, jun., and three others, of a free-
hold chapel, called Salem Chapel, situate in Powis-street,
Wool w ich.

It appeared that the lease bad been granted, in 1817, by
Richard and Henry Powis, to Henry King, at a ground
rent of 5/. per annum, for a term of 61 years. The lessees
derive from pew rents the sum of 'l5O/. a-year, and the
claimcnt and Mr. Tame have the sole management of the
funds.

Cross-examined by Mr. NOKES:—There is a shool-
room and ante-room adjoining the chapel, but the ante-
room is not suitable far a residence. The school-room is
used as a vestry room, the same as other rooms of a si-
milar description are when attached to places of worship.
The two rooms communicate internally with the body of
the chapel.
By Mr. Jones—They do not pay poor-rates for the
•
rooms.

Mr. Nokes contended that they ought to be rated for
the poor, and, if so rated, in point of law the property
would give a right of vote for the borough and not for
the county.
The Learned Barrister said this was a case upon which
they were not called upon to say whether the premises
were rateable or not. _ _

Mr. Nokes observed that there were other deeds con-
nected with the question, which had not been put in.
Mr. Jones objected to the production of them, and also
to the examination of Mr. Tame, jun., as to their con-
tents and bearing, as Mr. Tame thereby might injure his
claim, which was similar to the one under discussion.

Mr. TYNDALE said he would most certainly either have
tho deeds produced or Mr. Tame examined before he gave
a decision on the case.

Mr. Nokes remarked he was only anxious that the whole
of the case should be laid before the Court.

The deeds were then produced, from which it appeared
Oat the legal estate hal begin migrei to other parties,
and the names of Ellenborough and 'fame were therefore
expunged.

Mr. Joseph Bullock was opposed by the Liberals.
He claimed a right to vote as a joint trustee with a Mr.
Preston for a freehold property known as the King's Arms
Tavern, Woolwich.

The claimant considered it, to let, worth 2001. per an-
num i they are joint trustees under a marriage settlement ;
claimant received the rents, and had done so from the 18th
of August, 1830. He does not receive any benefit from
the property, but pays the whole of the proceeds over to
his brother Thomas, for whom he is in trust.
Mr. NOUN submitted that so long as the claimant was
a trustee for the property the legal estate was vested in
him. According to the 23d section of the Reform Act,
trustees in possession had a right of vote, inasmuch as no
other persoo right to receive the rents arising from
the property,
The Court held that It would be impossible for the Maim-
ant to sustain a right of vote under the circumstances. If
the claimant had a right to apply a portion of the proceeds
to his own use and benefit he would have stood in a diffe-
rpp position, but as he had no discretionary power over the