The Sun.
London, England, 1837-09-20 00:00:00

NEW COURT.

Win. Morgan Mordecai, aged 16, was indicted for steal-
ing twelve sovereigns, the property of P. APLaghlan his
master.

The prisoner pleaded guilty,but the learned Judge having
apprized him that the plea would not mitigate his sentence
of transportation for life, the prisoner consulted with his
friends, and pleaded " Not guilty." The trial was then
postponed.
William Bellman, aged '22, was indicted for stealing a
sum of 281. 175., the property of Mr. Lcuchars, to whom
he was a servant.

The prisoner also pleaded guilty, and was cautioned ix
like manner by Mr. Sergeant Arabin, but he persisted in
saying that he was guilty of the offence, and had no wish
to make any defence.
The Learned JUDGE then sentenced the prisoner to trans-
portation for life.
The COMMON-SERGEANT then took his scat on the
bench, and the Mint' prosecutions were proceeded with.
None of the cases possessed any feature of public interest.

CITY REGISTRATION,-THIS DAY

(Before Mr. MYLNE.)
The Revising Barrister having concluded the revision of
the lists of livery, proceeded this morning with the lists a
householders.

Mr. Goodeve having objected to the names of several
householders in the parish of St. Thomas Apostle being
retained on the rst,

Mr. Trott called upon that gentleman to state specifi-
cally his ground of objection. He contended it was a breach
of the privileges of the House of Commons for a man to
object frivolously and vexatiously, without reasonable or pro-
bable cause, to the votes of a large number of electors.
That the House of Commons would so treat such conduct
he had no doubt, and he considered that men who com-
bined for the purpose of making such frivolous objections
vrere guilty of a consfiracy, and as such subject to in-
dictment, to say nothing of the right of action which the
party so injured or inconvenienced might have against him.
The Judges of the Superior Courts refused to try causes
founded on illegal contracts, or on transactions affecting the
public morals, and here the circumstance of an objection re-
fusing to state the ground of objection was in his (Mr.
Trott's) opinion prima facie ec!dence of the objection being
frivolous, and as such the Revising Barrister ought not
to entertain or try the objection.
Mr. Goodeve refused to state specifically his ground of
objection.
Mr. MYLNE held that the objector need not do so, that
not being required by the Act of Parliament.
Mr. Trott then protested, on the part of the gentlemen
objected to, for whom he or any of his learned friends might
appear during the present review, against any objection
being entertained, when the objector did not state specifi-
cally the ground of objection ; arid he requested that this
protest might appear on the Barrister's notes, which Mr.
Mylne acceded to.
(Before Mr. Camo.)
The whole of the morning was occupied by the argu-
ments in the case of Mr. Beck, the clerk to the Iron-
mongers Company, who was objected to by the Liberal
party, on the ground of his occupying the house, out of
which he claimed, merely as the servant to the Company.
Mr. Beck was sworn, and deposed that he was annually
elected as clerk, and always for a year. The house he
occupied was apart from the offices, and he had the entire
control of it. When any of the Court of Assistants wished
one of the rooms for a game at cards on a ball night, they
were obliged to ask him for leave. In the engagement for
salary, the house was considered as of the value of 100/.
per annum.

Mr. Gregory contended that Mr. Beck was to all in-
tents and purposes the owner of the house in question, for
he had the entire control of the street door, and could
refuse access to the whole world if he pleased. If the
Court should decide against him on that point, he would
then contend that he was a tenant, and therefore entitled
to a vote. The evidence showed that he paid 1001. a-year
in the shape of rent, and it was quite clear that the Com-
pany would not eject him without a full and legal notice.
Mr. Holmes, for the Liberal party, contended that the
occupation of the house was merely permissive, and came
under the same principles as the cases of persons holding
official residences under the Government, whose votes had
been disallowed.
The REVISING BARRISTER said the case was one of
considerable importance ; and he would consider the cases
on the point of occupancy before he decided.