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

WESTMINSTER.

The learned barristers resumed their sittings this morn-
tug at the Sessions House, Westminster.
(Before Mr. CRAIG.)

Mr. John Hallmarke, of the firm of Hallmarke, Aide-
berte, and Hallmarke, coach-makers, claimed to be inserted
in the register of St. Martin's-in4he-fields, in respect of pre-
tnises in Long-acre. The 'times of all the partners ap-
peared on two of the rates, but that of John Hallmark° was
omitted in the other two. He, however, had claimed to be
inserted in one of them, and it was contended by Mr. Score
that the payment of the other by a check, signed by Mr.
liellemarke in the name of himself and the other partners,
was sufficient to entitle the claimant to be on the list. Mr.

Trott argued that as this check was not written in the form
stated for the purpose of claiming, it could not amount to
a claim, and as Mr. John Hallmarke was not rated, his
name could not be inserted in the list.

Mr. CRAIG said the case was an exceedingly difficult one,
although it might be exceedingly easy to justify a decision
ngainFt the claim. Under circumstances, he should decide
in favour of the claim, though a contrary decision might
vary well be qualified.—Claim allowed.
The name of Mr. John. Gardner, 453, West Strand, was
s,eces4ully objected to, on the scot and lot list, by Mr.
Trott, on the ground that his name had been off the list
for two consecutive years. It was proved, that although
Mr. Gardner's name has been on the list for the last three
years, it was off the list for the two years following the
pissing- of the Reform Act. Mr. Gardner's name, however,
as a householder is good.
The name of Mr. Stevens Loneh was unsuccessfully ob-
jected to by Mr. Trott, on the ground that ho was not qua-
lified as a scot and lot voter at the time of the passing of
the Reform Act.

(Before Mr. MYLNE.)
PARISH OF ST. JOHN.
John Amner, and five other persons, claimed to have
their names inserted on the register.
It appeared that the claimants occupied separate houses,
the rents of which were farmed by the landlord. They
sent in Claims to be inserted on the list, but not to be rated.
A. witness, however, stated, when he delivered the claim to
be registered, he told the overseer's wife that the pdrties
wished to be rated,
Mr. MYLNR, having consulted with Mr. CRAIG, said
that he and his Learned Colleague were of opinion on
this novel case that the Act had not been complied with,
inasmuch as sufficient notice to be rated had not been
given. It was manifest that the Overseer's wife could
have no authority to act officially for her husband as an
Overseer.

Claims disallowed.
The Learned Barrister then proceeded to give judgment
in the case of Richard Johnson and six others in the pa-
rishes of St. James and St. Clement Danes, who had becu
objected to by Mr. Trott on the ground that they were
collectors of assessed taxes, and thereby, under the 22d
Geo. 11. chap. 41, rendered incapable of voting at elections
for Members of Parliament. Mr. Rice and Mr. Wiggins
had contended that these claims were good, inasmuch as the
parties were appointed by the Commissioners of Assessed
Taxes, who, being necessarily Commissioners of the Land
Tax, were as much exempted, together with the perso em-
ployed under them, from the operation of the disfranalising
clause in question. The Learned Barrister said that if be
went strictly by the precise terms of the Act, and no deci-
sion of a Committee of the House of Commons had been come
to on the point, he might, perhaps, have come to a different