The Sun.
London, England, 1837-09-16 00:00:00

FAN-MAKERS' COMPANY.

There being no objection to the list of the Livery of the
Fan•makers' Company, Mr. Mylne signed and passed it.
The lists of the Card-makers' Company, the Glaziers'
Company, the Plaisterers' Company, and the Scriveners'
Company were passed, there being neither claims nor ob-
jections.

(Before Mr. CRAIO. )
The revision of the householders' lists for the city was
commenced this morning by calling on those persons who had
sent in claims in the parish of St. Albans, Wood-street, all of
of which were disallowed in consequence of their not ap-
pearing.
The COURT then proceeded to the objections.
Mr. TROTT (agent for the Liberals) said, before going
into the first objection, he must call upon the objector to
state the specific nature of his objection to each voter. He
said he considered it to be a breach of the privileges of the
House of Commons for any man to object to a number of in-
dividuals frivolously and vexatiously, without any reasonable
or probable cause. Persons combining together for such a
purpose were guilty of a conspiracy, and, as such, were liable
to an indictment. The judges of the superior courts refused
to try causes involving illegal conduct or matters against
public morals, and as the circumstance of a general objector
refusing to state specifically the ground of his objection was
prima facie evidence that the objection was frivolous, the Re-
vising Barrister ought not to enter into the cases.
Mr. ROGERS would altogether refuse to give any fur-
ther answer to the speech of the gentleman who had
just addressed the Court, than that his objections were
general. He had a right to make such objections by the
provisions of the Act of Parliament, and could not be
called upon to state more till the proper time.
Mr. CRAIG said the same point had been before him now
for two years ; and he had not yet seen any reason for alter-
ing the judgment he had then come to. However Mr.
Trott, or indeed every one Eight wish to see the matter in a
better form. They were bound to act according to the Act
of Parliament ; and by it he had no right to call upon Any
one to state the specific nature of his objection until the
case had been gone into. He must therefore refuse the
application.
Mr. TROTT—Then, Sir, I must protest against any case
being gone into before the objector states his specific
grounds of objection. I hope, Sir, you will take a note of
my application, and protest, with a view of ulterior pro-
ceedings.
Mr. CRAIG complied.

The name of Mr. Bestow, of 98, Wood-street, was then
objected to. It appeared that he occupied the place as a
warehouse. His name appeared on the rate-book from
August, 1836 ; but in the following rate his name was
struck out, and that of Mrs. Johnson his landlady was sub-
stituted. His name again appeared on the two following
rates as a claimant to be registered.
Mr. Bestow was called, and stated that he had always
paid the rates, even though the receipts were in the name
of Mrs. Johnson. He did not think it was of any conse-
quence, especially as he appeared at. and took part in the
proceedings of vestries subsequent to the alteration.
Mr. RocEfts had not been aware of the fact of his paying
the rates himself, otherwise he would not have given him
the trouble.—Vote retained.