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

EAST KENT.

RAMSGATE, OCT. Barristers, Messrs. RYLAND
and CHAMBERS, took the lists of the parishes in this ds-
triet here to-day.
(Before Mr. CHAMBERS.)
The name of Nicholas William Comerford was objected
to by Mr. Daniel, on the part of the Conservatives,
It was urged that the party had sent in his claim for a
rental of property, whereas his claim in reality was from a
freehold.. The claimant was examined, and admitted this,
Lot stated that he considered he had sent in his claim pro-
perly, as the freehold was let to another party, and that
as he had sect in the nami of OA tenant to the overseer,
it could not be conaiklers;.!l tbat he (the claitoagt) was the
occupier,
The CC,VRT said, that as the Lrlns rental of property
were equivocal,, t 1 might, *possibly mean freehold, and as
the part,.
j diming: aau-sent in Vie name of his tenant, it
was es dent there was no deeepfon intended to be prac-
ticed ; gttcl the '4et of another party being stated to he in
pos:, ssion, also led the objecting parties to the nature of
the (041lAcation claimed fr9tp, The description was not

one for which another was sought now to be ,uu.stituicd,
and the Court would therefore arw,:•i but whre t I:ed bren
pieced on the list.—Vote retained.

_
The name of James Rymer was then objected to by the
Conservatives.

The party claimed from a freehold which had been de.
vised in trust for his wife, and after her death to be divided
amongst her children, she having the power during her
life to reside on the premises, or to have them lot for her
profit.—Namo retained.
No other case possessing peculiar interest occurred.
IMPORTANT CASE TO THE INHADITA:STS OF WATER-
ING TOWNS.—The name of Frederick James Percival was
objected te, by Mr. Gaskell on. the part of the Liberals, on
the ground that although, ne paid more than 501. a-year to
hill.-andlord for a hoe in Albion-place, yet his occupation
bf the premises gad not been continuous.
Mr. Sarr;:uel Watkins sworn and examined.--I am thft
landlQ,7-a of the house claimed from by Mr. Vercival, for
vinich he pays me more than L(ti. a-year. Mr. Pereivia
sometimes leaves it for two months or six week, and lets kt
to other persons, but always retains one or ttc.o roonv:„ of
which I have the key, but I should always ask permis-
sion of the person to whom the house is let to i;o into those
rooms.

Mr. Gaskell contended that this was nof a s._ufficient oc-
cupation.

The Barrister said that he coreidered in this ca,e the
qualification had not been prove:?, as it had been admitted
by the lanjlord of the premiss that he should ask permis-
sion on the part of the claimant to enter the rooms, of which
he retained the key from the party who tenantt•d the house
in claimant's absence ; the section 20 of the Act provided
that the party claiming as Mr. Percival did intit be in ac-
tualpossesslon. Now what actual possession was had been
recently interpreted in " Rex v. St. Nicholas, Richcster,"
and " Rex v. St. Nicholas, Colchester." .It was in those
cases laid down that the term actual must. have great force,
or there could be no use in the introduction of the term
whatever in a statute—and that if a person let a room to
another for a certain time, the tenant could exclude thu
person who let it to him from it. It was clear that thr_re
had been such a letting in the present instance, and tkat us
the claimant had not actual possession of the premises in
question for the term required by the Act, must ex-
punge the name from the list.

ANOTHER IMPORTANT CASE OF REN:TERS AT WATER-
ING-PLACES.—The name of Francis Potter Beaumish was
objected to by the Reformers, on tl;e ground that altough
be rented a house, and paid for rkoccupying it) more than
301. a-year, yet that it was fz'amisited, and that a part of
the sum being paid for the ILie of the furniture, the claimant
did not pay a bona fide rent of 301. a year.
Mr. Daniel, for the Conservatives, urged that the claim
must be held to be a good one, for in the case of New-
man v. Andertoa and Spencer's case, in 2d New Reports,
224, it was laid down in reference to the law of restraint,
" that if such apartments be let furnished, a distress may
issue wholly out of that part of the demieil premises which►
belongs to the realty." Ile would contend. therefore, tisat
the furniture in the present instance fortn,:d part of the
premises, which were rented, as it could be distrained.
The-Court asked for the cases in which an abstl-att, had
been handed in.

Mr. Daniel said, that unfortunately the Ist of the New
Reports, which contained the case referred to, *},e could not
produce, as the gentleman who had it was ab.,ent ; but he
had handed in the printed abstract quoted in a work in re-
ference to the law of distraint ; and the case be alluded to
had been deemed conclusive in reference to the point in
question by Revising Barristers.
The claimant, on examination, then proved that he paid
751. a-year for these premises.
Mr. Gaskeil, far the Liberals, contended that it the
claim were allowed it would open the door to fagot votes.
The Barrister said that he was inclined to retain the
name on the list. The case was one of some difficulty,
as he had not seen the whole of the case the abstract
from which quoted from new Reports had been handed
to him. The clause of the R4orm Act, on which the
C3SC depended, demanded that the qualification of the
claimant in such a case should be bone fide, and be
considered that the Legislature, in using the terms,
meant something more than a technical liability,—that
it meant a substantial equitable liability in respect to the
lands and tenements occupied. Now, in the present case
there was the liability fur the rent of a tenement with
something added to it, and to the latter the term rent was
not applicable ; but as his predecessors held that the name
should be retained, having the case before them to which
he had referred, and as he had not the opportunity of see-
ing that case (Spence►'s) in detail, he would allow the name
to remain on the list, especially as it was the only one that
claim d from a similar qualifiea ion, and thus he thouglit
that no great harm could ensue, but he hoped it woulo. not
go abroad that he considered it to be a good claim ttzder all
circumstances.

(Before Mr. RYLAND.)
No case of importance occurred, except that which was
decided by the opinion of Mr. Chambers on an analogous
one, to which we have referred above.
The Barristers at three o'clock adjoy.rned the Court to
Sand►►ich, where they will revise the lists to-morrow.