The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-03 00:00:00

EAST SURREY.

Yesterday Messrs. TURNER and BRETT commenced the
revision of the list for East Surrey at the Horns Tavern,
liennington.

(Before Mr. TURNER.)
PARISH OF ST. MART, LAMBETH.

There were 85 claimants, of whom 28 were objected to
by the Overseers.
B. Kawdon claimed in respect of a house in Brook-street,
in this parish. The house is in the occupation of a Mrs.
Dwyer as tenant to claimant at 18/. per annum, and she
pays the rates.
Mr. TURNER said this case was one which would give
the tenant a right to vote for the borough of Lambeth, but
as that tenant was a female the claimant had the right, and
he should, therefore, have claimed to be inserted i❑ the list,
but ho had no vote for the county.

PALISH OF STREATHAM.

TRUSTEESHIP.—J. M. Thompson was objected to by the
o„nec.r, for want of qualification.
Mr. Thorni:son being sworn, suid he claimed in respect
of property bequea:.hed to him (and a co-trustee) in trust
for the benefit of the te.!tator's widow and daughter ; the
trust was for a distinct specl,:c object, he had no discre-
property, no beneficial interest
tionary power over the
therein.
Mr. Miller suggested that the power of keepingthe pre-
mises in repair was a sufficient discretionary power'.
Mr. TURNER said the claimant was a mere truste.Z:
There were two anomalous clauses in the Act : some Re-
vising I3arristers had decided that when a trustee has a
discretionary power over trust funds, to distribute them
among objects of charity for instance, he was entitled un-
der the 23d section to vote as being " in the actual pos-
session or receipt of the rents and profits" of the trust
estate ; but then the 26th section expressly says that a per-
son claiming to vote must be in such receipt " for his
own use." These two clauses were anomalous and in-
consistent with each other. Before the Reform Act, no
trustee had a vote except he was a beneficial freeholder
to the value of 40s. a year. It was clearly the intention
of the Legislature, when framing these clauses, to abide
by the old law. There was a groat difference of opinion
amongst the Revising Barristers on this point, and he
had no doubt the matter would be brought before Parlia-
ment.—Claim disallowed. _

(Before Mr. BRETT.)
PARISH OP CLAPHAM.

Mr. C. F. Collins was opposed on the ground that ho
was a mere trustee under a will.
Mr. Corner, however, in support, proved that the clai-
mant received the rents and profits for himself and sisters,
and had, therefore, a beneficial interest.—Claim allowed:.

Reuben Gibbs was objected to as a voter ; and upon his
name being called,

The Clerk—That man is dead.
Reuben Gibbs (bustling with great anxiety through the
crowd)—No I am not! here I am.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BRETT—Upon whom was the notice served ?
The Clerk—Upon his widow.—(A laugh.)
Reuben—My Widow ! Why I am not dead yet.—
(Renewed laughter.)
Clerk—Well, I certainly served the notice on a woman
in weeds.—(More laughter.)
Reuben (seriously)—l am ready to swear lam not dead.
(Roars of laughter, in which the Court joined.)
Mr. BRETT said that this circumstance showed the
caution that was necessary in receiving an objection of this
nature.
There were other objections, however, to poor Reuben,
which being substantiated, his name was struck off the list.