The Sun.
London, England, 1837-10-17 00:00:00

REGISTRATION OF VOTER

for
Middlesex,Messrs.
dmaYn
adjournedan d rf AltLcYoNu
MIDDLESEX.
Conduit House, for the revision of the parishes of St.-
and St •
Leonard, Shoreditch ; St. John, Clerkenwell
Mary, Stoke Newington. ,rtththei:edvaiysiantg
(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
The Rev. Mr. Mardon was objected to as having 11.°
freehold in the office of minister, for which he claimea•
Mr. Mardon produced several deeds which the learned ball
risters perused, but could n, t distinctly collect the eNae
situation of the property to which they related. thbear.srvisritrief
Mr. Adey said it wasquite clear th:.`; gentleman had Cu
freehold in his office, anqd, without inter ling any offence,
he had thought it right to take an objection to his nalrit
being retained on the lists, with several others in the same
situation, in order that the opinion of the Court might be
taken on the question.
- Mr. COVENTRY—AS Mr. Mardon you say you have 3
friend in the law with whom you have already conimou''
cated, if he will draw up an abstract of the voluminous
parchments before me, or prepare a statement from them
which will show a clear estate of freehold in you, so hide;
pendent of your office that if you should resign you would-
still retain the property, I will admit your claim ; but
otherwise, both this and that of Mr. Apiland, which er
pears to be similarly circumstanced, must be expunged"
The reverend gentleman then withdrew to consult his
friend.

(Before Mr. TAmLYrc.)
Mr. TAMLYN gave judgment to-day with respect to tilt
claim of the New River shareholders, which was argueal
at this place on a former day. The argument vast n'
ake
on the case of one of the shareholders, namely, Mr"
Richard Smith Appleyard, who holds an entire adven-
turer's share in the New River. There were three
jections taken to the claim : first,, that the property 1°
..
respect of which the parties claimed was not freehold
secondly, that the incorporation of the shareholders into
a Company destroyed their right to vote ; and, thirdly,
that there was an intervenient trust in the Governors
and Directors of the Company, which, under the 23d sectgal
of the Reform Act, destroyed the shareholders right t°
vote. Mr. Tamlyn said he .did not consider it necessary teci
go into the question of whether this property was freehold
or not, as he thought it bad been satisfactorily proved In
the judgments already delivered on the subject by Mr'
Coventry and Mr. Reeve that it was freehold property,
such as under the statute of Henry the Sixth entitled the
parties beneficially interested to vote. The most material
question was, whether these claimants were entitled to
vote under the circumstances of the Reform Act and the
charter of the Company. Mr. Tamlyn, after referring at'
some length to the history of the formation of the New
River Company, and after reading the charter, said that be
was of opinion that the governor and directors were merely'
the stewards or agents of the shareholders generally, and
that the shareholders themselves were the parties bene-
ficially interested, and in the actual receipts of the rents
and profits, and that consequently they were entitled to
have their names retained on the list.
The result of the day's revision is, that the Overseers
made and sustained 17. objections ; the Reformers objected
to 19 names, and succeeded in six cases ; the Tories made
83, and sustained 43 objections.

EAST SURREY.
(Before Mr. TURNER and Mr. BRETT.)
MONDAY, OCTOBER 16.—CAMBERWELL Car-LEWI'S
SCHOOL.—This case came under the consideration of the
Revising Barristers, in consequence of a claim made by "'
gentleman named Bean, as grantee of a rent-charge of
per annum issuing out of the Camberwell School Estate.
After Mr. Corner and Mr. Meymott had been resPec'
tively heard against and in support of the claim,
Mr. TURNER pronounced judgment, disallowing the ob•-
jections to the vote of Mr. Bean and of the other claimants.
In the case of three claims made by three gentlemen,
named Cramley, Curtis, and Rental], out of freehold peg}
in the Episcopal Chapel of Camberwell,
Mr. TURNER held that the fee of these pews was in the
trustees, that the right to the pews was a mere easement,
and that no freehold right existed. The claims were COli.
sequently disallowed.