The Sun.
London, England, 1837-09-27 00:00:00

CITY REC,JSIR 10

(Before Mr. MYLNE.)
Mr. MYLNE gave judgment this morning in the following
case, which stood over.
In the parish of St. Stephen, Coleman-street, there were
seventeen names objected to, on the ground that the parties
had recciked " alms" within the last twelve months, and
within the meaning of the Reform Act. The Learned
Gentleman said the circumstances of the case were these :
—Some of the parties had participated in a charity known
by the name of " Smith's Charity." By the Report of the
Charity Commissioners it appeared that that charity con-
sisted of a sum of money left to the Churchwardens of St.
Stephen, Coleman-street, the dividends on which were to
he annually laid out in meat and bread, to be divided among
the poor of the parish. The evidence showed that fourteen
of the persons objected to hud received the benefit of the
charity in such a manner, within the last twelve months.
The manner of distribution was thus :---what was called a
2s. ticket was left at their houses by some of the Common
Councilmen of the ward, on presenting which ticket to cer-
tain bakers and butchers they received the value in
their various commodities. The other cases came under
the charity known as Sir Thomas Campbell's, which was
founded in the year 1613. Its provisions were, that a cer-
tain sum of money should annually be laid out by the
churchwardens of the parish in the purchase of coals, which
were afterwards to be retailed to the poor at a lower price.
The evidence showed that the majority of those who had
received the first charity had also participated in the latter.
There was a third charity called " Dawes' Gift," which
gave ss. to certain poor persons in the parish at Christmas ;
and the last charity was a similar bequest, made by a Mr.
Precious. It appeared that with reference to two of the
parties objected to, they had not received the charities
personally—they had been received by their wives, and
there was no evidence before him which showed that the
claimants either knew or approved of the act of the wife.
Looking at the cases as reported in the books, and the prin-
ciple which appeared to have guided Committees of the
House of Commons, and referring also to the opinion of
Mr. Sergeant Heywood on the subject, he was of opi-
nion that the gifts under such charities as he had
named, were clearly not such as ought to disqua-
lify the persons receiving them from being on the
register. Mr. Sergeant Heywood said that persons
who were to be disqualified by the receipt of alms,
were persons who were in such a state of abject dependence,
as to be incapable of exercising their right freely and inde-
pendently. In the present cases, he (Mr. M.) thought
that principle did not .apply ; for, so far from being in a
state of abject dependence, the parties, were in a state far
above indigence, and were not only rated, but contributed
to the relief of persons who were poorer than themselves. '
The term "poor" could only be considered a relative term
when applied to the claimants, for, though they were poor,
there were others much poorer ; and they could not be said
to be in such a state of poverty as to disqualify them from
exercising the right of election. The case cited by Mr.
Rowcroft did not exactly apply to the present cases, for in
it the person whose name was struck off the list, be-
cause he had been in the receipt of charity, was not
-rated for any premises to the relief of the poor, but
claimed as a freeman. The general principle was
opposed to the rule laid down in that case. Lord Tenterden
had overruled that decision, coupling the opinion of Mr.
Sergeant Heywood with the principle deduced by Mr.
Rogers in his law and practice of elections, who said,
" what amounts to such other alms' as to come within
the meaning of the Act of Parliament may often become
a question not easy to be decided. In many of the old
boroughs the usage of the place and the decision of Com-
mittees have determined the point. In those old boroughs,
however, where the usage is not clear, and in all the new
boroughs it seems as a-general principle that, with regard
to charitable foundations and endowments, those only ap-
pear to disqualify whose funds have formed a part of the
parish resources for the relief of the poor, and have been
managed by the overseer or other officer, whose duty it is
to provide and pay for paupers, and have been conducted by
his agency into the same channels and applied to the same
purposes to which they would have been applied if they
hail been the produce of the ordinary parish rates." He
(Mr. M.) considered that the charitable gifts mentioned
' could not be considered as parochial relief. The gifts were
not claimed or asked for by the parties who received them ;
they could not be considered eleemosynary, but as a bounty
on good conduct given to poor persons who had resided
many years in the parish. For these reasons lie would
therefore retain the names on the list. He would only add
that it was quite proper that the question should have been
raised. It was a question of law, and one that affected al-
most every parish in London, and had not been brought
under the consideration of the Court in any other parish,
and the raising of it had given the Court an opportunity of
expressing its opinion with regard to such cases.
The list of the parish was then gone through and finally
settled.

Beth parties expressed themselves perfectly satisfied with
the judgment of the Learned Gentleman.
Nothing of any interest took place this morning before
Mr. Craig.

INSOLVENT COURT.-(THIS DAY.)

(Before Chief Commissioner REYNOLDS.)
A FORGETFUL INSOLVENT.—EphraiM Thompson, who
was unopposed, applied on his petition to be discharged.
Among other questions put by the Learned Commissioner
to the insolvent, was one with respect to a sum of 181. which
he had received just previously to his going to prison. In
answer to the question, the insolvent said that he had pur-
chased a suit of clothes to make a respectable appearance,
and had spent the remainder of the money in supporting
himself. _ _

The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—What did you do with 71.
of the money ? The insolvent, after taking time to consider,
said, nothing particular.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Why, bow is that—you
state in your balance-sheet that when drunk you lost the
money : is that the truth, or not?
Insolvent—No, it is not.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—Why, you must have been
drunk when you made your schedule ?

The Insolvent denied that he was so.
The C}IIEF COMMISSIONER desired the insolvent to state
the truth upon his schedule, until he had done which the
case must stand over.

Some time afterwards the Insolvent explained that his
wife had told him that he had lost some money while drunk.
The CHIEF COMMISSIONER—And so you thought proper
to put down in your schedule what your wife told you. If
that is true, what you have told us about the 181. is false.
The Insolvent was ordered to be discharged.