The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-27 00:00:00

THE SUN , LUND

- ____ ..........._,....._.
remembered, the principles which seated her family on in his pocket. When at the station-house the prisoner
the throne. denied having any thing to do with the robbery, and Elms.-
threatened to bring an action against Stavens for false im
The spouting which took place at this meeting is prisoninent.
below contempt. It consisted almost entirely of low Mr. Pnrwrs addressed the Jury at eonsiderable,
and intemperate abuse of the Melbourne Administra- on behalf of Elms, commenting in strong terms on he
ferenee in the testimony of the Police constables before tike
tion, mixed up with flattering hopes and pleasing pro-•Maglstrates, and that given by them to-day.
phesies—too pleasing alas ! ever to be realized—that the A great number of persons of respectability, residing- in
Tories are on the very threshold of power and place I .lengtll
the neighbourhood of Whiteehapel, gave Elms a most es-
The present Administration cannot choose but fall cellent character.
immediately, for how can it stand, argues the sapient both and the Jury found
Mr. Justice VAUGHAN summed up,
prisoners Guilty, but strongly recommended Elms
to
QUINTIN, when it " exists under difficulties which I mercy on account of his good character.
had never occurred to any that had preceded it ?"
What a proof of its weakness ! The KING, conti-
nued he, is against it ; the House of Lords is
against it ; and, if we believe a brother orator
of his, the people are against it. Now, the real
wonder is, not that such an Administration should
fall, but that it ever should have stood a single
moment. We wish to have it explained how it
has come about, that with KING, Lords, and Com-
mons opposed to him, Lord MELBOURNE has been
able to stand his ground one instant. There must be
some mystery in this.
The rest of Mr. DlcK's harangue was nothing but
a long extract from a very simple speech of Mr.
BUCKINGHAM'S, and therefore well adapted to the
capacity of the audience to whom it was delivered.
Mr. QuINTIN DICK was followed by two or three
other bloaters and brayers, among whom Sir JOHN
TYRRELL deserves the first place. Sir JOHN, for
true calf-like qualities, is not to be matched even it
Essex.

NEW COURT.
Thomas Hopkins was indicted for stealinj a box con-
taining a watch and a quantity of wearing apparel, value
14/., the property of Anne Mullins.
The prosecutrix, who is a servant, was remosvi
the ng fron?
West-street to Brewer-street, and gave her box tkl
soner to carry to the latter place. She did not accomPaeY
him the entire way, as she had several places to call 4t*!,he
A witness deposed that he saw the prisoner deliver
box at Bearer-street ; the prosecutrix was present at the
time, but was very tipsy. Neither the box nor its con-
tents have been discovered.
After a very luminous charge from the Recorder, the
jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
James Saunde
25. rs
from , 19, was
the indicted for stealing a
Dodds. bandke--
chief,. value ,

Guilty.
Jane Thompson, aias Nutt, 43, was indicted for stealing
a sheet, pair of trowsers, and pillow, value 75., the property
of Thomas Godwin.
The prisoner lodged in the prosecutor's house at
Wal-
worth, and it was ascertained that she had pledged the
articles in question at a pawnbroker's shop in the neigh-
bourhood.—Guilty.
The prisoner was again indicted for stealing a sheet,
and pair of trowsers, the property of William Latham.
The prosecutor keeps a public house in Holborn, and on
the 23d September the prisoner came in and called for some
ale. She remained for some time in the house, and
on
leaving it was discovered that she had carried off the
articles in question, which were traced to a pawnbroker's
shop in Gray's-inn-lane, where she haci pledged them.
Guilty.
The Learned RECORDER sentenced her to twelve months'
imprisonment in the House of Correction fo r the county of
Surrey.
John Smith, aged 21, and James Williams, aged 18, were
indicted for stealing a pair of shoes, value 55., tt,e property
of Edward Rowel.
Policeman, M 25, was on duty in High-street, Borough,
on the evening of the 10th of October, and saw the two
prisoners standing together. The prisoner Willis ins then
approached the shop of the prosecutor, jumped up, and car-
ried off a pair of shoes which were hanging at the. door.
Both the prisoners then ran down Fishmongers'-alley, and,
when taken into custody, a shoe was found apon the p erson
of each. They were identified as the property of the pro-
secutor.—Guilty.
The prisoners were again charged with having been con',
victed, at the last July sessions for the county of Surrey, 01

CITY REGISTRATION OF VOTERS
(THIS DAY.)

At the sitting of the Court this morning Mr. CRAIG pro

flounced the following judgment
PARISH OF ST. ANN, BLACKFRIARS—ROBERT ALLEN'S CASE.
In this case the name of Robert Allen was objected to by
Mr. RODGERS. The only parts of his qualification upon which
questions arise are the rating and the payment of the rates.
It appears that the house occupied by Robert Allen, and in
respect of which his name has been inserted in the list of
voters, is one of a considerable number belonging to the Rev.
Henry Handley Norris. Four rates have been made in this
parish during the year to which our inquiries relate; the first
of these was made in October, 1835. For some years pre-
viously to that time Mr. Norris was alone rated for the houses
of which that occupied by Robert Allen is one, and that in
1828, Mr. Norris being then rated for some of his houses,
but not for all, a letter was addressed by his agent, Mr. Hood,
to the " church-wardens, overseers, and inhabitants of the
parish of St. Ann, Blackfriars, in vestry assembled, proposing,
on the part of Mr. Norris, that a reduction should be made in
the quarterly rate, upon the terms of his " engaging to pay
future assessments on the whole of the said houses, whether
occupied or empty, as a customary mode adopted in other
parishes ;" and " that the property be rated at Is. in the
pound." Mr. Pritchard, the vestry-clerk of the parish, re-
ceived this letter. It appears that it was not laid before the
vestry, but that, in consequence of Mr. Pritchard's suggestion,
the parish officers rated Mr. Norris's houses at Is. in the pound,
and they have ever since continued to rate. them in the same
manner. No written acceptance of the proposal contained in
Mr. Hood's letter appears to have taken place ; but I under-
stand that that proposal has been acted upon by the successive
parochial authorities ; and it may, for the present purposes at
least, be considered as an agreement between Mr. Norris
and the parish. The poor-rates in this parish, which in the
year 1828 exceeded Is. in the pound, have for some time
past been below that amount. I find that in the rate made
in July, 1835, which immediately preceded the rate of
October, 1835, the assessment for this house stood thus :
Jackson's-court, No. 12, Rev. H. H. Norris ; premises,
dwelling-house ; annual value, 121. ; assessments, 121. In the
rate of October, 1835, however, the particulars of this pro-
perty are as follows :—Jackson's. court, date of collection,
30th November; amount collected, 9/. ; name of occupier,
Robert Allen; name of landlord, Rev. Henry Handley Nor-
ris ; premises, dwelling-house ; annual value, 121. ; assess-
ment, 91. The title of the rate does not contain any de-
scription of the persons upon whom it is made, such
as occupiers, &c. All the rates since the October
rate have been in the same form. Mr. Pritchard thinks he
must have inserted the name of Robert Allen in the rate-
book, in consequence of desire on Allen's part communicated
to him (Mr. Pritchard), or his clerk through the parish
beadle ; that officer, however, does not confirm Mr. Pritchard's
impression ; and there is no sufficient evidence of any claim to
be rated having been made by or on behalf of Robert Allen.
The rates have all been paid to the parish by Mr. Norris
through his agent. and never by Robert Allen personally ;
such of them as became payable previously to the 6th of April
were discharged before the 20th of July.
It is to be observed that there is in this parish no local act
authorising the parish to rate the landlord.
Under these circumstances, the questions are, whether Ro-
bert Allen has been rated in respect of this house to all rates
made for the relief of the poor during the necessary year, and
whether he has in due time paid all the rates, which became
payable from him before the 6th day of April last.
The question, who is rated, in other words, who is the per-
son upon whom the assessment has in the present instance been
legally imposed or charged, is one which must be determined
by the rate-book itself, considered with reference to the
law, under the authority of which the rate-book has been
made. That law is the statute of the 43d of Elizabeth,
uncontrolled by any local or general act. I turn to that
statute, and I find that it directs the necessary amount to
be raised by taxing the occupier. It refers, then, to that
part of the present rate-book which is the subject of our
present inquiry ; and I find, first, the name of the occupier,
then the name of the landlord, then the description of
the property, the estimated annual • rental, and the amount
charged. Upon looking at this rate-book therefore, made as
it is, in professed compliance with the law which directs the
occupier to be rated, it appears to me impossible to say that
the occupier is not rated. Whether the additional mention of
the name of the landlord in the rate-book constitutes a rating
of him also, it does not appear necessary for me to attempt to
decide. ( Mr. Craig then cited several cases in support of his
judgment.) For the reasons which I have given, lam of opi-
nion that Robert Allen is duly rated to the relief of the poor
in respect of the premises in question within the meaning of
the Reform Act.
Upon the only other question, namely, whether the fact of
the payment having been made by the landlord destroys
the vote, it will be necessary to say very few words, be-
cause the question has already been frequently before me.
It is to be observed, that in the present instance the full
amount of the assessment has been paid by the land-
lord. I am clearly of opinion, and I believe I have in
this respect the concurrence of almost all of the revising
barristers, that the payment by the landlord must be
deemed in law, the payment by the tenant ; this view of
the case is supported by the decisions which were made upon
the question of settlement of paupers by rating and payment,
and also by obvious reasons, one of which is that a tenant who
had agreed with his landlord to give him an additional rent in
consideration of the landlord paying the rates, would otherwise
have to pay twice over, once to the overseers, and once in the
shape of additional rent to the landlord.
The case of Rex v. Cozens, Douglas 426, may be men-
tioned as sufficient to prove that after payment by the landlord
the parish would have no further demand upon the occupier.
I shall therefore retain the name of Robert Allen upon the list.
It is said that this decision gives 50 votes in favour of the
Reformers.

felony.
The record of the former conviction was put in, and the
identity of the prisoners proved.—Guilty.
The Learned RECORDER observed that the Court was
empowered to send the prisoners out of the country for life,
they having been previously convicted of felony. lie
would not, however, go to the full extent of the punishment
authorized by the law, and the sentence of the Court was,
that they be severally transported for seven years.
Susan Eustace, aged 48, was indicted for .stealing a
smock-frock, value 35., the property of David Hopkins .---
Guilty.
There was another indictment against the prisoner,
which was not proceeded upon, and the Jury, having necom-
mended her to mercy, she was sentenced to one mu•nth'S
imprisonment.
IVilliant Turley, 16, was indicted for stealing a parasol
and waistcoat, value 55., the property of Thomas Turley,
his father.
It appeared from the evidence of the father, who gave,
his evidence with great reluctance, that the prisoner had
stolen the articles in question from his house and pawned
them. He had had him sent to the House of Correction
for a fortnight for misconduct on a previous occasion.--
uilty.
The prisoner was sentenced to three months imprison'
ment, and the Recorder intimated that if he was again
brought before him, he should send him out of the country
for life.
Mary Browne, 37, was indicted for stealing
wo yards
of carpeting, value 65., from the shop of William ISolkton.'
Guilty.
Tho prisoner, who had been previously convicted of sL'enl-
ing from the same shop, was sentenced to six months' int'
prisonment.
Jeremiah Carter, 65, was indicted for stealing a pair of
boots, value 1.05., the property of Richard Frazer, of South
Herefordshire.—Guilty.
The prisoner had been convicted of felony at the last
October Quarter Sessions for Hereford, in the year 1834 t
and was now sentenced to nine months' imprisonment.