The Sun.
London, England, 1836-10-18 00:00:00

names.

GLASS SELLERS.
The name of Mr. Robert Hoskins Kendal, Ludgate-
wasChills
objected to by Mr. Goodeve, on behalf of the ons
tives, on the ground of non-residence. The person employed
to serve the notice, stated that on making inquiry at Ludgate-
hill, he could find out no such person. He went to the shop.
of Mr. Jones, the glass-seller, on Ludgate-hill, and several
other places, but could not discover him.
The Clerk of the Glass Sellers' Company stated, that the,
Company always addressed Mr. Kendall on Ludgate-hill, O
no letter had been returned to them.
Mr. Goodeve stated that he had no doubt that the vote of Mr.
Kendall was good, but he was anxious on behalf of the Con-
servatives that the lists should be correct ; for that
alone, the greater part of the objections they had taken to votes
were made. object

Mr. MYLNE allowed the vote.
The name of John Turner, Circus, Finsbury, Was
stru&
out, it appearing that he had not resihd there for the last tell

years.

GLAZIERS' COMPANY.
No objections were made to any of the names in this list.
GOLD AND SILVER WIRE-DRAWERS' COMPANY.
The name of William Turner was objected to on behalf u'
the Conservatives, but the notice of objection describing hir
as belonging to the Gold and Silver Wire.workors' compa*
and there being no such Company in existence,
Mr. MYLNE held that the notice was bad, and disallows
a
the objection.
No objections were made to the lists of the Goldsmiths'. tbe,
Grocers', the Haberdashers', the Joiners', and Leather•
Companies.

LORIMERS. • s
Four objections were made on behalf of the Conservelve
to the names in this list, three of which were disallowed.
( Before Mr. CRAIG.)
At the sitting of the Court this morning, the Learned Rae
visin. Barrister gave his judgment in the case of a claim In e
on behalf of William Clark to be put on the Register for _
house occupied by him at No. 33, Wood-street. It had bee;
proved yesterday, by Mr. Barnard, that he served Mr. Clay.
with bread at the house in question for the last two yearta
He served a woman at the door, who generally paid him, nik
he did not know whether she was the servant of Mr. Clero
or of Mr. Burby, who always resided there. They were old
company, but Mr. Clark was frequently there, nee
had his family with him. He sometimes stopped three
or four weeks. Within the last six. months, he had se
Mr. Clark in the house from thirty to forty times'
The only question here was as to Mr. Clark's residence'
Now it had been proved that Mr. Clark was a ribbon-menu'
facturer in Coventry, and that his time was spent between to
e
two places, Coventry and Wood-street. From the eiclea
it was clear that there must be a bed-room kept for M. Oland
at Wood.street, that servants were kept there for him,, 110.
that he came there, frequently bringing up his wife an of
mily. Under these circumstances, according to the ease•de
Rex v. Serjeant, 5 Term Reports, he was bound to ilJel 0
that the name should stand on the list. In that eernd,
Mr. Serjeant took a house in the borough of Sea
upon a lease for one year, his landlord refusing to en
ut
plete a lease for four years, as agreed upon, on sen°,ll,4
of his advanced age. Mr. Serjeant and his servants slept
there only one night before he was elected Bailiff .be
the borough. That election was called in question on
ground that Mr. Serjeant was not an inhabitant of the.
rough. The King's Bench, however ruled that the intent' e
of the defendant was bona fide, and that he had not inc.defor
colourable tenantcy of his house. The offer to take 't od
four years, and the keeping of it made him an inhabitant, no
they found the election valid. The case before biin ,that
stronger than that one, and the name must be retained. St
decision was in strict accordance with two he had made 're
year in the cases of Kemble and Hoare, which claims lee
supported by Mr. Rowcroft. tea
The name of John Punchard, 3, Addle-street, was °West.
to. He did not appear, but Mr. Symes, the overseer of be
Albans, Wood-street, said he knew from the rate books that
was rated, and had paid all the rates for the last year.
In answer to Mr. Rowcroft, he said the only knonletife
i,
he had of the matter was from the books which were in °-
deuce for the inspection of the Revising Barristers.
Mr. Rowcroft claimed to be allowed to inspect all Gilt
mentary evidence which was put in. He would have a °ut
to it in a Court of Common Law, for there nothing %ee' fog
in for the inspection of the Judge, and not of the ora.,posin" •
Counsel. In that Court everything ought to be mote °Pe"
be demanded it as a right. re
Mr. CRAIG said Mr. Rowcroft had not put forth anY, -I,°ol
cogent argument for the production of the bodoks than ne ;jlt
done yesterday. He must decide now as 11E4 did then, age-
Mr. Rowcroft.
Evidence of the rating having been given, and of the retie
deuce of the party in the city, the name was retained elt
List.