The Sun.
London, England, 1840-09-25 00:00:00

election for Marylebone he was at the Liberal Central
Committee-room, when Hobart came and, asked for a
cab to be taken up to the poll to vote. IN, hen he got
to the poll, however, he voted for the Tory party, and
said he was obliged to do so as his master wished it.
Mr. Knight said, if' such a person had voted at the
last election, he had personified his father, which he had
no right to do.
Mr. Ivisney said he could call another witness to
prove that it was John, and not Robert Hobart, who
occupied, and that even John was not qualified.
Mr. John Hayes was then sworn. He said he had
called at the house, No. 12, Short-street, and saw a
person answering the description given by Mr. Knight.
He said his name was John Hobart, and that he was in
the Excise, and could not vote. He had a son named
Robert, but he lived with General Dyson, and slept
over his stables, and that he had nothing whatever to
do with the house.

Mr. Ivimay submitted that it was quite evident by
this testimony that a fraudulent vote had been recorded
in favour of the Conservatives at the late election, and
it ought to be prevented from recurring.
Mr. Greenwood agreed that the witness, not having
seen the man Robert Hobart vote himself, the state-
ment about the cab and Committee-room was no proof
that he had voted.

Mr. Ivimey said that as there appeared a great deal
of difficulty about the identity of the party, he had no
objection to Robert Hobart remaining on the register,
provided the Learned Barrister would add the words
the elder " to his name.

Mr. Allen said on the last year's registration he made
precisely the same request, owing to the difficulty of
identity of the parties, which was granted by the Bar-
rister.

The name, with this addition, was retained.

James Ulett was objected to by the Conservatives
vviii respect to his occupation of a house, No. 85,
Crawford-street, upon the alleged ground that he was
not the occupier.
The Queen's tax-collector positively asserted that the
occupier of the house was a female, Mr. Utett's daugh-
ter, and that she told him to put her name on his rate-
book.

Mr. Unitt, the poor-rate collector, contradicted this
statement, and said that the day before he saw Mr.
Ulett in the shop of the house, 83, Crawford-street.
He told him he was objected to, and he then said he had
occupied the house upwards of 20 years, and that all
the daughter had to do with it was that he had let the
shop to her.

Mr. Ulett subsequently attended the Court in person,
and the case being left entirely in the hands of the
Learned Barrister, Mr. Ulett, in answer to questions
put by him, stated that he had occupied the house for
twenty-five years, and he then corroborated the state-
ment previously made by Mr. Unitt, completely dis-
proving that of the assessed tax collector.—Objection
disallowed.

There were no other cases of any general interest as
regarded the parish of Marylebone.

PARISH OF PADDINGTON.

The cases of Messrs. Godwin, Smith, and Tart, ob-
jected to by the Conservatives, who were the tenants of
farmed houses in Cuthbert-street, Mall-park, Padding-
ton, and which had been deferred from the previous day,
in order to prove their cor.sent to be themselves sepa-
rately rated in respect of their houses in composition,
was entered into.

Mr. Charles Green, the landlord of the houses in
question, stated that he compounded with the parish of
Paddington for the above houses. When the tenants
took possession, he told them he would qualify them,
to which they assented, and he applied to the collector
to have them rated separately.
In answer to Mr. FALCONER, the witness stated that
he was not aware that a separate rating would increase
their rates, but be was prepared to have paid all de-
mands upon him i❑ respect thereof. He had not paid
any increased rating.
By Mr. Ivimey—All my tenants desired to be quali-
fied, and when I went to the collector to get them
rated, I was prepared to take all the consequences upon
myself without raising their rent.
Mr. Ivimey said, that as it was for the benefit of the
parish that these houses were in composition the ques-
tion of whether the Vestry chose or not to admit the
tenants into a separate rating, the landlord still holding
himself responsible for the rates, ought not to be per-
mitted to damnify their right to be placed upon the Re-
gister since they could not, even if they wished it,
have been separately rated against the consent of the
Vestry.

The LEARNED BARRISTER said as this was a question
of great importance, involving the right to vote of a very
large class of persons, he would defer his decision in the
case until to-morrow.

The correction of the list, as far as possible, was than
proceeded with, and the Court did not rise till 6 o'clock,
when it was adjourned to 10 o'clock this day, at the
St. Pancras Vestry Rooms in Gorden-square, where the
lists of that parish will be proceeded with, and the
adjourned eases of St. Marylebone and Paddington re-
sumed .