The Sun.
London, England, 1840-09-22 00:00:00

MARYLEBONE.

Yesterday Mr. Falconer, the Barrister appointed to
revise the list of voters for the Borough of Maryiebone,
opened his Court at the Court-house, Marylebone-lane ;
and a considerable degree of interest was excited, as it
was understood that the claims and objections between
the parties amounted to upwards of one thousand in
number.

Mr. Ivimey, the Solicitor, and Mr. Allen, Secretary
to the Borough of Marylebone Reform and Registra-
tion AssoCiation, appeared to support the Liberal inte-
rest ; and Mr. Greenwood, Secretary of the Loyal and
Constitutional Association, that of the Tory party.
Mr. FALCONER said he would in the first instance
proceed with the claims or objections of any gentleman
present, in order to prevent giving them unnecessary
trouble, and he would then proceed regularly with the
St. Marylebone list.
Mr. Alfred Bainbridge Daniell, the son of Mr.
Churchwarden Daniell, was objected to upon the ground
that he was not the occupant of the house 28, CUR-
bridge-street, Edgeware-road, for which he claimed, but
that it was occupied by a lady named Neville. A
second objection was taken to him as the joint occupier
with his lather of a house No.lB, Wigmore-street.
Mr. Alfred Daniell was called by Mr. Ivimey, and
proved in the first case that the lady alluded to never
lived at 28, Cambridge-street, but that his son was sole
occupier. With respect to the second objection, that
the house No. 18, Wigenore,street, was leased to him-
self and son seven years, since.
The 'LEARNED BARRISTER said he thought the case
in both instances was very clearly proved a good occu-
pation, and he must disallow the objections.
Sir Thomas Strange was objected to upon the ground
of non-occupancy of his house, No. 31, Upper Harley-
street.

Sir Thomas Strange stated that he had occupied the
house for the last twelve months, with the exception of
an interval of a few weeks between the 12th of May
and the 6th of August ; that during that period he had
no servant in the house, or any one else to represent him,
although it was tenanted. He had, however, one room
which was occupied with lumber belonging to him.
_ _

Mr. FALCONER said the 27th section of the Act re-
quired a distinct occupation, and where there was a
cessation of occupation entirely, it amounted to a dis-
qualification. This appeared to be the case in the pre-
sent instance, as S:r Thomas Strange had no servant
in the house to represent him.
Mr. Ivimey submitted that the lumber•room, con-
taining lumber belonging to Sir Thomas, was an occu-
pation, and cited a case where Mr. Coventry decided
in favour of a person who merely occupied the lower
part of a house, by keeping a poney there.
Mr. FALCONER said, in this case, during the interval
between the 12th of May and the 6th of August,
there was a distinct tenant. Although Sir Thomas
might have had a lumber-room in the house, yet there
was no proof of his right over the premises, either as
landlord or joint occupier with the sub-tenant.
Objection allowed.
Thomas Halliday claimed in respect of part of a house
and workshops, situate No. 35, Ogle-street, and was
objected to by Mr. Greenwood. The claimant had
made his claim on the 17th of July, and it was con-
tended that he had not a sufficient qualification, inas-
much as he had not paid his rates up to Midsummer.
Mr. FALCONER wished to know how the rates in the
parish of St. Marylebone were laid.
Mr. Ivimey said that there was one rate made in
the year, and that in the month of May. It was at
the same time prospective and retrospective. He con-
tended that in Marylebone ratepayers were not liable
for the Midsummer rate. In fact, it was not at the
period of the claim in collection.
Mr. FALCONER said in all other parishes the rates
were made at the period of the commencement of the
electoral year, but in Marylebone it appeared that
it was made long before the commencement of the
electoral year ; and the question arose as to whether a
person was required to ply the Midsummer rate in
order to become qualified for voting. The point was a
very nice one, and he would defer his judgment thereon.
Judgment in this case, which also involves that of
many others, was accordingly deferred.
Richard Brinsley Portal claimed for a house, No. 7,
Westmoreland-street, and was objected to by the It.-
formers upon the ground of non-payment of assessed
taxes.

Mr. Portal was sworn, and stated that before the
20th of July, the tax-collector came to his house with
the assessor of the window-tax, and whilst there he of-
fered to pay hial his taxes. The collector replied
" You had better send them to me." But it had
slipped his memory until after the 20th.
Mr. Greenwood submitted that the offer to pay the
collector when in the claimant's house, was a good and
sufficient tender of the money, . _

Mr. FALCONER took a different view of the case.
Unless a person absolutely produced the money to the
collector, it did not amount to a legal tender.—Claim
disallowed.
The c;aim of Mr. William Ford, oflo, Holles-street,
was disallowed, upon the ground that he was not upon
the rate-book. He had claimed last year to be put
upon the Register for successive occupation, but not in

the present,. and the Revising Barrister held that a
fr4sh claim to be rated was necessary to qualification.
Mr. Edward Clayton, of 3, Upper Rathnone-place,
was objected to by the Tories on the ground of non-
occupancy.

Mr. Clayton said he had occupied the premises,
which had workshops attached to them, for thirty
years. He occasionally slept there, lived within seven
niies, and paid a servant to some of his lodgers a quar-
terly salary for taking in messages, &c. He had been
objected to two years before, and the objection was dis-
allowed. He had furniture in the house.
Mr. FALCONER said this was a ease of constructive
ounpation, and one which might affect a large class of
voters. The question was whether the landlord of a
house having but a small portion of the premises in his
pousessioa, had a right to be considered the absolute
tenant, or whether the sub-tenant i4lone was to be cor.-
sid,red in that light. It, was clear that they could not be
joint-tenants. It appeared to him that in the present case
the person objected to had an exclusive right over the
premises, and that, therefori', he had a right to be on
the Register. As the point, however, was a very im-
portant one, he would deter his judgment.
John Cooper, of N 0.44, Hereford-street, was object-
ed to by the same party, upon the ground that he had
not paid his assessed taxes.
It appeared that the claimant, being ill on the 18th
of July last, gave his landlord, John Cole, a sum of
money to pay his assessed taxes. He went, and brought
the receipt back en the same day.
The Collector declared that no rates had been paid
for the house No. 44. He did not know the nude of
Cooper at all, Mr. Cole paying all the rates himself ;
moreover, the rates for the house, 44, amounted to
21. 13s. 9d.

On the receipt being produced, it was found that it
was in the name of Cole, and for the house 45, Cooper
having sworn to paying the money to, and receiving the
receipt from, Cole.
Mr. FALCONER said it was very palpable that the re-
ceipt was given in mistake, be would not sa) fraudu-
lently, but that ought not to interfere with the right of
Cooper to vote.

Benjamin Wall, jun., was objected to by the Tories
as joint occupant of the house No. 28, Norton-street,
upon the ground of not having an interest in the
premises.

Mr. Wall stated that he had been joint occupier
with his father of the house for the last five years,
and they carried on business as grocers, &c. The
lease was granted fourteen years ago, and consequently
his name was not in it, but he took his share of the
profits and loss of the business.
Mr. Greenwood said the license written over the door
was only in the name of the father.

Mr. PALCONEIL said to substantiate a joint occupancy
an interest in the premises must be shown by the party
elaiming.
Mr. Wall—l have an interest so far, that I con-
tribute part to the repairs of the house ; it has recently
been repaired, and I paid half the expenses.
The Learned Barrister said that was not a sufficient
proof of interest, and be must allow the objection.
Mr. Tamer, of 3.5, High-street, was objected to on
the part of the Liberals, as the joint occupant with Mr.
Tilbury, of the same premises, upon precisely similar
grounds, and the name was accordingly expunged.
At five o'clock the Court rose, and was adjourned till
this day.

The Duke of Cambridge is about to visit Ire-
land for the first time next month, and will remain for a
week in Dublin with his son Prince George.—Limerich
Chronicle.
MR. WINTERBOTTOM, LATE OF STOCKPORT.
—The second meeting of creditors under the fiat of bank-
ruptcy against Mr. J. K. Winterbottom, "of Heaton
Norris, banker, money scrivener, dealer and chapman," as
the fiat describes him, but better known as an attorney in
Stockport,—whose fliglt, and the charges of forgery
against him are too well.known to need further allusion
here,—took place at the rooms of the Commissioners
of Bankrupts, St James's-square, last week. Of course the
bankrupt was not in attendance to " finish his examination,'
and the business was chiefly confined to the proof of debts.
A number of creditors were sworn, and subscribed their
affidavits of debts, but there were not more than thirty whose
respective debts exceeded 30/. Lord Alvanley, who is at
present in Egypt, is a creditor to a considerable amount.
The amount of debts of 201. each and upwards, proved
during this meeting amounted to about 11,2501. The
total amount of debt previously proved would be some-
thing under 18,0001; so that the total proved is under
30,000/. The principal debt proved at this meeting,
was that of the Manchester and Liverpool District
Bank, which was stated at 7,778/ (that being the amount
not motscted by securities in the possession of the bank).
The only other debts exceeding 1,000/ were those of
Mr. John Upton (of Cheadle), 1,2901., and " Jane
Martin, 1,3301." The bankrupt not having surrendered
at three o'clock, a memorandum to that effect was made;
and, by not surrendering, the bankrupt has now httconle
liable to indictment for felony, and to outlawry.—Liver-
pool Chronicle.