The Sun.
London, England, 1847-11-12 00:00:00

AMERICAN NEWS.
LIVERPOOL, THURSDAY,

By the ship Sea, arrived at Liverpool, we have
received New York papers of the 19th ult., being
three days later than those brought by the last
steamer. There were, however, no later accounts from
Mexico during the brief interval, and nothing of in-
terest had occurred in commercial matters of any
moment. The more reflecting portion of the Ame-
rican community continue to entertain sanguine ex-
pectations of an early peace with Mexico, and the
price of stocks is maintained firm, from a confident
hope that a considerable advance in prices will follow
as a necessary consequence from that event.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Nov. IL
This morning their Lordships heard cases of ap•
peal from the decisions of Revising Barristers, under
the Act for the registration of voters.
Mr. GRAY applied, on behalf of the appellants,
that the cases 7,8, and 9 might he heard by the
Court, notwithstanding that the necessary books and
papers had not been delivered four days previous to
hearing, as required by the rules of the Court.
The CouftT decided that the application could not
be entertained.

BURTON V. ATFIELD.

This was an appeal from the decision of Sir John
E. Wilmot, Revising Barrister for the southern divi-
sion of Northamptonshire, who had retained the name
of David Atfield on the register for the parish of Cole
Ashby.
Mr. IlumPuniEs, who supported the appeal, stated
that Mr. Atfield occupied a farm of the value of 501.,
belonging to Mr. Loveday, in the above parish, up to
Lady-day, 1847, when he left it; and that from
Michaelmas, 1846, he also occupied another farm be-
longing to Dr. Walker, which was in the same parish,
and of the same value, and which he continued to hold
up to the present time, but he had not made a new
application to be inserted on the register. The ques-
tion therefore was, whether the claim already upon
the register entitled him to vote ? The Revising
Barrister decided that it did, and in support of his de-
cision cited the case of Bartlett v. Gibbs, in 5
Manning and Grainger, p. 81. Mr. Humphries
now said the point for the consideration of their
Lordships was, whether a person who sent in a claim
as an occupier of land which he then held, but after-
wards ceased to hold, was entitled to be on the list,
although he had sent in no new claim, simply be-
cause he happened to hold a similar qualification in
the same parish.
Mr. HavEs submitted, on the other hand, that the
construction put upon the Act by the Revising
Barrister was correct.
The CHIEF JUSTICE said, he did not entertain any
doubt either upon the construction of the Act or the
reason of the case. The fourth section of the
statute expressly provided that when a person who
was on a former register did not retain the same qua-
lification (by which he understood not simply the
same legal description of qualification, but the same
property in respect of which the qualification was
given), that he should send in a new claim. He was,
therefore, of opinion that the decision of the Revis-
ing Barrister was erroneous, and that he ought to
have sent in a new .claim.

The other judges concurred in the above opinion.
The decision was accordingly reversed.
SHELDON V. FLETCHER.
Mr. Sergeant Byles appeared for the appellant in
his case, and Mr. Keating for the respondent.
It appeared that the appellant was struck off the
list of voters for the borough of Cheltenham by the
Barrister, upon an objection made by the respondent,
and the present appeal was grounded on the infor-
mality of that objection. It was simply signed
"Joseph Fletcher, 5,. Sherborne-street, and did
not state the parish and township in which
the street was situated, and it was shown
before the Barrister that there were other
streets of the same name in other parishes, within
seven miles of Cheltenham ; but it was also shown
that Cheltenham consisted only of one parish, and
that there was no other Sherborne-street in it. The
17th section of 6th Vic., c. 18, enacts that a notice
of objection must state the name and place of abode
of the party objecting, and also the parish of which
he is a voter, and the question was, whether the
Act had been satisfied by the description given
above. On the part of the appellant, the
case of " Woollett v. Davies," 4, Corn. Bench Re-
ports, p. 115, was referred to, in which it was decided
by the Court that an address, described simply as
"the Oaks" was not sufficient, without the parish or
township being added.
Mr. KEATING, for the respondent, submitted that
the question as to the sufficiency of the description
was entirely one of fact, and that it would depend
upon various circumstances which property came
under the knowledge of the Revising Barister.
The CHIEF JUSTICE was of opinion that the
description mght fairly be read as " No. 5, Sher-
borne-street, Cheltenham," although the word Chel-
tenham was not added to it, and the objector would
fail in having any claim to be heard before the Re-
vising Barrister, if it meant Sherborne•street in any
other town. It appeared to him, therefore, that there
was enough on the face of the notice with regard to
the description to make it answer all the practical
ChT ielf,e J
duesetisi
purposes of the statute.
The other judges concured in the opinion of the
ion of the Revising Barister was there-
fore confirmed, and the appeal reversed.