The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-03 00:00:00

THE RECHSTItATIONS.

MIDDLESEX.
The Barristers sat yesterday at the King's Head
Enfield.

(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
The Enfield, South Mims, Hadley and Fricrn Bar-
net lists were revised by this gentleman.
Sir William Richardson, who'elaimed for the manor
of Chipping Barnet and East Barnet, was objected to
by the Liberals.
Mr. Coppock sail the manor was in Hertfordshire,
and therefore Sir William had no qualification in Mid.
dlesex. -

Mr. A3cy observed that this objection bad taken
him by surprise. He believed the fact was that the
manor was partly in Hertfordshire and partly in Mid-

&sex.

Mr. Coppock belined there was also a valid objee-
or!. to Sir William on the ground of change of res'..

After some further observations the case was post-
poned, in order that inquiries might be made relative
to the manor, and to afford Sir William Richardson an
opportunity of substantiating his vote.

NEW RIVER CLAIMANTS.
William Astell, claiming for a New River share
was objected to by the Liberals.
Mr. Adey said that after the decisions the Learned
Barrister had so repeatedly given on this qaestion, it
would be a waste of time for him to raise any discussion
upon it, and it was the more unnecessary, as Mr. Astelt
was in the Hornsey list, and unobjected to.
The name was expunged.
John Jackson, another New River claimant, was also
objected to by the Reformers.
Mr. Coppock stated that there had been some diffi-
culty in serving Mr. Jackson with the notice of objec-
tion. On the list he was described as of St. Leonard's ;
but not being known there, the notice had been adver.
tised in the newspapers.

Mr. Adey observed that Mr. Jackson's town resi-
dence was well known.
Mr. Coppock—lf Mr. Jackson has a town house, and
yet describes himself as of St. Leonard's, that pretty
clearly :lows he intended to hide himself from obs:rva-
tion.—(Laughter.)
M. Adey—lf you had looked into Ile London Di-
rectory, or inquired of the New River clerk, you would
have ascertained his residence .
Mr. COVENTRY did not think that an advertisement
could 1:e considered sufficieLt notice. Toe name was
therefore retained.
(Before Mr. SHADWELL)

. ,
The lists for the parishes of Edmonton and Totten-
ham were reviled by Mr. Shadvrell.
The name of David Budgen, on the Edmonton list
having been called,
Mr. Holmes, on behalf of the Liberals, proved service
of notice of objection to the claim. The notice was
addressed to David Bugden (the real name of the party)
and served at his place of abode described in the lisr.
Mr. Turner submitted that the notice of objection
was not valid, not having been addressed in the same
name as that which appeared in the list. In the list
the name was Badgers, but the notice had been served
as Bugden.
111 r. Holmes contended that the notice of objection
was good, as it bad been served as the party really in-
tended to be named in the list, and called the overseer
who proved that the claimant's name was Bugden. It
was therefore clear that the transposition of the letters
was merely a typographical error.
Mr. Turner cited the case of Joseph Hume (not the
Hon. Member for Kilkenny), in which the name of
the party was correctly desen'oed in the list, but the
notice of objection served al John Hume, and the ob-
jection disallowed.
Mr. Holmes observed that that was just the con-
verse of the present case. The name on the list was
correct as Joseph Hum; but the notice was served as
John Hume.
Mr. SHADWELL held the objection to be invalid, the
identity of the party having been clearly proved.
Mr. Phillip Lybb Powys, described as of Baliol Co
lege, Oxford, was objected to by the Reformers.
Mr. Burnard stated, en making inquiry at the Col-
lege, he ascertained Mr. Powys had left the College a
considerable time previously, and gone to reside near
Reading. He therefore left the notice with the porter.
Mr. Turner submitted that the service of the notice
of objection on the porter could not be deemed good
service. Mr. Burnard ought to have gone to the rooms
which Mr. Powys occupied, when in the College.
Mr. Burnard observed that he would not have been
allowed to have done so.
Mr. Turner mentioned that in the case of a fellow of
Dulwich College, Mr. Coventry held that service on
the porter of the College was not good service.
Mr. Holmes observed that the cases were not ana-
logous. In the Dulwich College case, the party was a
fellow of the College, and had a separate house, with a
separate entrance. Now, Mr. Powys did not even re-
side at Ballot College.
Mr. SHADWELL (after consulting Mr. Coventry
gu
op
oo
do, theas
hell u
el vovni es hi d Coll)
oCollege case
porter
rt e heldrof tt
hh
ee
coii service t o
Collage
be
was
the servant of the gentlemen there. He had the power
and if he thought fit, might exercise it, of closing th
gates, and preventing a person serving process. The
occupation of rooms by under-graduates was very
different from that of the fellows of Dulwich College,
who bad separate residences.
Charles Shadboit was objected to, as having changed
his place of abode. He was described in the list
"Tottenham." Mr. Shadholt's son attended, and said
his father had a good freehold, but that, in April last,
he had changed from one house in-Tottenham to an-
other house in the same parish.
Mr. SIIADIVELL—Ras he sent in a fresh claim?
Mr. Shadbolt—Certainly not. I do not consider
that, under the Act, he was bound to do so.
Mr. SHAMS ELL—I consider he has changed his
place of abode, and, not having sent in a fresh claim,
his name must be ex,eteged. A man might describe
himself as residing in London, and change his residence
continually. That would never do.—Expunged.
The result of the day's proceedings was as follows :--

I Overseers. Reformers.
TA RUMS. made ! sust. made sust.
South Mims, one case
reserved. 9 9 5 4
Enfield l2 12 17 5
Friern's Barnet ... 0 0 00
Hadley 4 4 2 2
Edmonton
Tottenham ...............17 16 4 4
-- --
1 T0ta1...... : 62 61 41 , 23

Tories.
made i sust.

2 0
6 4
0 0
1 1
6 2