The Sun.
London, England, 1840-10-13 00:00:00

REGISTRATION -(THIS DAY.)

MIDDLESEX.
The Barristers held their Courts this day at the
London Coffee-house, Ludgate-hill.
The lists revised by Mr. Coventry were for the
parishes of St Matthew, Bethnal-green, and St. Bo-
tolph Without, Aidgate.

ROCHESTER CHARITY.
Mr. COVENTRY, in coming into Court this morning,
gave judgment in the case of the Rochester Charity,
which was argued on the first slay of the revision at
White Conduit-house. The Learned Gentleman sa:d,
it appears that, by a will of considerable antiquity,
certain lands in the parish of St. Botolph Without,
Aldersgate, were devised to trustees, for certain chari-

table purposes, connected with the town of Rochester,
the ad:ninistration of which, in process of time, fell into
the Corporation, and it was found in their hands at the
time of the passing of the Municipal Corporation Act,
5 and 6 Will. IV., c. 76. At this time great complaints
wt re made that Corporations had usurped many cha-
rities, and applied the funds to their own corporate
purposes. h was therefore thought expedient, as de-
clared in section 71, " that the administration of cha-
rity trusts should be kept distinct from the borough
fund." It appears to have been the intention, by the
marginal note, to vest the power of appointing a se-
parate set of charity trustees in the Town Council ;
but in the body of this section that power is given to
the Lord Chancellor, and not a word is said about the
Council. As far as I can understand that section, it
would appear that on the 9th of September, 1835, the
legal estate of all charitable property belonging to cor-
porations was to become vested in the existing members
of such Corporations till the Ist of August, 1836, when
it was "immediately thereupon utterly to cease and
determine ;" but what was to become of it after-
wards does not appear. It was no longer to continue
in these temporary trustees, and the Act being silent
as to its ultimate destination, I hold that it reverted to

the source from whence it came—either to the Corpo-
ration. whose members arc thus temporarily arrested,
or to the heir-at-law of the surviving trustee. After
the Ist of August, 1836, " unless Parliament should
before otherwise direct" (which it did not) " the Lord
Chancellor is to make such orders for the adminis-
tration of the trust regarding the charity, as he
shall sec fit." He is thus empowered to see the estate
strictly applied to the object intended ; whether this
extends to enable bins to order the Corporation to con-
vey the legal estate to such persons as he shall appoint
may at least be doubted, and is not, in fact, of much
consequence, as trusts can be, and indeed always are,
administered in a Court of Equity regardless of the le-
gal estate. It is not, therefore, necessary to discuss
the Non,' ich case reported in 1 Keen 710, 5 Bing.
N. E. 745, and 3 Jurist 618, nor Philpot or Oxford
Charities, 8 Sim. 381, and 3 My. and Co. 239. It is

sufficient to say that by a report in this the Rochester
Charity, the Master has approved of fifteen trustees,
and that that report has been confirmed. By its ordi-
nary jurisdiction the Court of Chancery has power to

appoint receivers or managers, and to authorise such
receivers to let the premises and distrain for the rent ;
by the 71st section of the Municipal Reform Act it
has the power to confer on these managers the admi.
nistration of the rents when received—not that

the corporation is reduced to a mere cypher, for having
still the legal estate, its recommendations and visitorial
powers would be respected. Managers thus appointed
advance one step on ordinary receivers, who have no-
thing to do with the application of the money when re-
ceived, but they fail short of tt ustees in the strict sense
of that term, as they have not the legal estate, and do
not receive the rents in virtue of any interest in the
land. It is to be lamented that many well informed
common lawyers should confound two characters so
essentially different as a bailiff and a trustee ; one is a
mere servant, the other,the legal owner of the land. This
arises from the want of a clear• perception between law
arid equity, a distinction recognized in no other country,
and which the equity lawyer is obliged constantly to keep
in view, but with which the common lawyer has little
concern. The claimants in this case have no estate
or interest in the land ; they are merely empowered
to receive and administer the rents, because the parties
having the legal estate are from other causes considered
unfit to do so. They are not trustees within the 24d
section, cestuique trust. In, short, they have neither a
legal or equitable estate, and having no benefit, they
cannot be considered promoted to an office or benefit
within the 10th section. I must therefore disallow
their claims.—Names expunged accordingly.
Thomas Link was objected to, at Islington, by the
Reformers on the ground of change of residence. The
case stood over until the Barrister returned to London,
in order that further information might be obtained.
Mr. Coppock having stated that Link had called upon
him, and informed him that he had changed his resi-
dence, and the Tories having asserted that Link had
not removed, and, therefore could not have made any
such statement.
Link having been called, the following examination
took place :
Mr. Coppock—Did you ever see me before, Mr.
Link ? Link—l dare say I have.
Did you ever see me before, Mr. Link ?—I dare say
I have.
Did you ever come to my house ?—Yes, I did.
And did you not tell me that you never sent in but
one claim ?---No.
And that since sending in that claim you had re-
moved ?—No.
Did you not tell me (because I know nothing of this
except from your own statement) that since you sent in
your original claim you had removed ?—Yes, the first
claim.

And you have only sent in one claim ?—I have
claimed reTrularly.
How many claims have you sent in ?--I cannot tell
—I have paid a good many shillings, but how many I
cannot say. I voted for No. 8, Cornwall Place, Hol-
loway, the last time. I have been there eight years. I
never lived at No. 3, but I lived at No. 4 for 16 years.
Have you ever sent in a claim since 1832 ?—I am
sure I cannot call to mind now. •
13;(1 your name not stand on the register in 1832 ?
have stood on the register some time.
Did you not stand on the register in 1832 ?—I can-
not tell.
Mr. Coppock said the name of Link was on the re-
gister, and he held in his hand a claim sent in by him in
1835. In 1832 Link voted one way. and in 1837 he
voted another.—The claim was allowed.
(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)

Our readers swill recollect that the cae of Mr. Bur-
ton; whose name appeared in the election list, stood
over, in order that the claimant might give a better
description of the property in right of which he claimed
to vote, the overseers having stated that they could not
identity it. The qualification was described as," House,
Cadogan-place."
Mr. Adey handed in a letter from Mr. Burton
stating that he had taken great pains to be correct, and
had made out his claim in conformity to the Act of
Parliament ; that, except for tk.e substitution of the
names, it was word for word according to the form
prescribed in the Act ; and that he could not sup-
pose the Barrister had any right to require a claimant
to do that which the Act gave no directions to do.
Mr. Adey then expressed his willingness to state
the number of the house, but protested against the
Learned Barrister having the power to require it to
be done.
Mr. COVENTRY acknowledged there was a difficulty,
but if neither the residence of the party nor his pro-
perty could be found, a better description must be
given. In a small street, perhaps, the number of the
house need not be stated, but in such a large street as
Oxford-street or Cadogan-place, if the overseers ob-
jected he should certainly require the property to be
identified, which could only be done by adding the
tenant's name or the number of the house.
Mr. Adey—Why should there he any difference be-
tween the cases of overseers and third parties ?
Mr. COVENTRY-If a third party objects, and serves
the claimant personally, in consequence of an insufficient
description of a place of abode, unless the actual
place of residence be supplied to my satisfaction, I
should expunge the name ; so if the qualification be
described as in Oxford-street, and the objection be that
the property cannot be found, I think I bare power to
require it to be identified in the same manner. It never
could he intended that a man should say he has a house
in Oxford-street, but refuse to say where it is. Such an
absurdity could not have been intended. If that were
allowed, the Act should be labelled " A bundle of ab-
surdities," instead of the " Reform Act." If I had
jurisdiction, by a proper notice, I should require a spe-
cific piece of abode to be inserted, and an ample identi-
fication of the qualification by the number of the house,
the tenant's name, or other circumstances. If
the property could be identified without this
particularity, well and good ; but I cannot
accede to the line of argument adopted in this case. It
a party wishes to be in the list of voters for a county,
every voter has a right to know the property for which
he claims. He has no right to keep that im-
portant fact a secret, otherwise all kinds of fraudulent
claims might be covered under that c oak. If a man
claims for twelve houses, and sells one, he still has the
same qualification in point of value. It is not like a
change of occupation from one house to another, where
the qualification is essentially different.
The number of the house in Cadogan-place having
been given, Mr. Burton's name was retained on the
Register.

----
SHADWELL.
The result of the objections in the lists revised to-day
was as follows. The•overseers took 50 objections' rod
sustained 42 ; the Liberals took 19 and sustained 14 ;
the Tories took 50 and sustained 26.
(Before Mr. SHADWELL.)
Mr. SHADw ELL revised the lists for
the parishes of
St. Mary Whitechapel, Trinity, Minories, Old Artil-
lery Ground, and Tower Without.

The Brighton Railway is to
_be partially opened
On an early day in the ensuing month, which. will enable
the communicatiOP to be made in four pours from 400911
to Brighton.