The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-25 00:00:00

In the parish of Romford, Mr. Joseph Collin, surgeon,
of North-street, was objected to by the Liberals, on the
ground that he did not pay sufficient rent to entitle him
to be on the register.
Mr. Collin stated that he had been eight years in oe•
cupation of his house, and paid 60/. per annum rent for
it. Seven years ago, just before the election, a similar
objection was made to his vote, and he attended before
the Revisinc, Barrister, and the objection was disallowed.
As he had been taken away from his profession, that of
a surgeon, on so frivolous and vexatious an objection,
especially as he wrote to the persons objecting.on the
14th, stating that he held the same qualification he did
seven years back, that it was a case in which costs
should be allowed. _

After hearing the Learned Gentleman for and against
the application,
The BARRISTER awarded Mr. Collin 10s. for his loss
of time.

The following is the result of the day's revision c
Conservative objections, 17; sustained, 15; failed, 2.
Liberal objections, 30; sustained, 21; failed, 5; with-
drawn, 4.

On Tuesday the Court sat at the Cock, Epping, for
the revision of the parishes of Ongar, Waltham, Harlow,
Epping, Houghton, Chi well, &c., &c., when thelollow-
ing was the result of the day's revision :
Liberal objections, 29 ; sustained, 15 ; failed, -14:
Conservative objections, 4 ; sustained, 3 ;
The Court sits this day at Billericay.

HERTFORDSHIRE.
Espinasse sat on Wedneday at the Bull Inn, Hod-
desdon, at tcn o'clock.

Messrs. W. H. James, E. R. Spence, and J. F. Bon-
;ems, attended for the free-trade party, and Mr. Long-

more for the Conservatives.

The REVISING BARRISTER complained of the negli-
gent manner in which the overseer of Witford had
performed his duty, and fined him in the sum of 20s.
for not forwarding to the cleric of the peace the lists of
voters, as directed by the Registration Act.
In the Hoddesdon list the claim of William Crawley
was objected to by the Conservatives.
Mr. Spence called a person of the name of Whitley,
a tailor, to prove the qualification, who stated he knew
William Crawley, and k iew he possessed four free-
hold houses, and had been in possesion since his
father's death, which event occurred three years since.
Cress-examined by Mr. Longmore—l consider the
whole of the cottages belong to William Crawley. Each
of them let for about 41. a year ; he lives in one of them.
At the death of the father a will was found. There

had been something said about the property being di-
vided among his children, four in number. The claim-
ant was the eldest son. The will was disputed, but
I consider the claimant the owner of the cottages. Ido
remember something being said about the property being
left to the daughters. There were not any witnesses to
the will. The fact is, the will was not signed. I have
seen it, and immediately it was shown to me I said it was
good for nothing. The son takes the rent of the whole
property, and he does not divide it with his sisters. The
will was not disputed by action. Ido not think the will
gives the property to the sisters. I consider, by the will,
that the claimant is the owner of the property. I have
not the will with me.

Mr. ESPINASSE said it would be very unsafe to receive
the testimony of a Hoddesdon tailor as to the devise of a
legal estate. He should therefore call for the production
of the will.

The witness left for the purpose of procuring the will,
and in a short time returned and stated that he had

seen the voter, but that he could not attend or produce
the will.

Mr. ESPINASSE said, if a voter would not attend, of
course he must expunge the name, which was conse-
quently done. In the same list Charles Barham War-
ser, and four other gentlemen claiming for a rent-charge
on freehold property, were objected to by the Conser-
vatives.

Mr. James took an objection to the notice to the effect
that the objector had not signed his name in full, but
only " Tho." for " Thomas,' which was overruled by
the Court. lie then put in a deed of conveyance, dated
the 29th of January, and proved that Mr. Charles Bor-
ham Warner was living upon the property upon which
the rent-charge was secured, and contended that he so
residing constituted a possession in fact, as well as in
law, as required by the Reform Act.
Mr. Longinore submitted that the possession of the
property was not such a possession of the rent-charge
as required:

It Was admitted as a fapt that Mr. Warner was in oc.
cupation of the premisesikand had been so since and al
the time of the execution of the deed, and also-that such
occupation was permissive.
Mr. ESPINASSE said he would reserve his judgment on
the case of Mr. Charles Borham Warner, but with re-
gard to the other four gentlemen, he would strike out
their names, as it appeared they had not received any
rent on the deed, nor was it due at the time of execution.
In the Cheshunt list, Joseph Jennings was objected
to by the free-traders.
Mr. Jennings appeared and stated he was possesed of
a fee farm rent, upon the manor and rectory of
Cheshunt, and that it was of more than forty shillings
annual value, and had been in possession more than
twenty years.
Mr. Spence said, that it being a rent-charge, the Act
required the owner's name to be inserted.
Kr. Jennings said, that he was objected to in the year
1P..,33, and that the Revising Barrister inserted it in the
Mist as it now appears.
Mr. Spence said, that under the Reform Act the de-
scription would have been sufficient, but under the Regis-
tration Act it was required that the owner's name should
also be inserted.
The overseer stated, that the devises of the late Mr.
Dendy are the owners of the property.
Mr. ESPINASSE was of opinion that the owners' name
in this case ought to be inserted.
Mr. Jennings applied to the court for costs. He
thought it a very hard case to be compelled to come
all the way from Hastings to support his vote, which had
been on the register ever since the year 1833.
Mr. ESPINASSE said no doubt it was a very hard case;
but in cases of rent charge it was necessary that the
name of the owner should be given, so as to enable a
person who wished to inquire into the register to as-
certain whether these rent charges had actually been
granted. In the year 1833 the lists were revised under
the provisions of the Reform Act, and at that time it
was necessary that the rent charges should be registered
with the clef kof the peace. Since that Act the Regis-
tration Act had been passed, which required the owner's
name, and had abolished the registration with the
clerk of the peace. In a case that he had decided at
Berkhampstead, the owner's name was only given, and
in that case he was of opinion that that was all that was
necessary, as a party wishing to make objections could
inquire in the place for the property belonging to the
gentleman whose name appeared as owner, and he could
readily ascertain from the overseers whether he was the
owner or not, and thereby ascertain whether any rent-
charges were secured upon that property ; but in this
case no owner's name appeared, so that nobody could
make inquiries to know whether any rent-charges had
been granted. He should, therefore, not give costs.
In the same list Sir Edward Codrington and twelve
other gentlemen claiming for rent- charges were objected
to by the Conservatives.
Mr. James put in a deed of rent-charge, made between
George Dunn of the one part, and Admiral Sir Edward
Codrirgton of the second part, conveying to Sir Edward
Codrington, his heirs and assigns, for ever, a rent-charge
of forty shillings, "to be paid and payable during the
first year, in equal moities, on the 24th day of June and
the 25th day of December, thenceforth yearly on the
25th day of December in every year." Mr. James also
produced receipts, signed by the parties, for the first
half-year's rent, which had been paid previous to the
31st of July last. Mr. James stated that he had paid
the rents, and that the property upon which the rent-
charges were granted was unencumbered at the time of
granting, and remained so up to the present time.
Mr. Longmore said that the rent-charges were for forty
shillings only, and nothing was said as to the income-
tax, which would be one shilling and twopence on each
.case; so that the parties would only receive thirty-eight
shillings and tenpence, which would not entitle them
to vote.
Mr. James said there was an express section in the
Act which applied to Op case. It was the 21st section
of the 2d William 1V.,-cap. 45, which enacted that " no
public or Parliamentary tax shall be deemed to be any
charge payable out of or in respect of any land or
tenements."
Mr. Longmore said the Income-tax Act had been
passed since the Reform Act.
Mr. ESPINASSE said it would be incumbent on Mr.
Longmore to prove that there was an express enactment
in the Income. tax Act repugnant to the 2d William IV.,
cap. 45.
Mr. Longmore replied that the Income-tax Act
directed the granter to retain the tax, 7d. upon every
pound at the time of paying the rent-charge.
Mr. ESPINASSE said the Reform Act directed that no
Parliamentary tax should be considered as a charge upon
the land, and the income. tax was a Parliamentary tax,
and as there was nothing repugnant to the 21st section
of the 2d William IV., cap. 45, he should overrule the
objection.
The whole of the names were retained upon the list.
Two other gentlemen, of the name of Dunn, claiming
for rent-charges in the same list, were objected to; but,
owing to rent not having been paid prior to the 31st of
last July, the names were expunged.
In the same list Richard Arabin, and six others
claiming for rent-charges granted by Sir Henry Meux,
Bart., were objected to by the free-traders.
A solicitor attended to prove the qualifications, and
stated that the rent-charges had been granted by Sir
Henry Meux. and were charged upon his property called
" Walker's Farm."