The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-19 00:00:00

ONE S V. NICHOBLS.-THE BOROUGH OF • BEWDLEY.

In this case the respondent did not appear, and .as it
awared,the potice Was only served. on the 2d Novem-
ber, the case was dismissed. .-
3.9s.:{cftn2l:v. TITOMPSON.-THE COUNTY OF WESTMORE-

- - -
This was sin' appeal
agLaiA.N.„Dt.
the decisionf the Re_
tlt risiarrister 1,11- the count 9f W ° ftd ostrn9rand, and
thd'point raised Was the nature of
PPe
lant. the tenure of, a 1
• -
Mr. Coekburn'appeared on behalf
and Iltr 'A Id for the respondents.'
. rno . . - ..
The Loan CHIEF
, JUSTICE said the sole question to
be conAdered' in the present case, NV aS, whether the
.',.iey.y.o,lining to vote had a freehold tenure. It ap- .
eared the rent of the,proPerty, was sufficient to consti-
' te a.,freehold, but not sufficient to give a qualification
tinder any other qualification. The property; it,seemed,
i +as held by a burgage tenure, under which the, appellant„
. paid ,a rent to a
,certain individual, ,but.the.amottpt was,
liiot stated:, Thq,e.was,' however, no manor or superior ,
!ibid.-, xo,i, the,party being in,possession .of the, pro-
riek;4crilicOlheing no snperior lord, the,presumption
wis, :that the "freehold was in him, and they had now to
'c'onild4' whether there were any circumstances ,
:.down tWat''Presuinption. On inquiry, the Court funnd
that the Party was, not only in possession,ef ~the pro,
party Without a superior claimant, but also that he had.,
voted in respect of the property at .severl..elections.,
The.'olll3- objection
,that had in • reality been urged'
against the validity of. his tenure was, ,that the_
mode of conveyance was not a freehold admitting
of conveyance in common Jaw,, and that , the
,freehold Must, in conseqiience, rest in some superior.
1.104. To that, .he (the Lord ,Chief Justice) would
• ens•;Ver. there %Vas in t,he.present.case, the entire.; absence
of all baseness; there wore no manorial righ-tsor copy of
roll,"ii;ia'df-`the Ordim,r‘ evidence of cop) 40. Under
•oeh 'diktiiiitences, th-ough the, nu de of conveyance
might 'lna 64 in consonance with common law, the
property:bad been coveyed by a local custom in operation
from 'olo' itntnernorial ; he considered the Court was
bound CtiWiiii 'effect to the freehold, and to hold that the
prop,er le al inference was; that the prop rty Was sicced
,_
and inii (1440 n of the appellant. lit cor.sidertd, there_
html
fire, th. . igiOn of the Revising Barrister was errone-
ous', andliuUlit to be'revised, and that the name of the
appeila;ntshiaild be plaeed On the regi,ter.
iThe'Pes?'-of their Lordships concurred, each assigning,
at cOnsfliaable length their reason's for so deciding. , , .
I)iiiti'aoordi el ••, • • d • - •
• n
14 iIF, p.,-AELO.--TLIE. BOROUGH OF, WARWICK.
This was tan 5,p,p,4 against a decision of the Revising
Birrister; Or flie.boraugh of Warwiek., The case is a
consolidAed',ene, and the point raised ,was, whether a
scot and lot Ni4haying,once' allowed himself' to be dis-:
qnalined,b).7 tho,n9npayreent; of the rates for One parti-
oular year, coliba;i9der the, provisions of the Reform
A .ct, on the payment or rates, during, any subsequent
year claim to have his naMeplaced on the register. The
p respondent in the resent instance had failed last year
to pay Jiffs Cates, on or, before the 31st of July, and had
had his name
.struck from the register. This year he
paid up his rates and made his claim, eßevising
which h .t.
Barrister allowed ; hence the appeal.
Mr. Hayes haVing.been heard in support of
and Mr. Aellor for the respondent,.
The Gotha' gave judgment. It would be a very hard
o
constructionf the 'Ac t if it, was held that the man who
had received parish. relief should be considered qualified
to vote, while he wliO contributed to support others, but
-failed forone:yenr from poverty to pay his rates, should
perm wneu ly dfsfrancla.4ed for life. From a careful
construction, of,4,he Act, their- Lordships were clearly
,of Opinion, that .the failure of the payment of
rates in 18,15 ,by the resPoPdePt; only disqualified
him for 'one yeffloanfl that he, ;vas perfectly at liberty to
plate himself :on tiimiOgister the- following year by pay-
ityrup his arrears.„lhe present party had not been off
th6e.register for two. years, and did not eerie under the
disfranchising provisions of the statute. ----v4e decision
Of the Revising Barrister must, therefore, be sustained,
and the aPpeal be dismissed. :
...
. .

BANKRUPTCY.-(TI-IIS DAY.)
,
(Before Mr Commissioner FONBLANQUE.)
•
IN RE TUE FORTH MARINE INSURANCE SOCIETY.
To-day was.appointed for an audit under this estate,
end! proof of debts. The business generally was im-
pPrtant. A question,, however, was raised pn insurance
of. a, vessel, which had been lost, and, on a claim being
Made on the directors and not being settled, an action
was brought. Thedirectors,had paid into Court: two-
thirds of the.. amount agreed on by their. agent •as the
loss, and it was cont;.mded that, they were entitled.to re-
talaionethir'd if the Ahip.was not a British built vessel
and more than ;18 months old, as the owners got new for
old materials, The vessel was built tit New Brunswick.
Claimants had not, 'however, pr'ocecded to get the Assess-
nut now pi pve,tpr the, full amount. •
nae 4 of a i4FY,..and contended that they could
!Air: p..s,rs, on behalf Or the shareholderst said the
other cases,.pf,
(11.1W1" was; , one of
4, linilJill kind,r9tt importance,
ande as
it would not bree f manyr to
call on hbm to state the nature of defence;
The il.,SioTficyfor.tbo::elaimanis said that they were
willing 6191rg0 the ,acticn, .and prove far t—e,emotint,
as acki uste ythe agent of the

thp,,t,the sharelto.h.gp Ire entitled
ti)
.as they. rniklit hi.tity to pay
e45.,;49,1ng t? cl/441-an cery; for a..diS,tyilntionand
mounts, tt, laid by tilt in.
. • •
It Ras then suggested that a spte.u.l should be
. .
wepp,red' ibr tire, rfir,-atiiya judgment,.
whielt was to be iitndi ..
Who Lie4rued Coxpties;clisa said that would be of