The Sun.
London, England, 1846-10-14 00:00:00

MIDDLESEX.

Mr. L. Shadwell held his court yesterday at the
Vice-Chancellor's Court, Westminster Hall. and dis-
posed of the lists of county voters for the parishes of St.
Martin, St. Anne, St. Margaret, St. John, St. Clement
Danes, St. Paul, Covent-garden; St. George, Hanover-
square; St. James, the Savoy, and Lincoln's Inn; but
no point of sufficient importance to require notice was
raised during the day. The Learned Barrister will hold
a court to-morrow (this day) at Mile-end, to revise the
lists of the north-eastern parishes in the county.

EAST SURREY.
The Revising Barrister sat again yesterday at the
Board-room, Bermondsey.
Mr. Curling, whose case was reported yesterday, at-
tended, accompanied by his tenant and Mr. Allen, a
surveyor, for the purpose of substantiating his claim to
vote.

Mr. Allen, in answer to questions from the Barrister,
said that lie had viewed the piece of ground i n question,
and although it was certainly very small, yet it had two
frontages, and was in a rapidly increasing neighbourhood;
he considered it would be eligible to build a small shop
on, and that for this purpose it was worth 50s. a year.
Mr. Drew, the vestry-clerk, who opposed the claim,
said he was of opinion that the New Building Act that
had just come into operation would prevent a house from
being built upon a piece of ground in the confined posi-
tion this was. The Act required that there &multi be
some outlet at the back of every building, for the pur-
poses of air and ventilation.
Mr. Allen said it was sufficient if the windows fronted
an open thoroughfare ; and, according to his interpreta-
tion of the Act, a house might be built upon the ground
for which the claim to vote was set up, and upon this
view of the ease he considered it was worth 50s. a-year.
The REvisING BARRISTER said he was of opinion that
upon this evidence Mr. Curling had made out his
and his name would, therefore, be placed upon the list.
Mr. Curling complained of the unnecessary trouble to
which he had been put by the parish officers objecting
to his claim, when he said there could be no doubt it was
a good one. He had offered to depose to the value of the
property, which was all that was usually required, and
yet he had been put to the trouble and expense of bring-
ing his tenant and a surveyor before the COurt. Under
these circumstances, he said, he trusted the Revising
Barrister would think it was a case in which costs should
be awarded.

The REVISING BARRISTER said it appeared to him
that the parish officers had acted under a bond fide im-
pression that the property was not of sufficient value to
give a vote, and, therefore, he did not consider that
there was the slightest ground for the application for
costs. _ _

There were four claims to vote in respect of a rent
charge upon houses in Bermondsey and Rotherhithe,
which were objected to by Mr. Meymott, the Conserva-
tive agent, on the ground that although the property
had been in the possession of the claimants for the pe-
riod required by the Act, viz. six months, yet as no
payment had actually been made, they were not entitled
to vote.
The REVISING BARRISTER, who had considered his
decision, stated to-day that, in his opinion, it was suffi-
cient for the parties to be entitled to the amount speci-
citied, and that it was not necessary for them to have
actually received it. He, therefore, held the claims to
be good, and the names were placed on the list.