The Sun.
London, England, 1848-09-21 00:00:00

-• _ -
„.11/* es ed to 4s ad ; Lamb, Sa ad to 43 10d; Veal, 3
ICI .4 4s 4d; and Pork, 4s to 5s 4d per 81bF. by LIB
carcase.

RAT MANKETS.
ditto, 21
Meadow Hay, 3/ 3 to 31 IPs; New
2/ 8s to 8s; Old Clover, 41 4s to 5/; Ncw ditto
ug 10s t) 4/ 1( s ; and Straw, 11 6s to 1/ 10.3 rer load
moderate Fl pply and a sluggish demand.
CUDIBERLAND.—OId Meadow Hay, 31 5s to 3/ 15-;
New ditto, 21 8s to 31 8s ; Old Clover, 4/ to 41 18s;
'IOW ditto, 3/ 10s to 4110 s; and Straw, 1/ 6s to 1/ 101,
per load. Trade dull, at barely late rates.
,TWErtmatenci..—Old Meadow Hay, 31 to 31 15s
'.eve ditto, 21 8s to 31 8s; Old Clover, 41 to 5/; Nt
ott, Si 12s to 41 lOs ; and Straw, 1/ 6s to 11 10s peg
Supply tolerably good, and trade dull.

COAL BURKE'
Bate'a West Hartley 15s 6d
Buddle's W. Hartley 16s 6d'
Chester Blain l3s 9d
asiltison'sWeitHartley 16s 6d,
Nlywell Main l4s 6d
New Pelton Main ll3 odl
New Tanfield l4s Od
North Percy Hartley lss Od
M's Redheugh
yanfield Moor ..
rraatield Moor Butes '
13s Od
Townley l3s 9d
Walker's Primrose

'.-YESTERDAY.

Washington
Eden Main
Lambton Primrose
Belmont lss 9d
Braddyll's Hetton les 01
Bell
Hetton
Haswell l7s 3
Lambton
Russell's Hetton les 0
Stewart's
'South Hartlepool
Thornley
Adelaide Tees
Denison
Seymour 'fees
South Durham l4s 9d
Tees Het tc n
West Cornforth ........ 15s 01
Howard's W. 11. Neth. les 6:
Hartley lss 9,
Powell's Duffryn Stm. 19s 6d
W. E. Elgin ..... 15s 6d

Wall's Lia, -.
Bewieke and Co. B.-,
15s Od
Brown's
Benson
Harton
Hotspur
Hilda l4s 3d
Nillingworth l4s 9d
Northumberland
Mulgrave
Walker

CORN AVERAGES.

- -
GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISH CORN
for Week ended Sept. 21,848, made up from the Returns of the
41sPectors in the different Cities and Towns in Esigland and Wale
Per Imperial Quarter.
WiIEAT. I BARLEY.] I
OATS. RTE. I BEANS. PEAS.
1;-...1"CE .. 163 e Sd I 33s 3d I 22s 2d 33s hd I 38s 10d 403 2d
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
1111 AT. I BALLET. I OATS. I BEE. I BEANS. PEAS.
‘S Od 2s Od Is 6d 2s Od 2s Od 2s Od

CITY OF LONDON REGISTRA-
TION.—(THIS DAY.)
IMPORTANT DECISION.—Mr. I.llChristie delivered the
following decision this morning, by which 1,400 objcc-
tma, nearly the whole of the objections taken by the
onservat:ve side, will be set aside, and the parties ren-
dered unable to enter upon them, and which, it was
!gated, if acted upon by other revising barristers, would
nave the effect of rendering altogether void some thou-
sands of objections taken to the names of voters in other
parts of the country:—He said, George Franks, of
No. 45, Drummond-street, Euston square, a freeman of
city of London, and liveryman of the Company of
Bakers entitled to vote for the City, was objected to
esterday by Mr. Brown, and a paper was put into my
411, d which was stated to be a duplicate of a notice of
ction which it was said had been sent to Mr.
Franks through the Post-office, and I was called upon to
receive these papers as evidence that the alleged notice
of objection had duly reached the hands of Mr. Franks.
That paper is addressed on .the face of it, " To Mr.
George Franks,- 45, Drummond-street, Euston-square,"
and gives that gentleman notice, in the terms required
byth. Act, of an objection to his name being retained on
the list of voters. It has also on the face of it the
Posteoffica stamp. Mr. Sydney Smith and Mr. Ledger
aPpe„red for Mr. Franks, and objected that the paper
produced was not such a notice of objection as the
Act of Parliament contemplated, which makes it lawful
that a notice of objection may be sent through the Post
office, They contended that the document was a nul-
lity, because it did not appear from it that its coun-
terpart had been addressed, as directed; on the out-
side cr back of it, to the party to whom it was
Said it had been sent ; and they, therefore, sub-
mitted that I ought not to call on Mr. Franks to
appear to defend his title to remain on the list.
Brown, on . the other hand, strenuously ar-
gued that the notice was in all respects in
strict conformity with every requisite of the statute ;
that the decisions which had been come to, as far as they
Could be made applicable to the present question, were
all in support of the perfection and legality of the notice,
and that consequently Mr. Franks must appear, or his
name be expunged. The arguments were sustained on
both sides with great ingenuity and ability ; and it is
net to be wondered at that a. good deal of zeal
cLould have been imported into the case when it
is known, as it was stated, that if I hold that
no legal notice of objection has been given in
this case, the consequence will be that no less than four-
teen hundred objections, taken in the city of London
this year by the parties whom Mr. Brown represents,
must fall to the ground; and when, too, as Mr. Smith
added, a vast number of notices of objection, in the pre-
cise form of the one now under consideration, have
been sent this year from persons at other places
throughout the different parts of the country. Now,
by the 20th section of the Registration Act, one person
Objecting to another on a Livery list shall, on or
before the said 25th day of August, give to such
other person, or leave at his place of abode, as
described in such list, a notice according to the form
numbered 4, in the said schedule C, or to the like effect.
Section 100 enacts, that in all cases it shall be sufficient
if the Lotice of objection be sent by the post. free of
postage, or the sum chargeable as postage for the same
being first paid, and whenever any person shall be de-
sirous of sending any such notice of objection by the
post, he shall deliver the same, duly directed, open and
in duplicate, to the postmaster of any post-office, and the
Postmaster shat, compare the notice and the duplicate,
and on being sate•fied that they are alike, in their address
and in their contents, shall forward one of them to its ad-
dress by the post, aLd shall return the other to the party
bringing the same duly stamped, with the stamp of the said
Post-office; and the production, by the party who op-
Posed such notice, of such stamped duplicate shall be
evidence of the notice having been given to the person
at, the place mentioned in such duplicate, on the day on
Which such r otice would in the ordinary course of post
have been delivered to such place. Then the 101st sec-
tion enacts that it shall be sufficient if such notice be
sent by the pe at, provided with respect to sending notices
of objection by the post, free of postage, or the postage
thereof being first paid, addressed with a sufficient
direction to the person or persons to whom the
same ought to be given or sent, at his or their usual place
of abode. Now Mr. Smith submitted that this paper
which has been produced is not a notice of objection
" directed to the person to whom" it was intended to be
sent ; that it is not a notice " duly directed ;" that
it is not a notice having an " address," and
also having " contents ;" that it is not a notice
" addressed with a sufficient direction to the person"
to whom it was to be sent, and that, therefore, I cannot
act upon it. Mr. Brown, however, insists, that it is
sufficiently addressed, having the voter's address
on the face of it; that the Act requires that it shall be
delivered to the postmaster open; and that it having
the post-office stamp on the face of it, I am bound
to receive it as evidence that the party has received
that legal notice by which he is required to attend
this court. Had there been no decisions at all of the
Court of Common Pleas bearing on this question, I do
not think I should have had any difficulty in disposing
of the point; but there are cases which, in my
opinion, place the law b yond all doubt. Mr.
ll`Christie:then proceeded to qt.ote several authorities.
The document produced before me has no address on
the outside, though it has one inside, and which is
precisely the case Mr. Justice Maule dealt with in his
judgment ; therefore, as in " Birch v. Edwards,"
so there is here "an entire omission of evidence to
show what it was that the party sending the notice di-
rected the Post-office to do." Mr. Justice Williams
likewise states in that case his clear opinion to be, that
if a notice of objection is served through the
agency of the Post-office, it must have a direction on
the outside. He goes further; he declares that in
his judgment, even if it has an address in
the inside, it must also have one on the outside. Con-
sidering how self-evident it is that a document to be
sent through the Post-office, which the statute re quires
shall be duly directed; end' properly and sufficiently ad-
dressed to the 'person - for whom it is intended, should
be thus duly directed, or properly addressed on the out-
aide, even without the clear and explicit authority
of the Common Pleas, which I have, I should
have held that this document which has been
handed to me, called a notice of objection,
is no notice of objection whatever within the statute
notwithstanding it has, upon the face of it, the Post-
office stamp. This is the first time that my attention
has been called to the form of these documents, and the
course that has been adopted in bundling them off, and I
am only surprised to think how such a mistake in the
way of transmitting these things through the Post-office
could have been fallen into. The form given by the
schedule of a notice of objection to be sent through the
Post-office to a liveryman of London, does not require
the address of the party intended to be objected to,
to be given inside at all, but it the form bad required
that, according to Mr. Justice Williams' judgment,
it would have to be addressed outside also.
Here, however, the objector thinks proper to
place the address inside, omitting to put any
address or direction whatever on the outside, tumbles
it into the Post-office, and then thinks all is right,
but which cannot be correct, as the case of
" Birch v. Edwards" was decided long before these things
called notices were thrown into the Post-office. My
only difficulty from the first has been, to satisfy my
mind that I ought not to give stoats in the case: how
ever, upon the whole, I do not this time give the costs,
but I reject this document as evidence that a notice of
objection has been given or sent to Mr. Franks by Mr.
Perkins.
Mr. Brown said, the decision which the Revising Bar-
sister had just given would affect tens of thousands of
similar objections in different parts of the country. He
therefore trusted that the Court would at once grant a
ease on which an appeal could be
,made to the Common
Pleas. •
Mr. M4CHRISTIE-It would be absurd to grant an
appeal when the question has been so clearly and directly
decided by the judges of the Common Pleas. I shall
not at present say anything about costs.
The Court then proceeded with revising the livery
lists, but nothing of interest occurred.

COAL PIT ACCIDENT.—On Thursday last, William
Whittaker, engineer at Hollin Grove Pit, near Burnley,
Went down into the pit to change the water bucket, and
as he was ascending, the rope broke at a part where it
was spliced, and he fell to the bottom of the pit, a distance
of sixteen yards from where the rope gave way. His
arm was broken, and his head and breast severely
bruised. The poor fellow died on Sunday morning, at
kir Volock.—Manchester B.rantincr