The Sun.
London, England, 1846-11-12 00:00:00

REGISTRATION APPEALS.

This was the first day set apart for the hearing of the
registration appeals. When the Court was about pro-
ceeding with the hearings, several applications were
made to postpone cases on account of the non-arrival of
the paper books. •
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE on granting the applica-
tions, severely commented on the neglect of the attornies
in not being prepared with the cases in time, and inti-
mated that the Court would in future be disposed to deal
more stringently with them.

HAYDON V. THE OVERSEERS OF TIVERTON.-SOMERSET

EASTERN DIVISION.

Mr. COCiIBURN appeared on behalf of the appellant in
this case, and against the admission of the name of
Mr. Ainsworth, resident in Tiverton, on the register
of electors for the Eastern Division of Somersetshire.
The qualification claimed, as in respect of a free-rent
charge, and the objection taken was, that the respondent
had not been in a beneficial possession of the property
for six calendar months, previous to the 31st of
July. The rent charge was eight years old, but
the interest on it had been conveyed on the 29th of
January, by a deed of settlement. The first payment
for rent became due on the 25th of March, but it was
not paid till the 29th of April. He, therefore, submitted
that the respondent was not irk bona fide possession of
the property, or in the reception of rents for six calendar
months, before the 31st of July, which he was required
to be by the Reform Act.

Mr. sergeant BYLES, for the respondent, submitted
that the transfer of the property, for a valuable con-
sideration, into the hands of the respondent, constituted
the possession intended by the Act. "
The LORD CHIEF JUSTICE said it was important that the
decisions given in interpretation of the law should be clear
and intelligible, without any hair-drawn distinctions. The
question the Court had to consider was, whether there
was any peculiar feature in this case to take it out of
the decision previously given by the Court respecting
the possession of freehold property? He did not think
any valid distinction had been made. The Court had
decided that the possession of freehold property for six
calendar months before the 31st of July meant the
actual receipt of rents, and whereas in the present case
the previous possessor, Nash, had conveyed without re-
servation the whole of his interest to Amworth, the
latter stood in the same position as if the rent charge had
just been created, and therefore, not having received the
rent for six calendar months, the vote must be ex-
punged.

- The rest of their Lordships concurred.
E A]) SrF. onT
Sergeant u lt.
appeared —TilEnofitoortttGhen
aO/1
eLlAlaNnetAiBnTEthn.
Mr, ABEFRLEEs
present case, which was a consolidated one. ') The pointe
at issue was, that the respondent, who had objected to
the appellant's vote, had not, in doing so, properly de-
scribed himself. In consequence of the objection, the
aTphpel
Registration
eLln ae ts m
r'n endaAcet
Gentlemenaha dd been
theqdueocitsedecision expungeddonthoef the
from thelh7ethcsoeucrtti
oi
section
soe register.fvetrhael
cases in support of his arguments.
Mr. Sergeant ItirzoLAKE maintained that the notice
of objection was good. The real question was raised on
the 101st section of the Act, which provided that no
misnomer in any notice should invalidate it, provided
what was set forth in it was such as to be commonly
un-
derstood. Of this the Revising Barrister could alonea
the time be the judge, and having admitted the notice in
the present am, it must be taken as fulfilling the condi-
tion of section 101. He submitted, therefore, that the
appeal should be dismissed.
The COURT was of opinion that the notice of objection
given in this case was not sufficient. Under section 101,
though a certain power of interpretation was given to
the Revising Barrister, it did not allow him to dispense
with any of the essential forms given in the statute re-
specting registrations. It was required, specifically, that
in any borough, like the one under consideration, where
there was more than one list of voters, that the list in
which the name of the objector, appeared, should be
distinctly stated in the notice making the objection.
This had not been the case in the present instance, and,
therefore, the Revising Barrister's decision must be re-
versed, and the name of the appellant placed on the
register.
This decision places 27 votes on the register which
had been expunged.
CARLOW V. THE EARL OF MEXBOROUOH.
The Court having heard Mr. Lush against a rule nisi
for a new trial in this case, which was an action on two
bills of exchange, made the rule absolute.
The Court adjourned at three o'clock.

SHERIFFS' COURT.—(THIS DAYS)
(Before Mr. Undersheriff BuncnEtt.)
sTArimrote —COMING HOME FROM THE DERBY.
This was an action to recover damages for the loss of
a horse and damage done to a gig.
Mr. Simon appeared for the plaintiff, and§tated the Me.
The plaintiff is a livery stable keeper, in Bury-street,
Chelsea. On the last Derby day at Epsom the de-
fendant hired a horse and chaise of the plaintiff, to go to
the races; he got down safely, but like many others
the " coming home from the Derby'' Wag not SO agree-
able to the defendant—the horse and gig arrived at t!1:.1
plaintiffs stables in a woeful plight. The gig was much
damaged, the horse's knees were broken, and the de-
fendant said that he got so drunk over his bad leek that
he did not know what he :was doing, and hia greatest
surprise was that he had not broken his neck. The
horse was so much overdriven, and so Inttch inured, h t
althdugh it Was sent tO troaa..2- a. iti
the And .•
—,wary surgeon, it wen at
one week. All these facts were set forth in
the declaration, and as the defendant had not pleaded to
tt: action, he admitted his liability. The damages
claimed were 3/. 15s. for the repairs of the gigs, and 21.
for the keep .of the horse and medicine, 4/. 10s. for loss
during the time the horse was ill and the gig out of
repair, and 124 the value of the horse. The defendant
had promised to indemnify the plaintiff for all loss, and
it was to be regretted that he had not kept his promise.
William Eve, groom to the plaintiff, was called, and
said he saw the " turn out" start very comfortably, but
when it came back it was over-abused " even for a Derby
day." It was in a most " awful state." The horse died
in eight days.
Mr. Sibley proved the damago done to the gig.
Mr. SlluoN said that he could not call the veterinary
surgeon, as he was cut of town.
The )-tiDVR-SliEllll7 said the physic was woAh