The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-19 00:00:00

HERTFORD.

Mr. Espinasse held his court yesterday at the Town-
hall, Hemel Hempstead, where it was adjourned from the
Bell Inn, as advertised, in consequence of the number of
persons in attendance, and the want of sufficient accom-
modation at that place.
W. H. James, George Fitch. and E. R. Spence, Esqs.,
appealed for the Liberal and Free-trade party, and 'l'.
IV. Blagg and C. E. Grover, Esqs., for the Conservatives.
On the Hemel Hempstead list being taken, Mr. James
took an objection to the list being proceeded with under
the following circumstances. It appeared that the cor-
rect manner of spelling Hemel Hempstead was with
the letter " a,'° under the 2d and 3d William IV.,
cap. 84. In the notice published by the revising bar-
rister of the courts ho should hold, and the parishes
be should take at these courts, under the information
that the court would sit at Hemel Hampsted, ap
peered the ,parish list of " Hemel Hempstead"--et
so happened, that the heading of the list of voters,
delivered to the revising barrister, was stated to be a
list for the parish of Hemel Hempstead. Mr. James
therefore contended, that before the Barrister could
legally revise that list, he must correct it under the
powers given him under the 40 sec. of the 6 Vie. cap. 18.
The Barrister had given notice to revise a list that was
not before him.
Mr. ESPINASSE said, the list before him was the one
he had received from the clerk of the peace, and the one
which was spoken of in the notice of the time of holding
the courts. He did not think it necessary to alter the
heading of the list to enable him to proceed.
Mr. Fitch thought it would be better that the list
should be corrected, as a question might afterwards be
raised.
Mr. Fitch was about to proceed with some further
remarks, when Mr. Espinasse sharply asked him if he
au( tided there as an agent?
Mr. Fitch said he did.
Mr. ESPINASSE did not think there was anything in
the objection, and proceeded to revise the list as it stood
without correction.
Sixteen gentlemen, claiming for rent charges in the
parish of Hemel Hempstead, on property situate at Mar-
lowes, were objected to by the Conservatives, and a
long argument arose as to the value of the premises
upon which the rent-charges were secured, from which
it appeared that the encumbrances upon it, besides these
rent charges, were so heavy that there was not sufficient
value to bear the rent charges of 40s. each; the names
were consequently expunged.
In the same list William Henry Ashurst, claiming
for a rent-charge in fee, was objected to by the Con-
servatives.
Mr. James put in a deed dated the 21st of January
last, by which the rent-charge was conveyed to Mr.
Ashurst, but the rent was not payable until January,
1847. NO rent had been received upon the deed.
Mr. Grover contended that as the rent was payable
yearly, the case came within the decision of the Court of
Common Pleas. In the case of Murray v. Thornilly, in

whi,,h a rent charge was granted in January, 1845, the
first payment of which was to be made in January, 1846,
it was held that the grantee was not entitled to be regis-
tered as having been " in actual possession thereof" for
six calendar months nextorevious to the last day of
July, within the section 22 of the 2d William IV., cap.
45, and submitted that the claimant would not be enn-
tled to claim until he had received rent, and had been
put in actual possession of the rent-charge. •
Mr. ESPINASSE said he was of the same opinion. He
considered this a similar case in all its points to that of
Murray and Thornilly.
_

Mr. Fitch submitted that it was not. There was a
very material variance between the two cases; the grant
of the rent-charge before the Court of Common Pleas
was evidently a grant at common law, and that the only
seisin under that deed was a seisin in law—such seism
the Court of Common Pleas decided was not a sufficient
compliance with the requisites of the statute ; but it
was a far different case before this Court. Here the

title to the rent-charge was conferred by an appoint-
ment of the use and under the Statute of Uses,
which transferred the actual possession to the use,
there was both a seisin in fact and a seisin in law.
The words in the deed of rent-charge were, " and he
(the grantor) doth by these presents direct, limit,
and appoint ;" and it was those words which gave the
grantee bodily possession of the rent-charge under the
Statute of Uses. He contended, therefore, that the re-
quisitions of the Reform Act, which rendered the actual
possession of the qualification necessary, were complied
with ; for it was impossible to distinguish actual pos-
session under the statute of Henry 11. (the Statute of
Uses) from the actual possession required by the Reform
Act. Were it otherwise, the title of the greater portion
of the land in this kingdom would be subverted. He
then went into the necessity of the old assurance of
lease and release as methods of conveyance, and con-
tended that the same principles, as a matter of course,
placed the party as much in actual possession of a rent
charge as in possession of his estate.
Mr. ESPINASSE said he was clearly of opinion that in
this case the claim to vote could not be supported. He
could not distinguish this case from that of Murray e
Thornilly. It appeared to him that " actual possession"
under the Reform Act, must be actual possession in
fact, as contradistinguished to actual possession in law,
and in this case he thought the voter had not been in
such actual possession as was required by the Act, and
should therefore expunge the name.
Mr. Fitch applied to the Court for a case of appeal.
Mr. ESPINASSE did not think there was a doubt in the
case; besides the case had clearly been decided before by
the case of Murray v. Thornilly, and he should not be
doing his duty if he burdened the Court of Common
Pleas with cases which had before been decided by them;
he should therefore not grant a case.
In the same list the name of George Glass was objected I
to by the Conservatives. b
.Ir. Glass claimed for a rent-
char"e on property situate in the High-street.
M. Fitch, who supported the claim, called Mr. Smith,
the owner of the property, who stated that in January
last he granted to itr. Glass a rent-charge of forty shil-