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

11, 3d 6s to 4s 6d •, Lamb, 3s 8d to 4i 10d; Veal, 3s
d to 45 4d; it nd Pork, 4s to 5s 41 per Sibs.: by the
okTesse.

BAY 111.6-ILICETS.
%mar/ELI) —Old Meadow Hay, 313 s to 31135; New
ditto, 21 Fa to 31 8s; Old Clover, 414 s to 51; New ditto,
.31, 104 t.) 41 les ; and Straw, 11 6s to 1/ 105 per load.
6 moderate supply and a sluggish demand.
ttiIdIIEULAND.—OId Meadow Hay, 3/ 5s to 3/ 15s;
New ditt), 2/ 8s to 31 8s ; Old Clover, 41 to 4/ 18s;
Is4v, ditto, 31 lOs to 4/10s; and Straw, 1/ 6s to 1/ lOs
per load. Trade dull, at barely late rates.
WIIITEcEIAPEL.—OId Meadow Hay, 31 to 31 155;
,ditto, 2/ 8s to 3/ 8s; Old Clover, 41 to 51; New
31 128 to 4/ lOs ; and Straw, 1/ 6s to 1/ lOs per
4°---". Supply tolerably good, and trade dull.

M
Bate's West HartlCOALey RKE'
lA5s 6 .
Buddle's W. Hartley 16s 6
Cheater Main l3s 9
41!_livison'sWeatHartley 16s 6d
kiely ri e 1 1 Main
dew Pelton Main lls Od'
A eVI Tanfield l4s Od
North Percy Hartley lss Od
Ord's Redheugh
lanfield Moor
Tanscad Moor Butes l3s Od
ToWnley l3s 9d
Walker's Primrose
~ Wall's En
asewicke and Co.d, &c. 158 Od
Brown's l3s 6d
Benson
Marton
Rotspur
tilda
Rillingworth l4s 94i
Northumberland
/lulgrave
Walker

%-TICSTERDAT.

Washington
Eden Main
Lambton Primrose
Belmont lbs 9d
Braddyll's Hetton l6s Od
Bell
Hetton ..
Haswell l7e 3d
16s Od
Russell's Hetton .. l6s 06
Stewart's
South Hartlepool
Thornley
Adelaide Tees
Denison
Seymour Tees
South Durham l4s 9d
Tees Hetton
West Cornforth
Howard's W. H. meth. 16s 6d
Hartley
Powell's Duffryn Stm l9s 6d
W. E. Elgin

CORN AVERAGES.

p. GENERAL AVERAGE PRICES OF BRITISII CORN
": the Week ended Sept. 21,1848, made up from the Returns of the
41,4Pectors in the different Cities and Towns in England and Wales
Der Imperial Quarter.
biro. I WHEAT. I DAILEY.' OATS. EYE. I BEANS. PEAS.
•• 5111 ad 33s 3d 22s 2d 335 r,d I 383 10d 40s 2d
DUTIES ON FOREIGN CORN.
yr
ILEAT . BABLET. OATS. I aye. I BEANS. I PEAS.
04 2s Od. Is 6d 2s Od 28 Od 25 Od

CITY OF LONDON REGISTRA-
TION.—(THIS DAY.)
IMPORTANT DECISION.—Mr. M'Christie delivered the
r
19110esing decision this morning, by which 1,400 objec-
!t_ons nearly the whole of the objections taken by the
Conservative; aide, will be set aside, and the parties ren-
dered una'ule to enter upon them, and which, it was
stated. if acted upon by other revising barristers, would
lOC the effect of rendering altogether void some thou
sands of objections taken to the names of voters in other
tarts of the country :—He said, George Franks, of
0. 45, Drummond-street, Euston square, a freeman of
tle city of London, and liveryman of the Company of
Itkers, entitled to vote fur the City, was objected to
?esterday by Mr. Brown, and a paper was put into my
and which was stated to be a duplicate of a notice of
biection 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,"
rd gives that gentleman notice, in the terms required
J' the Act, of an objection to his name being retained on
tee
list of voters. It has also on the face of it the
Post-office stamp. Mr. Sydney Smith and Mr. Ledger
appeared for Mr. Franks, and objected that the paper
Productd 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
iffiee• They contended that the document was a nul-
t3", because it did not appear from it that its coun-
terpart had been addressed, as directed, on the out-
aide or 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
ItPear to defend his title to remain on the list.
rt 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,
tied that consequently Mr. Franks must appear, or his
damn be expunged. The arguments were sustained on
both sides with great ingenuity and ability ; and it is
bot to be wondered at that a good deal of zeal
4boßid have been imported into the case when it
4s known, as it was stated, that if I hold that
be legal notice of objection has been given in
Mils ease, the consequence will be that no less than four-
!?en hundred objections, taken in the city of London
leis year by the parties whom Mr. Brown represents,
'unit fall to the ground; and when, too, as Mr. Smith
added, a vast number of notices of objection, in the pre-
eise• form of the one now under consideration, have
be
„en sent this year from persons at other places
uy nroughout the different parts of the country. Now,
the 20th secti.Jn of the Registration Act, one person
the t
another on a Livery lis shall, on or
bet -
ore the said 25th day of August,t give to such
Other person, or leave at his place of abode, as
described in such list, a notice according to the form
cumbered 4, in the said schedule C, or to the like effect.
ection 100 enacts, that in all cases it shall be sufficient
if the notice of objection be sent by the post, free of
t°4,.ge, or the sum chargeable as postage for the same
e5,[11.; first paid, and whenever ?any person shall be de-
xtrous t,f sending any euch notice of objection by the
I)osti ho shall deliver the same, duly directed, open and
In duplicate, to the postmaster of any post-office, and the
postmaster shall compare the notice and the duplicate,
and en being satisfied' that they are alike, in their address
and in their content's, shall forward one of them to its ad-
dress by the post, and shall return the other to the party
bringing the aerie 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
such notice would in the ordinary course of post
gave been delivered to such place. Then the 101st sec-
„"()P enacts that it shall be sufficient if such notice be
sett by the post, 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
'tame ought to be given or sent, at his or their usual place
of abode. Now Mr. Smith submitted that this paper
ashich has been produced is not a notice of objection
directed to the person to whom" it was intended to be
pent 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
"1 addressed -with a sufficient direction to the person"
to whom it 'was to be sent, and that, therefore, I cannot
let upon it. Mr. Brown, however, insists, that it is
Itlfficient'iy addressed, having the voter's address
" thal'ace of it; that the Act requires that it shall be
del
t, lye red to the postmaster open; and that it having
`"e post-office stamp on the face of it, I am bound
;0 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
°,Pinion, place the law beyond all doubt. Mr.
l'Cliristie.then proceeded to quote several authorities.
-uThe 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,"
ao there is hero " 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
gla judgment, even if it has an address in
tile) inside, it must also have one on the outside. Con-
sidering how self-evident it is that a document to be
'Bent through the Post-office, which the statute requires
shall be duly directed, and properly and sufficiently ad-
dressed to the Ipereon for whom it is intended, should
he thus duly directed, or properly addressed on the out-
'tide, even without the clear and explicit authority
of the Common Pleas, which I have, I should
have held that this document which has been
banded 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-
'Ace 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
Yost-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 costs 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-
rister 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
case on which an appeal could be made to the Common
Pleas.
Mr. M‘CuntsTlE—lt 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.
Tile Court then proceeded with revising the livery
lista,-but nothing of interest occurred.

COAL PIT ACCIDENT.—On Thursday last, William
Whittaker, engineer at Rollin 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
iota ceclOck.—Manchester Examiner