The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-28 00:00:00

CERTIFICATE.

"In a series of experiments made upon Clark, Me Niell, and Co.'s
Patent Universal Gas Burner, its superiority was satisfactorily este-
blisted in economy and the quality of the light. Tested against
argand burners, Nos. 4 (12 holes), and 6 (15 holes), it afforded a
saving of at least 25 per cent., and against three fish-tail burners,
No. 4, 48 per cent. The colour and brilliancy of the flame is supe-
rior to any other burner."
T. W. KEATES, Consulting Chemist,
J. 1). PALMER, Mechanical Inspector.
The UNIVERSAL GAS BURNER is used nightly at the Poly-
technic Institution, and may be bad and seen from 11 till 4, at the
Patentees, 60, St. Martin's-lane, Charing-cross ; and of all Gas Fitters.

BIRKENHEAD DOCK COMMISSIONERS.
LOANS OF MONEY.
The Birkenhead Dock Commissioners are ready to receive Loans
of Money for periods of Five or Seven Years, under the authority of
their Acts of Parliament, at the rate of Five per Cent. per Annum.
The Interest will be paid Half-yearly, on the Ist January and Ist
July, ix London or elsewhere, as the parties lending may prefer.
Sealed Tenders, stating the Amount and Term of Years for which
the money is proposed to be lent, to be addressed to the Commis-
sioners, endorsed " Tender for Loans." B r order,
Birkenhead, Sept. 21, 1846. .%O•RICHARD HIND, Secretary.
' -

THE REGISTRATIONS.
CITY OF LONDON-SATURDAY.'

At the sitting of the Court this morning, Mr. ARNOLD
delivered judgment in the following cases, which had
been standing over some days:—
Edward Meyrick, on the list of voters as a freeman
and liveryman of the Company of Dyers, was objected to
upon the ground that he had not resided for six months
before the 31st of last July within seven miles of the
Guildhall, as required by the 32d section of the Reform
Act. He was described in the list as residing at No. 41,
Brown's-lane, Spitalfields. The facts proved were as
follow:—Mr. Meyrick resides principally at Windsor,
beyond the seven miles, with his sister, and has a regular
establishment there. The house, No. 41, Brown's-lane,
is in the occupation of a Miss Alford, who lets two
furnished rooms— a bed-room and sitting-room—to Mr.
Meyrick, for 10/, a year. She does not let any other
part of the house in lodgings, and she only lets these
rooms to Mr. Meyrick as being an old friend. Mr.
Meyrick hires the rooms for the purpose of protect-
ing his vote for the City. During the six months
previous to the 31st of last July ho has slept there
just five times—once in the month of February,
three times in April, and on one other occasion
the date of which was not ascertained. The rooms are
not generally used during his absence for any other pur-
pose; but they have been so on one occasion during the
six months in question. Mr. Meyrick generally calls at
the house once a week, and frequently takes his meals
there, but he does so as Miss Alford's guest, and makes
no payment in respect of them. His sister sometimes
comes to town, and sleeps at the house as a friend, in a
spare room. Mr. Meyrick has no servants in the house.
The question is whether these facts constitute a resi-
dence by Mr. Meyriek at 41, Brown's-lane. It is not,
perhaps, possible to give a definition of the term " resi-
dence" which shall be applicable to every case. The
residence required, for example, under the settlement
law is very different from that sufficient to confer the
franchise. Some of the cases decided by the Com-
mittees of the House of Commons have extended the
doctrine as far, perhaps, as it could be legitimately car-
ried; but I thick it will be found that in every case
where the voter was considered to have a sufficient resi-
dence he had a fixed and permanent place of abode,
though he may not have resided there continuously.
The present case, though distinguishable in some of the
facts, falls, I think, within the principle of Whithorn and
Thomas, decided upon appeal by the Court of Common
Pleas (Bor. and Am. 259). In both cases there was a
substantial, that is a fixed and permanent residence
at a place more than seven miles distant from the
borough ; and also the possession or occupation of a
place within the borough, where the party might, per-
haps, if he liked, have resided permanently, but which
was used rather for the purposes of a temporary accom-
modation. In both cases too the place was taken and
retained with a view of enabling the party to vote,
which, though not decisive in itself, is, as was observed
by Mr. Justice Coltman, in the case referred to, an im-
portant ingredient in ascertaining whether the place was
taken or occupied with the intention of residing there.
The infrequency of the occasions of sleeping there is also
a striking fact in both cases, though taken by itself it
would also not be decisive, as a party might retain a re-
sidence in a house, though, in fact, he had not himself
slept there once during the prescribed period ; as where
lie had gone away with the intention of returning, and
had left his family or servants residing there. But in
both these cases the party had no servant, nor any sem-
blance of an establishment, at the house in which he is
alleged to have had a residence. Upon the whole,
therefore, I think that Mr. Meyrick did not reside at the
house in question within the meaning of the 32d section,
and that his name must consequently be expunged.
Mr. ARNOLD inquired whether Mr. Brown intended
•to appeal against the decision?
Mr. Brown—lf I give notice of appeal, subject to the
sanction of Mr. Meyrick, will the Court allow me to
withdraw it afterwards if Mr. Meyrick should not con-
sent?
Mr. ARNOLD—Ye&

Mr. ARNOLD then delivered the following judgment in
the case of George Smith, of the Girdlers' Company, who
was objected to upon a similar ground as in the case
of Mr. Meyrick. He was described in the list as resid-
ing at 15, Gough-square. His general residence with
his wife and establishment was at Colney Hatch, more
than seven miles from the City. The house in Gough-
square was the place where Mr. Smith formerly lived
with his family, and carried on his business, and he still
holds the premises under a lease. But some time ago
he gave up the premises and business to his sons under
an agreement, not an assignment of the lease, in which
there is a proviso " that the said George Smith and
his family shall and may at his pleasure occupy the
said house, No. 15, Gough-square, and use and occupy
the same at all times, as he has hitherto occupied the
same." Since this agreement the sons have paid the
rent and taxes of the premises. Mr. Smith continued to
sleep there sometimes, but he would not undertake to
say that during the six months previous to the 31st of
July he had slept there more than three times. He had
no servants there, but he took his meals with his sons
two or three times a week, but without paying for them.
I do not consider the case so clear as that of Mr. Mey-
rick, but still I am of opinion that Mr. Smith has not a
legal residence at the place in question. The fact of his
having previously resided in the house, and his having
reserved to himself and family the right to occupy it
again in the same manner at his pleasure, are un-
doubtedly strong circumstances in the case, but I think
they only amount to this—that the party may, if he
thinks fit, renew his residence there whenever he pleases,
and as he is not in point of fact occupying the house
now with his family in the same manner as he did for-
merly, they do not show that hd is now residing there.
I am of opinion, therefore, that in this case also the
occupation is a temporary and casual one, and does not
constitute a residence as required by the statute.—Name
expunged.
Mr. Wansey, in reply to a question from Mr. Arnold,
said he did not intend to give notice of appeal in Mr.
Smith's case.

The lists of householders for the parishes of St. Helen
and St. Ethelburga were then gone through, after:which
the Court adjourned until Wednesday next, when Mr.
Arnold will proceed with the parish of St. Botolph,
Bishopsgate.
The following was the result of the revision of the
householders' lists at the rising of the Court :
Failed or
Sustained. Withdrawn.
Conservative objections 197 ... 214
Ditto claims
Liberal objections
Ditto claims
The double ohjections are included in each party's ob-
jections.
According to the statement of the Liberals, the fol-
lowing is the result of the revision, including the Livery
lists :

Liberal objections l2B
Conservative ditto 252
Double ditto
Liberal claims
Conservative ditto 1

ALLEGED DEATH OF A GEN-

TLEMAN FROM QUACK MEDICINES.

On Saturday au adjourned inquest was_ held at the
Swan Inn, Peckham New Town, before Mr. Carter, on
the body of Mr. William Dunham, aged 57, of 1, Alpha-
street,it was alleged, had
died fromlB3 effectsro P oe quackPeckham,
"
h °
medicines.
It appeared that the deceased had been attended by a
surgeon of the name of Morris, who reluctantly gave it
as his opinion that he would not survive the winter, in
consequence of the disease under which he laboured.
Dissatisfied with this opinion, the deceased called in a
person connected with the firm of Jordan and Co, and
took two bottles of medicine and a bcx of pills, for which
he paid 20s. On Sunday last, whilst sitting in the
drawing-room, he fell down on the carpet, and when Mr.
Morris reached the house he was quite dead.
Mr. Morris, who was assisted by Mr. Lawrence, the
eminent surgeon, deposed to having made a post-mortem
examination of the body. and stated death to have
arisen from a diseased liver and kidneys. lie also
stated that he had examined the medicines, one of which
contained opium; and be further said that if the deceased
had been suffering from apoplexy, opium would stop the
natural secretions of the body and cause death.
It was here mentioned by a person in the inquest-
room, that the man who supplied the medicines repre-
sented the firm of Jordan and Co., Russell-street,
Bloomsbury-square, and although Mr. Morris, the sur-