The Sun.
London, England, 1846-09-18 00:00:00

HERTFORD.

The adjourned Court of Revision of 'voters for this
county was heldon Wedneiday;before 3,1 r. J. Espinasse,
at the King's Anus, Watford.
E. R. Spence and J. F. Bontems, Escp., attended'as
the free.trade agents, and C. E. Grover, Esq., attended

as the Conservative agent.
Arthur John Moore, whose name appeared in the
Northchurch list of voters as follows :—Flace of abode,
" 33, Queen Anne-street, Cavendish-square;" nature of
qualification, "fee-farm rent" "Augustus Smith,
owner," was objected to by the free-trade party.
A gentleman from. London was called by the Conser-
vatives to prove the qualification, and gave the follow-
ing evidence:—l know Mr. Arthur Jobn Moore—be is
possessed of a fee-farm rent in the parish of North-
church—it is of the value of 40s. and upwards, and has
been in possession of it more than six months,
Cross-examined—Mr. Moore does not reside at 33,
Queen Anne-street, but at 4, Upper Harley-street; he
did reside at Queen Anne-street, but has removed. The
property is situate at Northchurch, and is known by the
name of the" New Lodge."
Mr. Spence submitted that this was a good objection,
inasmuch as the voter had left Queen Anne- street.
The witness called upon the Barrister to award him
the utmost amount of costs he had the power to do.
Mr. Espinasse —I believe you are a solicitor?
Witness—l am. 4
Mr. Espinasse—Then in that case I shall award you
the sum of twenty shillings.
Mr. Spence here rose, and said he was perfectly sur-
prised that such a decision should be come to. Ile had
taken his objection because the voter was not residing
as described in the list, which under the provisions of
the Registration Act was a perfectly bona fide objection,
and one for which costs could not with justice be awarded
against him. He would further urge upon the barrister
the necessity of the full description of the situation of
the property being set forth in the list. It was proved
that the property was known by the name of " New
Lodge," and therefore called upon the Barrister to insert
the situation of the property under the provisions cf the
Act, which enacted that in cases of rent charge, not
only the owner's name should be given, but also the
situation of the property.
Mr. Espinasse said he did not think it necessary to
state anything more in the fourth column than the
owner's name, as by that the objector could easily find
the property.
Mr. Stem said the owner resided at Scilly, and he
could not understand upon what hypothesis it could be
contended that the fact of a person residing in Scilly
was a sufficient identification of property in Hertford.
Mr. Espinasse was of opinion it did; had the objector
made inquiries, be would have ascertained whether the
claimant was entitled to the property.
Mr. Spence thought it a great hardship to be com-
pelled to go to Scilly to find Mr. Smith ; and then to
ascertain whether he had granted the rent-charge—the
heading of the list was perfectly clear upon the subject.
Mr. Espinasse—The Act says that the notice may be
given " to the like effect," and the description in this case
was to the like effect.
Mr. Spence submitted that it was the " notice," and
not the description of the situation of property that might
be given to the like effect. He would still submit be was
not liable to any costs on that ground, and also on ac-
count of the party having removed.
Mr. Espinasse—l think that no ground of objection,

nay, I think it-is a frivolous and vexatious one; and shall
give the witness the utmost amount of costs I can.
Mr. Spence—Then, Sir, I must certainly ask for a case
of appeal.
Mr. Espinasse—Then I shall certainly not give it you.
The costs were paid, and the name retained.
Another case, similar to the above, was then taken—
namely, that of Mr. Charles Henry Moore. The ob-
jector said he did not intend, after the decision gives, to
proceed with that objection.
The witness in the last case again claimed costs.
It was then contended by the free-traders that there
was no case before the Court, as no objection bad been
proved. The duty of the Barrister only commenced
after the notice had been proved, and not before. By
the 40th sec. of the 6 Vic., cap. 18, it was enacted, " that
any person objecting to any other person who shall ap-
pear in support of such objection, if he shall prove that he
gave the notice required by this Act, the Barrister shall
then require it to be proved that the claimant was en-
titled to vote." It was evident by the word " then" that
the Barrister could not decide that the objection was
frivolous, groundless, and vexatious, without having first
proved before him that the objector had given the no-
tices required.
Mr.Espinasse—l have the objection put into my hand,
and the Act gives me power to award costs when it ap-
pears to me to be right—l shall therefore award
twenty shillings to the witness.
Mr. Spence hoped the Barrister would not adjudicate
upon the case without having first heard the objection;
the description in the list was on " fee-farm rent," with-
out stating upon what property it was charged, whether
houses or land, which he submitted was necessary.
Mr. Espinasse was of a'contrary opinion, and awarded
20s. costs. Much disapprobation was manifested in
Court by both sides (excepting the witness) upon these
decisions.

William Brown was objected to, in the Wigginton list,
by the free-traders, on the ground of misdescription. His
name was entered-in the list as residing at " Tring,"
nature of qualification, "freehold cottages," situation,
" next the common."

Mr. Brown was in attendance. The property for which
he claimed was next Wigginton-common, which was a
long and narrow meadow. There were many houses on
it besides his own. The cottages were not known by any
name, but they were let to various tenants.
Mr. Spence laid before the Court the judgment of the
)ate Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Common Pleas
in the case of Eckersley v. Barker, of which the follow-
ing is an extract:—" The direction at the head of the
form No. 2 (the notice of claim) appears to us to
intend that the house and premises are not in a street,
lane, or other like place, but in a road, or on a com-
mon, or the like, then the name of the property should
be given, if known by any, or the name of the occupy-
ing tenant;" and he submitted to the Court that it
was necessary that the tenant's name should be in-
serted.

Mr. Espinasse said that however much he respected
the opinion of the late lamented and Learned Judge,
yet he thought his Lordship could not have contem-
plated all cases that might occur, and as the heading of
the fourth column stated that the " street, lane, or other
like place, should be given," he was clearly of opinion
that the voter had done so by giving the description
" next the common," which was a like place.
Mr. Spence submitted that it was " the street or lane "
that should be given, and not " next the common." It
might be at this end or at the other end, or at any part
of the common, from the whole two miles of road.
Mr. Espinasse thought it was an " other like place."
Mr. Spence—What a common like a street or lane?

Mr. Espinasse—Yes, it is an " other like place."
The Barrister then awarded twenty shillings costs,
which were paid,. but fifteen shillings were afterwards
refunded owing to the claimant not being able to show
that he had incurred any "costs" in attending, except
for the keep of his horse.
Mr Spence afterwards drew the attention of the Court
to the fact that Mr. Espinasse had been making the very
alterations in the description that he had been contend-
ing for, which produced quite a titter in Court. The
whole of the Conservative notices were again thrown
over, owing to their not having set forth the voters' re-
sidince in the notices.

The following is the result of the day's revision:—
By Free-traders. By Conservatives,
Liberals struck off 4O 25
Conservatives struck off 26 16

66 41
Making a total majority, in favour of the free-traders,
on the two days' revision, of 81.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.
SHERIFFS' COURT, September 17. r,
(Before Mr. Under-Sheriff BuncAELL.)
LEMARGE V. HART •
LIABILITY OF SURETIES TO LOAN SOCIETIES.—This
was an action to recover the sum of 171. 7s. 4d., for
money paid for and on account of the defendant.
Mr. THOMAS stated the case. The plaintiff and de-
fendant were both sureties, with three other persons. to
a loan company for a sum of 721., and actions were
brought against them, and the plaintiff paid the debt and
costs, and now sued the defendant for his contribution.

Mr. Webster, the manager of the loan-office, was
called, and proved that the money had been advanced to
a person named Holroyd, and plaintiff had been sued for
it by Mr. Thomas Bevan Jones, who was the only person
advancing the money. The money was paid to him by
his solicitor, Mr. Shepherd.
A receipt, signed by Mr. Shepherd, was then put in.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that the mere production
of a receipt was not evidence of a payment. It might
have been paid by some other person than the plaintiff.'
Mr. THOMAS said that Mr. Shepherd was not in at-
tendance.

The UNDER-SHERIFF said that there being ho evi-
dence of the payment by plaintiff, he must be non-suited.
Mr. THOMAS said he w ould withdraw the record.
The UNDER-SHERIFF said that could not be done after
thejury was sworn, except by consent.
Mr. THOMAS then desired that Mr. Shepherd should
be called on his subpoena, which was done in this and the
next case, against another of the directors, the Learned
Counsel contending that he was entitled to call his wit-
ness before the jury was sworn, and to withdraw the
record.

The plaintiff was non-suited in the first case, and the
record withdrawn in the next.

Mr; THOMAS applied to have the writ retained, as he
had not consented to the non-suit, but it was by the
direction of the Court.

The UNDER-SHERIFF said that he entertained no doubt
of the non-suit being correct. The Learned Counse
might apply to a judge at Chambers.

CLARKE V. ELLIS.

This was an action to recover the sum of 51. 17s. 9d.
The defendant pleaded that he was not indebted.
The facts of the ease were these :—The plaintiff is a
tailor, and the defendant formerly carried on business
with his brother as a woollen-draper, in Lawrence-lane,
City. For the plaintiff, it was sworn, that the goods,
consisting of articles of dress, were supplied to the
arm.

Mr. Stammer, for the defendant, contended that this
could_ not have been the case, and called John Walker
Ellis, the defendant's brother, who swore that he had a
private account with plaintiff, and the goods were sup-
plied in reduction of a debt due to him, and, his brother
bought a coat, &c., of him. The witness had become
bankrupt after the dissolution of partnership. The
plaintiff refused to produce his ledger to show to
whom be had given credit.
The' jury immediately gave a verdict for the de-
fendant.

SURREY SESSIONS.
' (Before THOMAS PUCKLE, Esq.)
SINGULAR CASE.—It illiam Brawn, a respectable-
looking youth, about fifteen years of age, was indicted
for feloniously stealing a velvet cap from the shop of
Mr. Grove, outfitter, New• cut, Lambeth.
William EdWard' Grove, son to the prosecutor, said
that about eight o'clock on the evening of Saturday, the
26th of August last, the prisoner entered the shop, and
requested to look at some caps. Witness opened the
drawer in which the caps were deposited, and showed him
several. The prisoner declined purchasing, and requested
him to bring a blouse for his companion, which they
purchased, and left the shop. He instantly perceived
that the prisoner had stolen a velvet cap and left his old
cap in the drawer among the new ones. He ran after
him and brought him back, when he asked him whether
that was his cap which he then wore? The prisoner
replied " No, it is a mistake, I have left mine behind."
Witness then called a policeman and gave him into
custody. When in the shop the prisoner said that his
cap was similar to the one be had on his head, and offered
to purchase it.
George Baker, shopman to the prosecutor, said that
he showed the prisoner several caps on the evening in
question, one of which was a velvet one, for which he
asked him two shillings and sixpence, and at the 'same
time placed it on his head. The prisoner refused to
give any more than one shilling and sixpence for it, and
went to another part of the shop where the blouses were
kept. Witness went to him again and told him he coda
have it for one shilling and ninepence, the lowest price.
The prisoner refused to give more than he offered. He
saw nothing more of him until he was brought back to
the shop with the cap in his possession. When he put
the velvet cap on the prisoner's head he had his old one
in his hand.
Thomas George Painter—Saw the prisoner enter the
shop on the evening in question, and proceed to the cap
drawer. , After a few minutes he saw him pitch his own
cap into the drawers, and place the new velvet one on
her head and proceed to the other part of the shop,
where the blouses are kept, and having purchased one
he left the shop with his companion. Witness went after
him and asked him if the cap on his head was his own.
He answered in theaffirmativo; but, afterlooking at it, he
exclaimed it was a mistake,—the cap did not belong to
him. He dun told the prisoner that he had been at
that game before on the Saturday previous, and be
should now give him ir.to custody. -Three months ago
the prisoner stole a cap and a velvet waistcoat : at that
time he only purchased a common blouse.
Mr. CHARNOCK addressed the jury at some length on
behalf of the prisoner, and contended that the cap was
taken away by mistake. He was the son of a respectable
tradesman, and at the time he went into prosecutor's
shop was pos;essed of money to make the purchase.
The Learned Counsel called the prisoner's mother, who
denied the witness Painter's statement,
Mr. Vincent, the news-agent of the Blackfriars-road,
gave the ,prisoner an excellent character for honesty,
having entrusted him to collect large sums of money
from his customers.

The CHAIRMANMinuteIy went through the whole of
the evidence, and after half-an-hour's deliberation the
jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.

IRISH ORE.—A vessel arrived in the river from
Belfast, has brought the large quantity of fifty-one tons
weight of lead ore, the production of that part of the
sister kingdom.