The Sun.
London, England, 1834-10-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, SATURDAY, OCTOBER 4, 1834.

and the necessity of the case required it, he should make
tto order as prayed by the creditors. -
Ordered-ns prayed.
The fiat was then obtained, and immediately opened.

she had also takeniessons. After much demurring it was
elicited from her by the Commissioners that Esther had been
first introduced to the plaintiff by herself, at a ball given by
him to his pupils about a year since, to which she had per-
suaded her to go, whilse she was staying at her house on a
visit. Being touched by the " gay and festive scene," and
smitten, she became enamoured with-him, and was accord-
ingly a continual visitor at Miss Wells' house, when she had
frequent opportunities of seeinc, him. After a short time
the acquaintance ripened into an intimacy of a more tender
and " friendly" character, which continued (of course un-
known to the father) for about eight months, when, in con-
sequence of his paying Miss Wells more attention than she
thought he ought to do, the " green-eyed monster" (of
whose influence it would seem even Quakeresses are sus-
ceptible) caused a quarrel to take place between them.
Defendant, who appeared much hurt at the disclosure,
addressed his daughter, who kept her handkerchief to her
face, and said, " Esther, why bath Satan influenced thee to
deceive me and tell me an untruth ? Had I known this
thou shouldst not have come here."

REVISING BARRISTERS' COURT.

CITY OF WESTMINSTER.

:3IPORTANT DECISION RESPECTING THE RIGHT or TE-

WANTS TO VOTE.

The list of voters residing in Hackney stood adjourned
to yesterday morning from the. Tower Hamlets, for the con-
sideration of no less than 68 cases objected to.
Mr. COVENTRY, in giving his decision upon the question,
spoke to the following effect :—The principal question in
this list is, whether the landlords of small houses in this
parish are entitled to a vote for the county when their te-
nants may have, if they were rated, a vote for the borough
of the Tower Hamlets. It was alleged that the tenants
cannot be registered for the borough because the landlord
stood rated on the books of the parish, and was made liable
—by local Act of Parliament—for all rates which his te-
nant may omit to pay. It was a proper precaution on the
part of the parish to render builders who erect small houses
responsible for that class of tenantry which they thus intro-
duce to the district. The simple question was, whether
those houses are of sufficient value to confer on the tenants
the borough franchise, within the 27th section, which de-
clares that every male person who shall occupy as owner or
tenant any house of the clear yearly value of not less than
ten pounds, shall be entitled to vote for, the city or borough
wherein it is situate, provided each person shall have occu-
pied the premises twelve months, and have been rated to
the poor during such his occupation. Now it was said that
these tenants had not been rated to the poor during the
preceding twelve months, and moreover, that they could not ,
be so rated in consequence of the Local Act declaring
that the landlord alone shall be liable for the poor '
rates. It would, however, be found, on reference to the
Act in question, that the parish authorities are not prohi-
bited from rating the tenants if they prefer the security of
the tenant to the landlord ; and the 30th section of the
Reform Act expressly provided for that very case, namely,
that if the landlord is liable for and paid the poor rate, the
tenant may claim to be rated, and upon so claiming, and
actually paying or tendering the full amount of the rates, if
any then due, the overseers are required to put the name
of the occupier on the rate for the time being, and in case
they shall neglect or refuse so to do, such occupier shall,
for the purposes of that Act, but only for those purposes,
be deemed to be rated. If, therefore, the tenant should be
obliged to pay any rates which his landlord had omitted to ,
pay, he might deduct the same out of his rent, he having
agreed to pay a certain sum annually free of all rates and
taxes. Up to this point it was quite clear that the tenants
might, by using due diligence, acquire the borough fran-
chise. But there was one other point which had not been
urged against these objections, namely, that the 27th sec-
tion of the Reform Act required the occupier not only to
be rated, but to have paid the rates. It was true that the
30th section merely said that the party claiming to be rated
should be deemed to have been rated, and not that he
should be deemed to have paid the rates. That, however,
must necessarily be implied, for he was deemed to be rated
during the period for which be claimed, and in contempla-
tion of the claim is evidently rendered liable for any rate
that remained unpaid ; so that if there were no rates due
when he made the claim he would not be liable for any,
and, not being liable, he must be considered as having
paid the rates up to the 20th of July in each year, within
the spirit and meaning of the 27th clause. The words
" unless such person shall have paid" in that clause meant
unless he, or some other person on his behalf, had paid the
rates. Now here the landlord had paid the rates for his
tenant, and the claiming to be rated must be deemed not
only as actually rated, but as having paid the rates, and
which in reality he did, or was liable to do, by agreeing to
pay an additional rent. On the whole the Learned Gen-
tleman was of opinion that this case fell within the 25th
section of the Reform Act, which deprived the landlord of
his vote for the county for the same property which gave
his tenant a right to vote for a borough, whether in the
words of the Act the tenant " shall, or shall not, have ac-
tually acquired the right to vote in respect thereof." The
Learned Gentleman also stated that many objections raised
in the district in which they were assembled turned upon
precisely the same point, and therefore his decision now
would prevent the necessity of his stating the grounds of
his adjudication in each case.
Mr. KEENE said that the claim to be rated, if made in due
time, and tender of payment of rates by the tenant; placed
the tenant in the same situation as if he had been rated and
payment had actually been made. There being nothing,
therefore, to prevent the occupier from acquiring the right
to vote for the borough so far as the voting was concerned,
the question resolved itself into one of value. Now there
was only one state of circumstances under which a person
claiming to vote for the county in respect of leasehold
houses situated in a borough could sustain his claim, and
that was, where the houses were separately of insufficient
value to confer upon the occupier a right of voting for the
borough, but in the aggregate of sufficient value to entitle
the landlord to the county franchise. He concurred in all
the observations of his Learned Colleague, and he should
not have added any thing to what had fallen from him, had
it not been that so large a number of claims depended upon
the application of these principles ; and it might be satis-
factory, therefore, to the claimants to know that there was
no difference of opinion.

The Commissioners interrupted him, and said that al-
though it was evident from the evidence • of Miss Wells
(who, by -the by, had done herself no credit) that Miss
Smith had been " tripping" with the plaintiff unknown to
him, still they had great doubts that he had any intention to
charge for lessons until the quarrel took place between
them. They should therefore dismiss the summons.
The defendant, taking out his purse, gave it to his daugh-
ter, saying, " Esther, what thou owest pay." She accord-
ingly took out two sovereigns and laid them down, which
the plaintiff took up and pocketed. All the parties then
quitted the Court.

PALACE COURT, OCT. 3.

POOR LAWS AMENDMENT.

ST. MARYLEBONE BOARD OF GUARDIANS AND DIRECTORS,

The above Board met yesterday morning at the work-
house. After the usual business of the Board had been
disposed of, the consideration of the questions of the Secre-
tary of the Poor Law Commissioners was brought on.

The Chairman, Mr. REDWOOD, having read the ques-
tions to,the Board,
Mr. POTTER said the subject before them was not the
propriety or the impropriety of opposing a measure that
had become the law of the land, but whether they should be
one of the first Boards to pay deference to the Poor Law
Commissioners in their riding over the legislative govern-
ment of parishes, or whether they should defer the taking
any notice of the communication from the Commissioners,
until some future period. The resolution he had to pro-
pose was—" That the further consideration of the questions
of the Nor Law Commissioners be postponed sine die,
and he did hope that the resolution would be carried.
Mr. LANGIIAM seconded the resolution.
Mr. KNOCK did not wish to divide the Board on the
question.

Mr. SODEN supported the motion.
Dr. HARRISON would wish the question to be postponed
that the Board might be specially summoned.
The churchwarden (Mr. Hodgkinson) obserV-ed that this
was an adjourned discussion, and that the Board had been
specially summoned to attend it.
The CHAIRMAN should hardly feel it consistent as a
guardian and director of the poor to put the question for the
consideration of the motion sine die. While he was a di-
rector and guardian he was bound to execute the laws, and
a resolution refusing to comply with the law would appear
so inconsistent that he could scarcely put it. If the reso-
lution were carried, and he saw the Board determined to
act upon it, he was sure that his presence would be so far
from advancing the general good of the parish that he should
feel bound to withdraw from the Board.

After considerable discussion upon postponing the ques-
tion fora fortnight or a month,

Dr. HARnisoN moved an adjournment of the question for
the former period ; the amendment having been seconded,
After a reply from Mr. POTTER, the motion for the ad-
journment of the question sine die was then put and carried.