The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-28 00:00:00

Tv OF I ONDON ELECTLON.

REVISION 0 VOTERS.—THIS DAY.
The Court sat (Adore Mr. TAMAN. )
'this awning at half-past nine
T STEVEN'S, COLEMAN-9t T.
Gat
-1.-14,-YN gave judgment In the case of Thomas
on ,es rJarton, to whose claim an objection had been taken
The question turned upon tho variCuty of the
al-mg. The claimant's name appeared upon the rate made
September 1834, but the Rouse was marked empty.
The Collector stated that he bad so marked it, because he
believed it was empty, but he afterwards ascertained that
Mr. Darton had resided there during the entire period from
Lady-day 1834, and the rates were paid by the claimant.
Udder these circumstances, he (Mr. Tamlyn) was of opi-
nion that the rating was good, and the objection must be
'Edward Griffiths.—This case was nearly similar in its
circumstances, and an objection bad been taken by the same
I)artY. Judgment as abovo.—Objection disallowed.
There were four other objections taiten by Mr. Rogers,
oo the ground of the claimants not being rated, which
diedrenoatllozpeeda.r, In eight other cases of claims, the parties
and their names were struck out of the list.
Mr. TASAILYN intimated his intention of giving judgment
to-
trierrvw upon the case of Mr. Salomons, the sheriff elect,
and others who had obtained their livery by redemption
::lusequent to the Ist of March, 1831, which had been
rent(' at the commencement of the proceedings.

BEFORE MR, CRAIG.
The Court again sat at half-past nine o'clock. .
ST. BOTOLPH, ALDGATE.
At the sitting of the Court, Mr. CRAIG gaveludgment
in the case of 111 F. Thomas Dick, who had claimed to be
:tut en the register in respect of a house occupied by him
N°. 3. Circus, Minories. The question before the Court
,vas, bad Mr. Dick claimed to be rated to the poor-rate,
;e in the form and manner required by the Act. As he
the considered the case as one of much importance, and as
decision in it would govern many other cases, he had
"en time to give the case mature consideration. It ap-
Zed from the' evidence, that previous to the month
a,E October last, a 111 r. Hoare, a gentleman who had
co a very active part in a parochial Committee,
'or so anxious to have all persons paying a rental
be 15/. a year qualified to be put on the registry, that
4made out a list of such persons in the parish who were
14 rated to the poor, and at the next vestry moved that
names in his list should be put on the rate-book. The
o terseers objected to this plan on the ground of its being
waste of time, and that it would cause much delay in
-"e Making of the rate. Mr. Hoare then proposed a few
arsons by name, and requested that they might be rated.
e Overseers again objected, and Mr. Hoare protested
tarinst the decision of the Vestry. It did not appear in
Le., evidence that any of the persons in Mr. Hoare's list
`"'n authorised him to claim on their behalf to have their
names put on the rate-book. There was no evidence either
that Mr. Dick was insertedin that list, and even if it was,
was no evidence given to show that he had authorised
a"' name to be so - inserted at the time, or that he had
:Proved of it afterwards ; on the latter point the evidence
cleatso show, merely, that Mr. Dick having heard of the
A put in by Mr. Hoare, expressed his approbation of
j'• Hoare's attempt to enfranchise the inhabitants gene-
The claim of Mr. Hoare could not be considered
ha claim made by Mr. Dick, or any of those persons
"tinled in Mr. Hoare's list. It was impossible to consider
m as good claims in the absence of evidence to show
authority given by Mr. Hoare for the purpose. Under
these:i circumstances, however reluctantly, he was obliged to
'sallow the claim. This decides many other claims made
this Parish in a similar manner.
IN THE CASE OF MOSES LYONS,
juo4r. CRAIG said in this case he was prepared to give his
'gment upon only one point—that was, whether a pay-
inent of a rate by a landlord on the part of the tenant (who
'vas rated) was such a payment by the tenant as would
eKc ntitle him to have his name placed on the list of voters.
`had consulted with his learned colleague upon the sub-
ect, and both he and his colleague were of opinion that it
as a sufficient payment according to the legal maxim—
Aus faCit per alium facit per se. He would give his judg-
ment on the other points to-morrow morning.
a Mr. Archer claimed to be registered for the occupation of
3'rd and steam-engine house. The rates, &c. were all
rag), and the claim was allowed. While Mr. Archer was
niter examination,
t, Mr. Rowcroft complained that some persons had prompted
ne witness, who was on his oath. Such conduct had been
a:, very frequent that he felt it his duty to call the attention
the Court to the subject,
Mv. CRAIG said them could be no doubt that such con-
duct not only improper, but illegal. He had noticed it
trequentlY, but F. 13 far as his observation went, it was by no
earls confined to one side. He must desire that such im-
r'oPer conduct be not repeated.