The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-24 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON ELECTION.

EVISION OF VOTERS.-THIS DAY.

efore Mr. TAMLYN.)
The CooRT sate at half-past nine o'clock, and commenced
with the revision of the parish of
ST. PETER LE-POER.
MThe claim of Charles Andrew Bedel was supported by
r. Rowcroft.
The notice served upon the overseers was put in, and ob-
jected to by Mr. Trott, on the ground that there was no
proof that the notice had been signed by the claimant.
Mr. TAMLYN said the Act required that the notice of
claim should be signed, but did not say by whom.
Mr. Trott—If the present notice is to be considered
good I might sign notices for every person residing in the
City of London without an authority.
Mr. TAMLYN—I see the evil that might result from it.
Mr. Rowcroft—As the party himself does not think
Proper
n to appear, I shall not press the claim.—Claim
dis-
he claims of John Chalmers and William Dallas were
also withdrawn by Mr. Rowcroft, the parties not being in
attendance.
The claim of John Dale, 65, Old Broad-Street, by the
same party, was also withdrawn, the qualification being
defective. •
_ The next claim was that of Daniel Ferard, 22, Austin-
Friars, which was supported by Mr. Rowcroft.
Mr. Trott objected to the notice. There were claims
wade by Mr. Ferrard, and by his partner, Mr. Harvey
Jones, and only one notice had been served. Now the Act
required that a claim should be made by " every person
emitted from the list."
Mr. Rowcroft contended that the words " or to the like
effect," in a subsequent part of the clause were clearly in-
troduced for the puose of giving a latitude to the claim-
Independentlyrp of this, the two names were published
M the list of claimants.—Objection over-ruled.
Mr. Gibbs, the Vestry Clerk, deposed that the claim-
ant
was not rated for twelve months for the relief of
the poor.
Mr. Rowcroft—Then I won't press the claim.—Claim
disallowed.
When Oliver Hanson's claim with also withdrawn by
Mr. Rowcroft,
The case of Gowling, which had been postponed
froth yesterday evening, was then called on.
A witness proved a tender of the assessed taxes by the
elaimarrt, and the claim was allowed.
T▪ he claims of John Humphreys, 16, Old Broad-street,
-.Award I-f.'nton, 8, Warnford-court, Throgmorton-street ;
and Harvey B. Jones, 22, Austin-friars, were supported
1)Y Mr. Rowcroft, but subsequently abandoned, they not
having been rate,i for twelve months.
The claim of Venjamin Kilburn, 1, Great Winchester-
street, was proceeded with, but it did not appear that his
name was entered upon the rate books.
Mr. Rowcroft said was a case of very great hardship
4allirow ed
• iv- Kilburn was the person who paid the rates.—Claim

PENALTIES ON. OVERSEERS.
tl Mr. Rowcroft would have a case or two to submit to
_le Court at the close of the pfoceedinaffs relative to the
20nduct of certain overseers, in which he should ask to
recover a penalty of 5001.
an e• Mr. TAMLYN—I implore your mercy on them for this
L e.
most Rowcroft—(with much vehemence)—If I prove the
parlti gross partiality by an overseer to a Forty-man of his
eular party, I think that would be a fit case for punish-
blent.

Mr. TAIILYN-it certainly would.
1‘11.• Rowcroft—l do not allude to any overseer present.
The claims of James Bogue Lobb, David Morgav, D.
R 3 an, Morgan, Edward Pearce, John G. Perkins, los.
j4031n, George Scholfield, Fred. Lyratt, George 0. Stevens,
seph Tibbs, George A. Walker, and George Wright,
Vt forward by Mr. Rowcroft ; and of John Robertson and
zionWilliam Scott, supported by Mr. Trott, were withdrawn,
die parties having been rated for 12 months.
m_tiere wore altogether upwards of 30 claims, all of
i
'eh were d2sallowed on the above grounds.
Ob.
ections were taken to the claims of two persons,
trouil Peter Dacthey and Stanislaus Darthey, by Mr. Row-
_t, and the parties not appearing their names were ex-
punged from the list.
TAMLYN said there were one or two cases which
eas been Postponed for further argument. One was the
eof °f Mr. Robert Edward Johnston, and the other that
'‘l, r• Tatham. The question in one case was, whether a
Part,at3.llaving removed from one house to another, without
Patio 310 g it, was in a conditiotzs to prove continuous o
ten ; and in the other, whether a party, being a ccu-joint
/I.t, should not have set that forth in his notice.
40ti4r Rowcroft was heard in support of the validity of the
Ae,es, and Mr. Trott on the other side.
TAltrArN said he should give his decision on the
question tmorrow morning.