The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-17 00:00:00

COMPANY.

To-morrow (this day) an important, and it is expected
lengthened discussion, will take place before the Revising
Barrister respecting the right of the above Company to vote
for the County Members. Considerable interest is attached
to the case.
The list for the borough of Maidstone will be revised by
Messrs. Fish and Brockman on Monday, which will com-
plete their labours.

SURREY, (EAST.)
Yesterday the Revising Banisters took their scats at the
usual hour in the Sessions House, Horsemonger-lane, to re-
vise the list of the county voters for the parish of Newing-
ton and Streatham, and also for those situate within the
Borough.

(Before Mr. Kxox.)
IMPORTANT CASE.—Mr. Dymes, the vestry clerk, ap-
peared to support the claims of thirty-two gentlemen who
claimed under the following circumstances :—Many years
ago some property in the parish of St. Saviour's, which now
let to the amount of 2501. a year, was left in trust, " for
the common use and benefit of the inhabitants of St. Mil-
dred's, Bread-street." The funds arising therefrom had
been expended in the defraying of such charges as church
rates and poor rates. The parishioners amounted to fifty
only, and Mr. Dymes contended that they had a freehold
interest in that fund, and that they each had it to the
amount specified by the Act.
Mr. Corner contended that the interest of the parish-
ioners in that property being limited to them in their capa-
city as parishioners, it was not a freehold interest.
Mr. KNOX in giving judgment said he was bound to
allow the claims.

(Before Mr. LENNARD.)
ST. THOMAS'S.
Mr. John Curling was objected to by Mr. Luttley, but
the notice of objection failed, it having been left at the
office of claimant, and not at his usual place of residence ;
the claim was therefore allowed.
Mr. Edward Meymott shortly afterwards entered from
the other Court, and applied to have the case re-heard, on
the ground that although the notice of objection had not
been sufficiently proved, still that the claim was bad upon
the face of it. Mr. Curling had claimed a county vote in
respect of his occupying premises within a borough. This
was no qualification whatever ; and when Mr. Curling made
the claim he must have known it to be no qualification.
Mr. LENNARD said that if the point had been raised at
the time he certainly should have expunged the name of
Mr. Curling, even without objection.
Mr. Weymott subsequently, with the consent of Mr.
Lennard, brought the case before both Learned Barristers.
Mr. KNOX was unwilling to disturb the decision of Mr.
Lennard, and

Mr. LENNARD repeated his former decision.
Mr. E. Meymott said that Mr. Curling possessed no
qualification whatever for a county vote, and he would take
care to see that the vote should be watched at the next
election. . . . . .

Mr. Curling appeared indignant that such an insult should
have been offered to him, and said he flung back Mr. Mey-
►nott's observation with contempt.
Mr. E. Meymott, with equal warmth, cared not for Mr.
Curling's contempt. He knew very well how to value that.
If Mr. Curling considered his observations an intended in-
sult he was welcome to it. He apologised to the Court for
having, in a moment of warmth, forgotten the presence o"
the Learned Barristers.
The following table shows the result of to-day's ob•
jections