The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-25 00:00:00

FUNDS.

Consols opened this morning at the prices they left off yes.
terday, 911 2- for the Account, and 91k1 for Money. TI e
Hebrews being still absent from the Stock Exchange, there is
little doing. Omnium, 41 -a premium ; Exchequer Bills,
18 20 ; India Bonds, 5 7 ; Bank Stock, 211 212.
In the Foreign Market M. Mendizabel's Address to the
Queen of Spain is looked upon in a favourable view ; in conse-
quence of which Spanish Bonds maintain yesterday's advance.
Spa724b, 45 to 45k; Spanish Scrip, 151 15 discount; Portu-
guese, 83-1- to 884: Three per Cents., 571 to 581 ; Colom-
bian, 341 to S 4; ; Mexican, 38 to 89; Dutch 2 per Cents.,
541 to 541.
M. Mendizabel's expose is expected every hour.
HALF-PAST ONE.

Consols are in a stagnant state ;up to half-past 12 o'clock
not a bargain was done f?r the Account ; and they may be
quoted at the opening prices, 6'4
.4 for Account, and 91i
for money.
Omnium, 4- prem. ; Exchequer Bills, 18 20 ; India Bonds,
4 6; Bank Stock, 211-12; India Stock, 2561.
In the Foreign Market, since the early part of the morning,
Spanish Bonds have improved from 45 Oto 451 e ; at pre-
sent they are 453-. Spanish Scrip, 15 per cent. discount ;
Colombian, 34/ ; Mexican, 38k; Dutch Two-and-a-Half per
Cents., 54f s ; Five per Cents., 103.
THREE O'CLOCK.
Consols for the Account, 91 I,

THE SUN, LONDON;

CITY .cw LONDON ELECTION.

REVISION OP VOTERS.—THIS DAY.
(Before Mr. TABILY N. )
The Court sat this moiling at half-past nine, and corn-
me'aced with the revision of the l'st for the parish of

ST. VEDAST, FOSTER-LANE.
The claim of N. H. Codes, of Chcapside, was opposed
by Mr. Goodeve, the Conservative agent, on the ground
that the rate had not been paid for twelve months. The
payment of the rate and King's taxes was proved, and the
objection was disallowed.
The name of Henry Kolle, senior, was struck out, he
having retired from business.
The claim of John Henry Koile was opposed by Mr.
Goodeve.

The claimant carried on business in the parish of St.
Mary AMprmanbury un lq Christrngs last. and frpm 4110
• at la theapsaide,t'under the title of kolic and Sons
He had paid aii the rt;;,:::: taxes *ince that time.
father had retired from business, and he VMS now inyart-
nerohip with his brother Charles, although the original title
of the firm vat* retained. He paid a rent of 420/. per
annum.

Mr. Goodeve contended, that the claim having been
made in the name of Kolle and Son, was not properly made.
Independently of this, the claimant had not proved that
he had paid the rate for twelve months previous to the
31st July.
It appeared on a subsequent examination that the King's
taxes were not paid till the 14th of August, and the objec-
tion was allowed.

ST. NICHOLAS ACONg.

Mr. TAMLYN gave judgment in two cases in th's parish,
which had been postponed from Monday last. The first
was that of Mr. P. Grenfell, and it appeared to him (Mr.
Tamlyn) that he had not resided for six month 3 previous
to the 31st of July, and therefore the objection must be al-
lowed. The other was that of Mr. James Hodgson, to
whose claim an objection had been taken by Mr. Trott. It
_ _

was not satisfactorily proved.to him (Mr. Tamlyn) that the
notice required by the Act had been given, and therefore
the claim of Mr, Hodgson must be disallowed.

WV, PEPPLetiIIV,

The claim of John Bull, of No, 17, Newcastle-street
was opposed by the Cpnservative party.—Objection disal
lowed.

John Bowles, of No. 11, Newcastle-street, was also ob-
jected to by the same party.
The claimant resides in Gough-square, and his wife occu-
pies a portion of the premises in Newcastle-street, and
another portion is let as lodgings. The portion occupied
by Mr. Bowles is worth more than 101. per annum.--Ob-
jection disallowed.
'The names of Joseph Buck, Charles Bull, William
Meek, Alexander M'Bride, and John Mcdbury, were also
objected to by the same party. In every case the claimant
proved his residence, value of premises, payment of rates
and taxes, and the objections were disallowed.
Mr. TAMLYN gave judgment in the case of Charles
Botton, which had been postponed from yesterday. The
objection taken to Mr. Goodeve was to the proof of resi-
dence. A witness had proved that the claimant had re-
sided on the premises for some years, but had never seen
him actually in bed. In his (Mr. Tamlyn's) opinion, the
proof of residence was sufficient, and the objection must
be disallowed.

Samuel Bateman—Objected to by the Conservative
party.

A witness proved that the house was rated at 81. per
annum, but it was worth 12/. or 16/.

Mr. Goodeve contended that the proof of value according
to the rating was under the sum required by the act.—
Objection disallowed.

Mr. CRAIG resumed at half-past 9 o'clock, and proceeded
to give judgment in several cases which stood over.
The Rev. John Antrobus, Rector of St. Andrew Un-
dershaft, claimed to have his name inserted on the list
of voters in respect to the rectory house, part of which he
occupied. The evidence showed that there was an en-
trance to that part of the factory house occupied by the
claimant from the church-yard, of which he kept the key.
There was another door leading into Leadenhall-street for
the use of the other inhabitants, but it was also occasion-
ally used by the claimant. The question in the case was,
did the separate hblding of that part of the premises en-
tered from the church-yard, constitute a sufficient hold-
ing for the purpose of entitling the claimant to have his name
put on the Registry.
After citing the pauper case of the King v. North Col-
lingham, Ist Barnewell and Cresswell, and several other
cases bearing on the point, the Learned Gentleman said he
was of opinion the claim had been made out ; the name was
accordingly added to the list.
Mr. J. S. Lilley claimed in respect of a house, situated
No. 63, St. Mary Axe. The evidence in the case showed
that, early in the year, the claimant had occupied a shop and
premises in Leadenhall-street, but afterwards moved into
the premises, out of which he claimed—both premises were
in the same parish, and therefore the occupation was con-
tinuous. The objection was, that the claim of Mr. Lilley
did not describe itself as for a continuous occupation, or
make any mention of the premises occupied by him in the
early part of the year, as required by the Act.
Mr. CRAIG said there was nothinc, in the form of the
notice of claim as set forth in the Act, or in the form of
the list of claims to be made out from those notices, that
would induce any person to suppose that any such descrip-
tion was necessary, and for that reason he should allow the
claim. The name was accordingly inserted in the registry.
Mr. Elias Aime Linds had sent in a claim to the over-
seer in these words, " as being a householder in your pa-
rish," without statiog his residence or the premises out of
which he claimed. The form In the Act was, "My qua-
lification consists of a house in street, in your parish."

Mr. CRAIG thought this notice insufficient. The claim
was therefore disallowed,

Mr. Rowcroft inquired whether this decision would
establish a precedent. He called the attention of the
court to the 79th section of the act which states, " That
no misnomer or inaccurate description of any person or
place named or described in any schedule to this act an-
nexed, or in any list or register of voters, or in any notice
required by this act, shall in anywise prevent or abridge
the operation of this act with respect to such person or
place, provided that such person or place shall be desig-
nated in such schedule,' list, register:, or notice, so as to be
commonly understood."
Mr. CRAIG said he had read that clause of the Act, but
in the case just decided there was no inaccurate description,
but an entire omission, and it could not be said that such
a notice would be " commonly understood."
Mr. Rowcroft had not the slightest intention of com-
plaining of the decision of the Court. He was perfectly,
aware the point was one of great nicety. A shade more
evidence would have warranted a different decision.

Mr. CRAIG could not decide otherwise than he bad done,
arm 0. as he was with such limited powers ; and most pro-
bably the decision would be of ultimate advantage, as it
would induce parties in future to pay more attention to the
forms of the Act when they sent in their claims.—Claim
disallowed.

The claim of Mr. Joseph Simpson, in which the same
objection applied, was also disallowed.
The case of John Stephenson, which was of the same na-
ture as that of Mr. Lilley's, was decided in the same way.
Name inserted.

Mr. Thomas Anti --y Watts had claimed as a " house-
holder in the parisu" merely, and the claim was held de-
fective.

There was the case of Mr. Herbert Marly. He occu-
pied four rooms of a house in London-Wall, his landlord
occupying the other part of the house. There were three
doors upon one landing, and there was a wicket gate 21
feet high in front of them. He kept a servant there, who
opened the door when be rung the bell. The landlord g'e•
nerally used a side-door, but he had the same right to the
front door as the claimant. The question was, whether
these rooms were to be called, or could be called, a house.
Mr. CRAIG was of opinion that there was no ground for
calling this a house—that was destroyed by the fact of there
being nothing to prevent the landlord from using the front
door as well as Mr. Manly. He did not think the wicket.
gate made any difference, for it was in proof that there was
no lock upon it, and any man might put over hill arm and
open it; —Claim disallowed.