The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-01 00:00:00

CURIOUS CLAIM FOR A COUNTY VOTE.

The case of two claimants (Messrs. Venn and Hutchin-
son), who resided in St. Mary, Islington, and the consi-
deration of whose claim had been reserved from White Con-
duit House, was decided at the commencement of this
day's proceedings.

It appeared that Messrs. Venn and Hutchinson claimed
in respect of two freehold fields detached from their houses,
but in their own occupation. They were objected to on the
ground that the lands, being occupied with houses within
the borough, could not give a direct qualification, though
the houses themselves were above 10/. in value.
Mr. MARTIN said that the intention of the Act was only
to exclude persons from voting in respect of freehold land
which actually confers a franchise for a borough, which is
not the case where the value of the house is of itself suffi-
cient. It was intended to prevent the same property in the
hands of one person being twice represented—not to de-
prive a party of his separate votes for two distinct qualifi-
cations. He should, therefore, retain the names of these
two gentlemen on the list.

CLAIM OF THE SHAREHOLDERS OF THE WEST INDIA DOCKS.
-RIGHT OF A BARRISTER TO BE HEARD BEFORE THE
REVISING BARRISTERS.

Two Directors of the West India Docks (Messrs. Crof-
tesworth And Hankay) claimed the right of voting as
shareholders of the West India Docks. They were ob-
jected to on the ground that they were members of a
Corporation.
Mr. MARTIN asked—Does any person appear in support
of these claimants ?

Mr. M‘Dowgal (a barrister)—Yes, I do.. I have a
written authority from one of the persons objected to to ap-
pear in his behalf. •
Mr. MARTIN—I cannot hear you, Mr. M'Dowgal ; you
are a member of the Chancery Bar, I think.
Mr. M'Dowgal--Yes, I am. But though I admit that
the words of the Act direct that these Courts shall not
be attended by " Counsel," I contend that I am not pre-
cluded from appearing here, because I do not necessarily
appear as Counsel.
Mr. MARTIN-But, Mr. M'Dowgal, I know you to be
a member of the Chancery Bar, and unless you mean seri-
ously to contend that the wearing of the wig and gown
alone constitute a barrister, I cannot for a moment listen to
you.—(A laugh.) lam willing, hoWever, to hear any
evidence, or to receive from you any information on this
question.

This proposal Mr. M'Dowgal declined, but instructed
Mr. Gregory on the point, who proceeded to argue that the
lands out of which the Directors claimed were vested in
them as Directors, and that they had a freAold interest
therein.

Mr. MARTIN—I'II just ask you one question, Mr. Gre-
gory. How is this property transmitted—by conveyance ?
Mr. Gregory—No.
Mr. MARTIN—Then it is transmitted by succession, and
that is conclusive as to the incorporation of this'Company.
I need scarcely add that by a clear provision of the law
members of a Corporation cannot claim out of corporate
property. I feel bound to make this remark also upon this
case, that idle claim does not appear to me to have had the
shadow of a shade of reason to rest upon.
At the close of the day the numbers in Mr. Martin's
Court were as follow :

• ST. PAUL, SHAUWELL.—Tories, 12 ; sustained, 3 ;
Oveseers, 5 ; sustained, 5.
ST. MARY, STRATFORD-LE-BOW.—Torks, S ; .sustained,
1 ; Overseers, 13 ; sustained, 12.
- ALL SAINTS, PorLAß.—Tories, 20 ; sustained, 2 ;
Overseers, 22 ; sustained, 12 ; adjourned, 1.

KENT (EAST.)
CANTERBURY-WEDNESDAY.

BEFORE MESSRS. HOLLIST AND GURNEY.

Wednesday morning, the Revising Barristers for the
Eastern Division of the county of Kent, presided together
at the Guildhall in consequence of the arrival of Messrs.
BOSANQUET and RYLARD, the Barristers appointed to re-
vise the lists for the city of Canterbury.
Thomas Wanstall, of Eddington, was objected to, on the
ground that be was not possessed of freehold property of
the annual value of 40s. It appeared that the claimant
was entitled to afifth share of seven cottages at Eddington,
which had been bequeathed to him and his four brothers,
and yielded an income of 401. per annum. He had claimed
for a " freehold house." One of the brothers was insolvent,
and had transferred his property to trustees.
Mr. GURNEY said, although the claimant was entitled
to the fifth part of the produce of each house, he could not
claim for any one of them until the property had been le-
gally divided.—Name expunged.
The claims of the parish clerks of Littlebourne and Pel-
ham were expunged, and that of Hoath retained.
Thomas Head, residing in St. John's Hospital, Hacking-
ston, claimed to vote for freehold land, known as Brother-
hood Farm, which is attached to it.

George Austen Prior proved that he (Head) derived
81. per year from the freehold, in addition to 1/. as. which
he considered the wood was worth that was annually dis-
tributed to the brothers.
The claim was allowed.

After the disposal of a few cases ofno interest, the Court
broke up, and the Revising Barristers for the county pro-
ceeded on their way to Ramsgate.

TILE CITY OF CANTERBURY.

Yesterday A. RYLAND, Esq., and S. R. BOSANQUET,
Esq., the Barristers appointed to revise the list of voters
'for the city of Canterbury, opened their Court at the
Town Hall, which was crowded to excess, the most lively
interest and the deepest anxiety existing amongst the citi-
zens as to the result of the registration. At the last elec-
tion a contest took place for the representing this city : a
petition was presented against the return of S. Lushing-
ton, Esq., *but be was dec►ared duly elected. The majo-
rity, however, was small, and ever since then both parties
have been using every exertion'to strengthen their ranks—
nearly 600 persons have been objected to, out of which
about 120 are freemen.

(Before Mr. RYLAND.)
The Learned Barrister was occupied the whole of the
day in hearing the cases of the freemen who had been ob-
jected to i but no case of interest transpired. Several
were objected to, 44 the ground of having received pare-
relief.

(Before Mr. BosANoupv.)
THE PREEEIIO4AJES OF CANTERBURY c#74Emup.
Dr.. J Evelyn Boseawen, pne of the Prebendaries of
Canterbury Cathedral (who had been declared entitled to
a vote f..2r the county) now claimed to be registered as an
elector for the c:`;; right of a freehold house attaphed
to his prebendal stall.
Mr. Wilkinson opposed the registration, and examined
Dr. Russell, who appeared on behalf of DA Boscawen,