The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-26 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON ELECTION.

REVISION OF VOTERS.—THIS DAY.
(Before Mr. TAMLYN.)
The Court sa` this morning at half-pmt nine.
ST. SEPULCHRE WITHOUT.
Mr. TA.mLYN—There was a case, in this parish which
was
argued yesterday, and stood over for decision. It was
that of John Bridey, 4, Farringdon-street. In one rate the
name was spelt Brodey, and the claimant requested the
Overseer to alter it to Bridey, but he refused, telling him
that it would be altered in the next rate. An objection
had been taken to the claim by Mr. Rowcroft, on the
ground that the claimant's name, " John Bridey," was not
na the rate-book. The evidence of the vestry clerk, how-
ever, established the identity of the claimant, and under all
the eircumstanc,n, he (Mr. Tamlyn) was of opinion that
the rating was a gi;Dd one, and therefore the objection must
be disallowed.
a., There was another ck.:se, that of James M'Donell of
‘-'llorterhouse-street, to wide!). objection had been taken by
4r• Rowcroft. The claimant ;:ad agreed with his land-
lord to allow him an increased ren;:, on the understanding
that the landlord should pay the rates and taxes for him.
The entry in the Overseer's Book was, " to be paid by the
landlord or tenant." No person could mistake the mean-
-I,llg a that entry, and therefore it appeared to him (Mr.
iamlyz) that that rating was a sufficient rating of James
*Dollen. But another question then rose which' was
much more OEcult, and which he (Mr. Tamlyn) should
decide in the beet exercise of his judgment. That question
!as, whether, if, tie rates were paid by another person for
Te. party charge& tiL at would constitute payment by the
Claimant. There was a.n old rule of law, that he who does
12 act by another, must be taken as having done it by himself.
ro question of that descrip:ion had come before his col-
agoe ; and in the absence ot All authorities on the sub-
leet, he (Mr. Tamlyn) thought the above well-known rule
Justified him in coming to the conc;usion that the claimant
had paid his rates.—Objection disallowed.
In the case of Aaron William Butler, no claim had been
lade to be rated, and the rates were actually paid by the
'lin of Sir James Williams and Co.—Claini disallowed.

ST. STEPHEN'S, COLEMAN-STREET.
I. The claim of Thomas Charles Newberry wag opposed
7n1%1r. Trott on the part of Mr. Heppell, the refiwn agent,
the ground of want of residence.
Witnesses were examined, who deposed that the claimant,
whose real name is Thomas Cardell Newberry, had a res.:-
dence at 118, London-Wall, in which he occasionally slept
.1‘11(1 resided. He had another residence at his factory in
'evonshire. Claimant has resided and slept for six weeks
(r two months within the last six months at his residence,
34ndou Wall. The payment of rates and taxes was also
proved, and that there was no other person of the name
/ T
ewberry in the parish.
- Mr: Trott contended that the misnomer was fatal to the
ellte case was postponed for further consideration.
The claim of George Palmer, sen., was objected to by
the
same party, en the ground of not being rated for twelve
;1311tlis• The payi.:lent of the rate was proved, and the ob-
' 'tinn was disallowed.
Edward Howley Palmer, of the firm of Palmer and CO.,
Was Objected to by the sp.:" party on the same ground.
~e name of the claimant al3eared only in the last rate.
440 premises are worth 5001. a ) -ear.
unctionO allowed.
Horsley Palmer.—Mr. Trott laid, in this case he
mould withdraw his objection.
Mr• Rowcroft felt himself called upon t:so offer an ob-
.„
rvation to the Court upon these cases. 11:e must ex-
t.'" his extreme surprise that the party which retended
Lbe anxious for the extension of the elective frahichisep
dd take objections to all the most respectable and 2-e-
-sleeted among the highest merchants of the City of Lon-
2n, who, of all others, had the best right to vote. These
:re the persons particularly objected to by the opposite
t rtY ; while men who claimed to register out of a
their supporters. When,
men with establishments of
11.1. or 1,000/. a-year came' forward to register, the op-
e7t° party bristled up against their claims, shewing clearly
eclass of persons they wished to place on the list of voters.
hi r, Trott would only observe in reply, that he did
4:l` wonder at Mr. Rowcroft complaining of respectable
persons being objected to, for they had objected to the
um of Mr. Rowcroft himself.—(A laugh.) He would
"-e);elY refer to the conduct of the opposite party in the
ease of the parish of St. Sepulchre, in which no less than
4,44 objections had been taken, and only one had been sus-
-4114d.
John Pleitcrsgill, objected to by Mr. Heppell, for want of
esidenoe.—Obj,.-,ction disallowed.
Samuel Reed, .70.!in E. Little, John Scott, Robert Shir-
ieY, John B. Walbank, and John Ince, were severally ob-
"ted to by Mr. Rowcroist ; but the objections were either
, e 2
John
or dim. Rowed.
°llll Louis Lemsin and Ed‘vin Gower were objected to
by M
Heppell ; but the objecti;:ms were withdrawn.
h,"nbert Frederick Gower, objectesd to by Mr. Trott, not
'll rated.—Objection allowed.

(Before Mr. CRAIG.)
The COURT again sat at half-past nine o'clock-
BARNARD'S INN.
Charles Francey Adey, Esq., and others,_ claimed to be
Placed.,, on the Registry, in respect of their office of ancients
408arn, ard's.lnn. 11 evidence given on a former day
h• wen, that in former times the Inn was one of those occu-
pied by the Court of Chancery, and young gentlemen,
q°, were about to study the law, were sent to Bar-
h,,`,''S Inn for a probationary period, before they were ad-
„--
qtted to the Inns of Court. The Hall of the Inn was at
present occupied by the claimant (Mr. Adey), who
transacted the business of the Inn there. The Hall was
under
one hundred and thirty pounds a-year. It is
der the control of the ancients, who receive the rents of
tilile, Inn and keep the keys of the gates—the Inn was extra-
hVi'
ehial, and is held by the ancients under a lease. Mr.
bob`LeY resided at Hampstead within the seven miles. The
Jeetion to the 'claims were that these ancients were not
°QexuPlers.
-Ir• CRAIG now gave judgment—He said there were
many questions arising out of this case. He had carefully
Considered them all, and had formed his opinion with the
~tn'st caution, confining himself to the single question of
s34;„eupanny—whether there was a sufficient occupancy within
Tneaniog of the Act. Upon the other points he did not
necesory to give any judgment. He had looked into
hihsveral of the books, but he did not there find much to assist
.lie
In making v.p his mind upon the question before him.
u'e 27th section of the Act said that a person must oc-
eY, in order to entitle him to be put on the register " as
o:
tl:er or tenant." Now Dr. Johnson said the definition of
occupy," "to possess—to keep—to take
There was no partit:ular legal definition of the word,
he must therefore resort to what was the generally-
iser.6ved meaning of the word. It appeared that the
d:naants in this case assembled the Hall on certain
:'s in the year when the financial tOnsactions of the Inn
%are! transacted—this no doubt constituted a use of the
tio", but in his opinion it did not constitute an occupa-,
hen' After most carefully considering the question,
wiens of opinion that an occupation to come
C the meaning of the Act, must be a con-
Waashn;
'eu. occupation during all hours in which business
this usually carried on. The occupation was certainly, in
Ine.. ease, regular at stated per;ods. It was, however, a
I,„bre periodical occupation. If tie ancients met in the
ft"4:,every day probably that might mAe some difference,
eve Ile did not feel called upon then to say, ilia in his opinion,
iaßn
of the
would constitute an occupation within the mean-
tion°' the Act. Considering in this case that the occupa-
ttin_i en the part of the Ancients, had not been proved he
~,3! disallow the claims.
11:11' Rowcroft rose on the part of those for whom he ap-
peared in that Court, to protest most strongly against this
be ist°n• He was perfectly aware that his protest would
ee2l no avail. But he protested, because it might be ne-
N7Y to do so before bringing the case before a Com-
• Lee of the House of Commons, and in interest that it
44ght
this not be supposed that those who were din
rcluestion, acquiesced in this judgment.
diactr• CRAIG said Mr. Rowcroft would exercise his own
the Judgment
; but it was not at all necessary to protest against
ke,4u,ugment in order to carry the question to the tribunal
mentioned.
Rowcroft had acted in conformity to his instructions.
Hero Was no other case of any importance before we left.

areil_xel%cilong
informed that the First Volume of the
edition of Cowper, by Dr. Southey, contain a
Life of the Poet, will appear early in October, en--
tied with superb engravings.
he1:11E QUEEN'S THEATRE..-.—Miss Murray played
again last night, having now recovered from her recent
h:l3Position. No applause could exceed that with which
reception was greeted. She is a sprightly, versatile,
andextremely clever actress, deserving well all the praise.
I
favour which the public bestow on her performance.
0,
box-keeper's department a little reform is required
ti4l: be unable to get a good seat, az!' to see at the same
as . several such unoccupied all the evenn;j: is not exactly
t should be.
\7
esterday afternoon a fatal accident occurred to Mr.
Willi
peavoant Deville, of No. 2, Savoy-street, Strand. It ap-
-4;4' as the unfortunate gentleman was returning from
of a n'ersmith in a small boat, that he stopped by the side
vvithZall to gather a few daisies, the boat was shortly after-
stood gee" drifting down the river by a little boy, who in-
than niade an alarm. Drags were procured, and in less
tt, the minutes afterwards the body was found, and taken
City Arms Tavern. Medical aid was instantly pro-
m
la and the usual remedies resorted to, but life was found
lycit4tallY extinct. 'The unfortunate gentleman has left
e and four children to lament his death.