The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-23 00:00:00

CITY OF LONDON ELECTION•

REVISION OF VOTERS.—THIS DAY.
(Before Mr. TAMLYN.)
The COURT sat at half-past nine o'clock.
ST. PETERS—P.. UL'S WHARF.
The claim of Frederick Nevman was objected to by the
Conservative Agent, Mr. Goodeve, but a witness was callea.
by Mr. Trott who substantiated it, and the claim was
allowed.
Mr. Godwin, of Peter's-hill was objected to by the same
party, on the ground of the ra:es not having been paid.
Thomas Wood, the Vestry Clerk, proved that the claim'
ant was in arrear for the last rate, and the objection Was
allowed. tea
The name of George Stead, Lambeth-hill, was objee
to by the same party, on the ground that there was no sae°
person in existence.—Objection allowed.
This finished the claims and objections in the parish.
ST. OLAVE—HART-STREET. A r
Mr. TAMLYN wished the case which had been unit
discussion yesterday in this parish, to be now decided. ,
will be recollected that the notice of objection which W 7
to the claim of David Clark Thornhill, had been serve
by the Conservative Agent upon Mr. Scaley, one of di'
Overseers of the parish ; but it appeared from the .1%./;
dence produced that Mr. Scaley had not prepared the n!ri
of claimants—had not signed it, and had taken no part
1
the affairs of the parish.
Mr. Rowcroft hoped the Barrister would postpone his
decision, as the point was one of very great importance'
There were several other objections, which, if a decisi°
was now given against them, they would be precluded from
entering upon.
Mr. TAMLYN observed that they had spent at least tea
hours in investigating the facts of this case, and he reallt.
hoped they were not now to be required to spend fertlf
time upon it. It appeared to him (Mr. Tamlyn) that it'rei
Scaley was not overseer either de facto or de jure, an
therefore, in his opinion, the terms of the Act were not co
plied with.
Mr. Rowcroft—The question all turns upon the point'.
whether or not at the time the notices were served upon
Mr. Scaley he was overseer ; or if not, if he was so employed
by the overseers as to be in himself a proper person to serve
the notices upon.
Mr. TAMLYN—It was decidedly proved that Mr. Seale/
never interfered at all. He was therefore never an over;
seer de facto ; and it was distinctly proved that he was nut
an overseer de jure, as his appointment was not made °
till the Ist of September.
Mr. Rowcroft— It is in evidence that the answer give
to the person who served the notices was that Mr. Scale'
was one of the overseers.
Mr. TAMLYN had not taken that down.
Mr. Rowcroft could re-examine the witness for the purrs°
of showing this. lat
Mr. TAMLYN thought that would not be quite a rega,„
course, but if Mr. Rowcroft would go into another of ti'y
objections, he would have an opportunity of examining ao.
witnesses he pleased.
Mr. Rowcroft assented, and the case of David Bridle'
was then called on.
Edward Hughes proved the service of the notice of teb;
jection at Mr. Scaley's house—the servant told witness tna
Mr. Scaley was the overseer.
William Baker, vestry-clerk, examined—Mr. Scaley yllo
elected overseer in Easter week, 1835, as is the custote
1,
the parish. The overseer does not begin to act till after,
Midsummer. He summons a meeting of the parishieneed
the first Wednesday in July. Mr. Scaley never disPn„'
st
.
his appointment as overseer. Had a conversation with e'lr
Scaley in the beginning of August, when he said to with
" You have got me into office—have I much to do ?" °y
onCross-examined by Mr. Trott—The impression on of
e
mind is, that I met Mr. Scaley previous to the mh, 5
August, but I will not swear that I did. Mr. ScaleY Pa
never attended any meeting of the parish. Mr. Scaley
nothing to do with the making out of the list of v°trs:o
Copies of the list of objections were affixed on two Stun.
to the church-door. Mr. Scaley did not see the list Pd a
vious to its being put up, nor did he sign it. I receive},
letter on the morning of the 26th August from Mr. Sembe
inclosing notices of objections, and asking witness what
should do with them.
ec
Mr. Rowcroft then proceeded to comment upon the eit
dence that had been given in this case. He would arils,
contend that Mr. Scaley was, in fact, overseer of the
parish, and had been so from the time he had been elec"rij,
by the parishioners in open vestry in the month of Apes
The subsequent appointment by the Magistrates, which /to
dated the Ist of September, was merely confirmatory '4llO
election by the parishioners. In support of this he gi° of
refer to the case Rex v. Sparrow, in the second voltnee-100
Strange's Reports. But even if the Court was of oPinoe,
that Mr. Scaley was not overseer de facto„ he would age
tend, that Mr. Scaley was in such circumstances as to mad
the service upon him good. No person had been dad
by such service, as the objections had got into the bae,•lo,
the vestry clerk, and had been regularly published by
He would refer to the 79th section, which provided that iBll
word " overseer" should extend to all persons who ,s ;or
execute the duties of overseers of the poor, in whate',l6
manner they may be appointed, and as this great latitini°t
had been given by the Act, he trusted the Court Wenlic"ri•
on light grounds interfere with the great Constitutional P
vileges conferred by it. mere
Mr. Trott, on the other side, would observe, that as,-- tot.
were 39 objections pending the decision of the vci-is
upon this point, the time occupied by it V/85:001
some measure, excusable. He contended that the tog
section, made it imperative upon the parties ohie"cioo
to serve the notices upon some one of the overseers nor
shall have made out the list in which the name of the rhat
son objected to shall have appeared." He contended, sof
even if the 79th section was relied upon, still the detiea of
overseer must have been performed ; and in the instanthe
Mr. Scaley, that had not been the case, and therefore
service upon him was not sufficient. year
of Rowcroft remarked that the magisterial appointt-iroor
of Mr. Scaley, although dated September 1, was one
from the 25th March previous. t th°
Mr. TAMLYN, in giving judgment, observed the",nole
question was one of the most important that had yet '•,jot
before him. After reviewing the evidence on both 510
the learned gentleman said that it was evident that Nay
Scaley was one of the overseers of the parish, and ittonla
. not necessary for the purposes of the act that he Pot
have done any specific duty as such, nor did it requireiose
he should make out the lists himself. He had had. cii-t be
derable difficulty in arriving at a conclusion which rmg'il the
consistent with the meaning of the act ; but, under a
th.esioo,
circumstances, he was of opinion, that the service
tices was good, and he was glad in coming to that do tap'
that he did no substantive injury to any party, es n'iorli
peared that the list of objections had been reg.-
published.
It is determined to hold a meeting very short aeol
this town, for the purpose of considering the operati°4o3er
effects of popery in Ireland ; and the Rev. Nterw,s!
O'Sullivan will attend and take part in the proceeding
Birmingham Gazette.
BLETCHINGLY.—On Tuesday, the 15th 111,5:00
very novel and interesting scene presented itself in t't bo'
town of Bletchingly. This is the site of the aneie° tor
rough of that name, whose political existence,
its neighbour, Gatton, was destroyed by the Itefnrntoost,
Upwards of a hundred dwelling-houses, comprising 3 and
the whole town, and some beautiful pieces of meadoivpub,
garden ground, were advertised for sale on that day, blvo io
lie auction, at the White Hart Inn. A sale of at°
these times is not an ordinary occurrence ; and at en ns of
with tbtit3iil.
hour the main street was enlivened by numerous gres°,,erting
persons walking about with plans and particulars insP,' that
the various lots. An idea seemed to have prevailea ago
great bargains were to be obtained, partly from the and
and dilapidated condition of most of the buildings' into
partly from the extent of the property brought at enfeering
the market ; but when the morning came the neigh" and
brewers and distillers were seen casting their longlgether
thirsty eyes at the two inns. The shopkeepers and de;
inhabitants who had capital at their command, see,,,lll;tn,
termined to embrace the opportunity now given that
spurning the old character of tenant, and rising te. oh°
freeholder ; and a number of builders and capitells'"ough'
seemed to be reminded, by the destruction of the hni. were
of the hopeless tenure of their funded propertY,treent
anxiously looking out for opportunities for 0:1°50001
in the •houses or land. The old town haA tinies
seen so many visitors, even in the good el'hope of
of its peaceable and uncontested elections, and the to fail;
any great bargains being made began consequently
ore nee
The sale began at one, and ended at four, and a fa roof°
mated scene can scarcely be conceived. The longe be
of the inn, where formerly the election dinners weLstonee
was crowded to excess, and it was a curious ciretea'rt,
that while the auctioneer was selling the White Oa ob al
and describing its excellent condition, an 4PPallingLeerdread'
the lower end of the room struck every one with to ors!.
ful idea that the old house was coming about thelrloar o
from which conviction they were relieved only by a f wee,
laughter, proceeding from the confused he orollieg
tables, and forms which had given way, and were,t. Whit°
on the floor. Fortunately no one was hurt. .1"° pet'
Hart was purchased by Mr. Ralph Eldridge, its,retistie of
able tenant, thus investing him with the correeb ache'
landlord as well as host. A very large party of Pole
to
sers, solicitors, and their friends, sat down after thielyivielly.
an excellent dinner, and passed the evening most the OS:
The property (which, to an ordinary observer, ha ding tb,
unsaleable aspect) realized nearly 11,000 L,
inclumanor, which was purchased by John Perkinstliat oda
Pond-hill, a man of large landed property ii'„,,,ket
bourhood, and the originator of the Islington iv-Croydon.
The sale was ably conducted by Mr, Diake, 0f