The Sun.
London, England, 1835-10-19 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

(Continued from The Sun of Saturday.)
WESTMINSTER.
The Revising Barristers resumed their sittings on Satur-
day morning, in the Committee-rooms Nos. 1 and 2.
(Before Mr. TAMLYN.)
Mr. TAMLYN stated that there was a case of Joseph
Hinton, who had been objected to by Sir F. Ommanney, on
the ground that he had not been properly rated. The evi-
dence of the person objected to was, that he occupied pre-
mises on the ground floor. In the rate book the premises
were described as " ground," and Mr. Score had argued
that the word " ground" did not mean house or shop, but
must be the description of a yard, court, garden, field, park,
&c.; and he had submitted that no parole evidence could
be given to explain the rate. Now, upon looking at the
rate, he observed, that in the column for the description of
the premises there were " houses, ground, &c." In this
case, therefore, it appeared to him that the meaning of the
description in the rate was " ground floor ;" this he consi-
dered to be sufficient, and the name must, therefore, be
retained.
Samuel Lovett claimed as a scot and lot voter. He was
objected to by Mr. Score, on the ground that his vote had
been omitted for two years from the list of voters under
the old franchise, by which omission, under the 33d section
of the Act, he had for ever lost the right of voting as a scot
and lot voter.
Mr. TAMLYN considered that he must construe the Act
liberally, and should retain the vote.
ST. MARGARET'S.
Mr. TAMLYN then proceeded to give the following judg-
ment in Mr. Parkes' case :
In this case Mr. Joseph Parkes claims to be put upon
the list of voters for the parish of St. Margaret, as a per-
son entitled to vote in the election of Members of Parlia-
ment for the City of Westminster ; and the question simply
is, whether his case is within the 30th section of the Re-
form Act. The house in respect of which Mr. Parkes
claims to vote, is in Great George-street, and was before
occupied by Sir Edward Stracey, who leased it to Mr.
Parkes for a term of nineteen years, at a rent of 2331. 15s.
The parish officer called, when Mr. Parkes informed the
officer that he had become tenant from Michaelmas, and
that he should in future pay the rates, and that he claimed
to be rated. There appears to have been at this time some
arrears due from Sir E. Stracey, but none from Mr. Parkes.
The fact of those arrears was mentioned by the officer to
Mr. Parkes, who answered that he would inquire respect-
ing them by letter to Sir E. Stracy, which he accordingly
did, and Sir E. Stracey, in his answer, having admitted
these arrears, Mr. Parkes, by check on his bankers, paid
the amount, and then requested the officer to receive the
rate in future from Mrs. Parkes, his wife, as he Mr. Parkes,
was very much engaged ; the payment was made very
shortly after the first. It appears, however, that the officer
did, in fact, always receive the rates from Mr. Parkes him-
self by check on his bankers ; that the receipt was always
given in the name of Joseph Parkes, Esq. ; and that
the call paper was exclusively directed to Mr. Parkes.
Some part of the House had been occupied by the
Corporation Commissioners, and their names had been
placed on the door, and the collector had taken their
names down, and he stated that if he had not done
so he should have put down that of Mr. Parkes. It has
been contended that the claim to be rated was not a good
one, because the rates due from Sir Edward Stracey were
not paid at the time. Now, it is far from being clear to
me that the Act meant to include the payment of rates
that became duo before the claimant entered into occupa-
tion of the property. If, indeed, that were the construc-
tion, a person succeding an occupier who had left his rates
unpaid, or a landlord succeeding a tenant who had not
only left his rates unpaid, but had, perhaps, afterwards de-
frauded him of his rent, could not make an effectual claim
to be rated, so as to be put upon the rate, without dis-
charging an incumbrance which it would seem impossible
the Legislature could have intended to fix upon him. It
appears to me that this claim to be rated, and the payment
of the arrears, is; in effect, one transaction, and makes the
claim perfectly within Mr. Score's construction of the Act ;
and, if there were any doubt upon it, I should be inclined
to think that the intimation given on the last occasion, re-
lative to the payment of rates, might constitute a sufficient
claim to be rated under the circumstances of this case.
The Court then broke up.
(Before Mr. CRAIG.)
ST. JAMES'S.
The Overseer stated that there was only one rate in the
course of the year, and this was made within twenty days
after a vestry meeting held in Easter week ; but, by the
local Act of Parliament, one quarter was payable on the
sth of April, although at that period the rate might not
have been made—the rate was virtually to take effect from
the sth of January preceding.
A person who had claimed as a scot and lot voter, but
whose name was not inserted in the list of voters, said that
he had paid his rates on the 31st of July, the day named
in the Act of Parliament:
The overseer stated that the overseers had considered
that, as on the days of election the poll was to close at
four o'clock in the day, they had imagined that they were
justified in closing their lists at that hour ; and that as
the claimant had not paid his rates till eight o'clock in
the evening, they had not inserted his name.
The BARRISTER in the present case thought the over-
seers were perfectly justified in omitting the name of the
claimant. At the same time, that was not a sufficient
ground for disqualifying the voter, and his name must be
placed on the list.
The following is the result of the revision of the list
of St. Clement Danes :—Radical claims, 24 ; allowed, 4 ;
disallowed, 20 ; Conservative claims, 8 ; allowed, 5 ; disal-
lowed, 3. Conservative objections, 59 ; sustained, 38 ;
withdrawn, 10 ; dead, 2 ; failed, 9. Radical objections, 0.
ST. ANN'S, Soxo.—Radical claims, 11 ; allowed, 3 ;
disallowed, 8.
ST. JAMES'S.—The following is a statement of the num-
ber of the voters in this parish in the different years since
the Reform Act passed :-
1882 987 1 1834 1,468
1833 1,689 I 1835... ...2,042
This finished the registration for the City of Westminster.

EAST SURREY.
The Barristers resumed their sittings on Saturday morn-
ing to hear a number of cases which had been postponed.
Mr. Corner applied to the Court to strike off the names
of four gentlemen on the Rotherhithe list, who were de-
scribed there as Directors of the Thames Tunnel Company.
Mr. KNox thought the application was a proper one, and
was proceeding to expunge the names, when
Mr. EDWARD MEYHOTT begged the Court would hear
him for a moment. This
application was precisely similar
to one he made on Friday in the case of Mr. John Curling,
who had sent in a perfectly groundless and absurd claim,
namely, as occupier of premises within the borough. His
application, it would be recollected, had been refused first

by one and then by both of the Learned Barristers, and he
submitted that the present could not be listened to.
Mr. KNOX then directed that the parties should be
written to, that they might be heard in support of their claims.
Mr. E. Meymott appeared in support of a claim made by
Mr. Christall, of Rotherhithe. The claim was in respect
of a freehold blacksmith's shop adjoining other freehold pre-
mises which were in the occupation of the claimant. This
shop was occupied by the blacksmith, who was rated for it
in the parish books, and who regularly paid the claimant a
rent of 151. per annum on account.
Mr. KNOX admitted the claim, and in doing so he neces-
sarily decided another question, which he understood was
in doubt before—namely, that this blacksmith having made
himself out the occupier, he was therefore entitled to his
borough vote.
IMPORTANT CASE.—The claims of the fifteen share-
r holders of the new Leather Market were decided in favour
of the claimants. In consequence of this decision it is sup-
posed that more than 200 claims will be sent in next year
from the other shareholders.