The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-24 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 24, 1835.

Teti ih cell
.' soe

in mind that it was not their business to co,—
cages, the policy of the law ; but it was their duty to
that its provisions were neither warped or strained. On
this question there was, at first, some slight difference of
opinion between himself and his colleague ; but they had
both now arrived at the conclusion, that a notice of ob-
jection signed• in blank was not insufficient, provided
tie party who delivered the notice acted as the agent of
the person who signed it he and that his conduct in so
doing was subsequently approved of by him. He would
state the reasons which induced him to come to that
opinion. He thought that the party who signed the no-
tices invested the party b'y whom they were brought to
him with his authority for acting on them, and that he must
be. held answerable for the proceedings which were sub-
sequently taken, and which he, in the first instance, had
justified. It was certainly an indirect way of carrying into
effect the service of a notice - but the party who signed it
in blank was, he thought, as closely connected with the act
of the agent, if it were filled up and served without his
knowledge, as he could be by having the notice brought to
'Jim a short time before it was served, and the name of the
party- objected to inserted in his handwriting, without either
his inquhing or his being made acquainted with the nature
of the object o. He was persuaded, therefore, that these
notices might be st7ved in a manner which, though it might
be more indirect, was u.: questionably more convenient than
that which had been hither acted upon. In this case he'
confessed that he was inclined to lean against the validity
of the notices, seeing that the object of them was to restrict,
not to extend, the franchise. But whilst that was not to
be considered a criminal court, nor yet a civil one,
though
it must be admitted to be of an anomalous nature, yet he
could not consider its proceedings to have anything so
penal in their character as to justify them in setting aside
principles laid down at Westminster in civil cases,
which
were closely analogous to those submitted for their consi-
deration. It was there assented to without an exception,
be believed, as an axiom of law, that the subsequent re-
cognition of the authority by which any act was performed
amounted to an original command. It was very true
that if, was also a maxim of law that delegatus non protest
delegare ; but this was not applicable to the present case,
for Mr. Davie acted as a voter of Westminster, and
voters
dele-
gated his author.tv to another. Although those
who had been served" with notices of objection might have
been put to some inconverijenee, there could not be saidved
to
be any substantial injustice Arne them by being ser
with blank notices. On all these giflunds, then, he should
decide that the objection to the service of a blank notice
was not a sound one, if the party objecting to, subsequently
to affixing his signature, impliedly or directly approved of
the conduct of his agent. He trusted, however, that the
Legislature, hearing of the strong feeling existing with re-
spect, to the service of notices, would be induced to intro-
duce some new enactment on the subject. •
Mr. COVENTRY concurred in the view taken by his
Learned Colleague.
_ _-

LETTING HOUSES FOR A SNORT PERIOD.
The disposal of the cases turning upon the question to
which we have referred in the previous part of our Re-
port was res9rved until the close of the proceedings.
Mr. A'Beekett's claim, already alluded to, was admitted,
it being allowed that he had been in possession.
Mr. W. H. James's claim was objected on, on the ground
that though he was in possession of his house at the end of
the year 1834 and a portion of .1.835, that he had let the
whole of it for two or three months within th Them which
he was required by the Act to occupy R. question
was, whether this could be held to be a constructive occu-

pation.
Mr. Adey contended that a person could not be said
to be in possession of a house with respect to which he could
not maintain an action as the occupier.
Mr. MARTIN reserved his decision until he ascertained
whether, if there were an indictment for burglary with re-
gard to this house, Mr. James would be the person called
on to sustain it. Mr. Adey had, he thought, put the
question in a clear light, by resting it on that point. He
should, however, postpone the expression of his opinion
upon the question until he had time to give it further con-
sideration.

The numbers in this Court were as follow :
By the Overseers l2
'
Sustained 12
By the Tories ... 26 By the Reformers
Sustained ll Sustained 4
Failed ... . ...... .... .. 14 Failed
Many of these objections were withdrawn when required
to be proved.

(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
The Learned Barrister gave judgment in the four cases
which had been left over for consideration from the Staines
list. Four individuals claimed to vote on freehold quali-
fication, as trustees of the church ; one of whom, in addi-
tion to his being a trustee, possessed an annuity arising
from the church. The parties were objected to by the
Conservatives.
Mr. COVENTRY said he had had an opportunity of consider-
ing, yesterday, the validity of the four votes in the Staines
list, three of them being for pews in the church, and one
for an annuity granted out of the ChUrch-rates. The
Learned Gentleman referred to an lict for rebuilding
Staines Church in 1827, and the form of conveyance under
this Act, from which he inferred the attribute and endu-
rance of real estate ; and the conveyance being to the
purchaser, his heirs, and assigns, lie may be said to have
an estate of inheritance, whic is not affected by the Re-
form Act.
After quoting the Act of 8 Henry VI., cap. 7., he went
back to the Local Church Act, citing the passages that
bore on the question at issue. He considered that, though
the conveyance of the pews prescribed by the Act purports
to pass an estate of inheritance, yet it was not, he appre-
hended, an estate of inheritance in land or tenement
within the meaning of any Act of Parliament relating to
real estates. It was something analagous to a grant of
navigation, which was a mere easement, giving no right
to the bed of the river. The pews or seats of the
Six Clerks are also somewhat similar, and these have uni-
formly been disallowed. The pew of the parish clerk was
often insisted on, but with as little success, and there was
not much difference between that and the present case, but
being personal to the parties, and held on certain condi-
tions. The conveyance here was of the materials of the
pew, but not of the land on which the pew stands. It was
not, therefore, a profit arising out of.land or tenement,
but a mere personal easement, ceasing when the party
leaves the parish. In this view of the case, the Learned
Barrister said he concurred—he must disallow the first three
votes ; but as to the annuity that is charged on the church-
rates, these being levied by the Local Act on all the lands
and tenements within the parish, it was not therefore a
mere personal annuity ; and though granted to executors it
was held for life, and as such was a freehold interest, en-
titling the party to vote if of sufficient value, as was ad-
mitted' in this case. He must therefore allow Dr. Sim-
mond's name, the annuitant, to stand ; and with this he
closed the Staines list.
PARISH OF WILSDEN.
When the list of this parish was called upon,
Mr. Mackintosh, overseer, appeared. He stated that
there were no objections at the instance of the overseers.
Mr. Gregory, for the Conservatives, directed the atten-
tion of the Barrister to the list, which contained eight ob-
jections by the overseers.
Mr. Mackintosh, when asked for an explanation by the
Court, stated that he was totally ignorant of the nature of
these objections ; they had been inserted in the list by the
vestry clerk, unauthorized by the overseers.
After some further 'conversation, the Barrister agreed
o pass over these in the test, and proceed with the five ob-

jeetions.
When the first case was called upon to prove the notices,
Mr. Mackintosh stated that he had received no notice
as overseer. The notices of objection had been served by
the Conservative party upon the individuals objected to,
and notice had been served upon Mr. Kilby, the late assis-
tant overseer, but he had not received notice as overseer.
He considered that the office of Mr. Kilby had literally
died a natural death, inas much that, by the New Poor
Law Act, there was no mention made of assistant-overseers ;
only overseers were specified.
The BARRISTER contidered that objection to be fatal, and
he would consequently not allow the services to be good.
The votes were allowed.
The COURT then proceeded to hear the cases from the

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.

Mr. Henry Milner, the dramatic author and solicitor,
94 his petition to be discharged. He was un-
api.
oppose
The insolvent, it appeared, had sold some property to
Mr. Mears, of Covent-garden, who was related to him by
marriage. His debts were not considerable. He eras dis-
t charged.

was carrying a dead child in her arms, upon which he went
up, and, on questioning, her, she said that the child was
dead, that she had come up from Deptford to see her mo-
ther, who lived in North-street, and that it had expired on
the way. The policeman accompanied her to North-street,
and when the mother saw the prisoner, and was informed of
what had happened, she said that her daughter had
a husband, and that she had a right to look to him, and
not come there to her. The prisoner was then taken to the
workhouse; when it was discovered that life was not wholly
extinct in the child, for the lips were observed to move, and
when a little weak wine and water was administered it swal-
lowed a small portion, but shortly afterwards expired. The
policeman subsequently saw marks of violence on several
parts of the child's body, and a medical man was sent for
who examined it more minutely.
Mr. George Lownds, a surgeon, between twelve and one
o'clock that day was called upon to give his opinion as to
the probable cause of the child's death, and went to the
workhouse for the purpose. When he arrived there be
found that it was a female child, about eighteen months old,
and at the time of his arrival it was not quite dead, but in
the agonies of death, which occurred in a very short space
of time afterwards. After an examination of the body he
discovered that several marks of burns were visible on the
back of the thighs and other parts, which appeared as if
scared with a hot iron, a great portion of the cuticle hav-
ing been destroyed. The most serious external injury the
child had sustained was on the back part of the thighs, by
which it appeared, as if produced in consequence of its
having been placed in a sitting position on a hot iron.
There was also a mark on the child's arm as if pressure had
been resorted to. He did not observe that there were any
marks on the child's clothes as if they had been burnt. He
was of opinion that the child's death was occasioned by the
injuries he had described.
The prisoner was now asked whether she wished to say
anything in answer to the alleged charge of her having mur-
dered her child? She appeared quite regardless of the
situation in which she was placed, and said that she had
never injured the child.
Mr. JEREMY—Explain how the child was burnt in the
manner described by the medical gentleman.
Prisoner—l neither burnt nor scalded the child. 1
knew that it was sore underneath, but I don't know how it
came so.

Mr. JEREMY—Have you always attended to the nursing
of the child ? Prisoner—Yes ; there was nn one in the
house but Adams and myself. She then went on to say,
that about a fortnight or ten days ago, she took the child
to the Dispensary at Deptford, to get advice for its teeth.
Mr. JEREMY—Did you then show the burns on the
child's person ? Prisoner—No, I did not. There were
marks then, but I did not think they were so bad.
In reply to the MAGISTRATE, the surgeon stated that the
injuries on the child's person were of recent occurrence ; he
was of opinion that they were inflicted within the last
twenty-four hours.
The prisoner was remanded for further examination.