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

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON.
(Continued from The Sun of yesterday.)
The claim of Air. Small was objected to, on the ground
of non-residence, and also because the claimant was not
rated to the relief of the poor.

The residence of claimant was in York-terrace, Regent's
Park, and therefore within.seven miles of London.
The Overseer then testified that the claimant bad made
a verbal claim to be rated on or about the 9th of July last.
The Barrister decided, that the verbal claim was valid,
as there was no provision in the Act requiring a written
notice.

• Mr. Small's name was then placed on the register.
The next case was that of Mr. George Corbett, whose
claim was objected to by Mr. Trott.
Evidence was then given that the claimant supplied the
Churchwardens with wine for parish uses, and in conse-
quence of his having a claim against the parish amounting
to 2/. Bs., the Collector had not demanded the rates
from him.

A loom conversation then ensued between the claimant
and the Overseer, as to the existence of any balance due
for wine. The Barrister, however, decided that any ba-
lance that might exist could only be set off against the
Church-rate, and not against the Poor-rate, and he would,
therefore, allow the validity of the objection.
The lists of St. Olave's parish, Silver-street, and St.
Pancras, Pancras-lane, were then gone through ; there
were no objections or claims ; but the Barrister corrected
a number of technical errors which appeared in the list.
No case of any importance eccurred, and the Court ad-
joured at halt-past four o'clock.

COMMON PLEAS.
(Before Mr. CRAIG.)
Immediately after the sitting of the Court this morning
judgment was given by the BARRISTER in the case of Mr.
Phifetes Richardson, one of the firm of Bryan Cororan
and Co.

The BARRISTER said that he could not consider that any-
person, save Mr. Bryan Cororan, was rated under the rating
claimed from .and there, forthat.Mr. Richardson
was rated- according to the provisions in. the Act.
The BARRISTER also gave judgment in the cases of
Messrs. John and Thomas Richardson--the objection to•
the claim of the former being, that his place of residence
was not attached to his signature in his notice of claim.
Mr. Craig went at great length into precedents bearing
on his view of the law of the case in question. He consi-
dered a case, which he cited, as analogous with the present,
and that the course adopted by the legislature entitled hint
to consider that it was not always meant that the residence
of the party should follow his signature by virtue of the
word "of attached to it. His decision, therefore, was,
that the notice of the present claimant was sufficient.
In the case of Thomas Richardson, the last claimant
had gone to the residence of the Overseer, and there wrote
his notice of claim, stating that as his brother (the present
claimant) was not in town, he would also sign for him. This
he accordingly did, having signed the notice, " John and
Thomas Richardson," it had been contended that John
had not authority to sign the notice for his brother. They
were, however, co-partners in trade in a house in Star-
alley, and the act of John was not the making liable his
brother to any pledge which might be onerous or expen-
sive, but merely claiming for him privileges which Ile (tile
Barrister) could not imagine any one unwilling to possess,
he thought, therefore, that there was sufficient evidence
to go upon, that Thomas did authorise John to sign his
name to the notice.

The names of John and Thomas Richardson were then
inserted on he register. _

The next claim considered was made in regard to the
occupancy of four rooms in a house in the parish of St.
Andrew's, Holborn. The claim was not opposed ; but
Mr. Rowcroft was permitted by the Barrister to argue the
case, in order that similar claims, where objected to, might
be regulated by the decision upon this.
Mr. Rowcroft accordingly addressed the Court.
The Barrister postponed his judgment till Friday
morning.

'rho next case was that of the ancients of Barnard's Inn,.
in the parish of St. Andrew's, Holborn. The claims of
the parties was from their occupancy as ancients of the
Inn.

. The claims were objected to on the ground that occu-
pancy was not proved within the meaning of the Act, and
the Barrister reserved his decision until he had considered
the point.
Several cases of no import were then considered, and the
Court adjourned.