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

THE REGISTRATIONS.

(Continued from the Sun of yesterday.)
CITY OF LONDON;
In reference to the decision on the claim of D. C. Thorn-
hill, Mr. Trott observed that, not expecting such a deci-
sion, the parties interested in the different objections had
left the Court, and he was therefore not prepared to proceed.
The lists of the parishes of St. Peter, Coralll, and St.
Peter-le-Poer were then revised, and the Court adjourned
at the usual hour.

COMMON PLEAS.
Mr. CRAIG gave judgment in the case of Thomas George
Postan, who had claimed in respect of a house situate in
Talbot-court, in the parish of St. Andrew Hubbard, of
which he himself occupied no part, letting the whole of the
house out to different tenants. Had the claimant, or even
a servant of his, occupied but a portion of the premises, the
case would have been different ; but as it was, the Court
decided that the name of T. G. Postan be expunged.
Mr. G. Hodson claimed in respect of premises in St.
Andrew's, Holborn. The question in this case was, whether
the payment of rates by a collector or overseer in behalf of
a householder, without either the knowledge or authority of
that householder, was a payment coming within the mean-
ing of the Act.
Mr. CRAIG decided that the payment was not one within
the meaning of the Act, and he therefore should expunge
the claimant's name.
In the parish list of St. Andrew, Undershaft, the claim
of Mr. Andrew Collins, in respect of a counting-house in
Lime-street, was objected, on the ground that he had not
resided for the required time within the required distance.
It appeared that the claimant up to 30th June last occupied
apartments in Devonshire-square, at which period he left
that place for a few months' visit to friends in the country,
several residing within seven miles of London, and also on
a tour abroad. During his absence he did not pay f,or the
apartments in Devonshire-square, but he left there books
and other property locked up in a closet of which he retained
the key, and he had come to an understanding with his
landlady that on his return he should, resume the pos-
session of his apartments, which, indeed, were not let to
any one else during his absence. On his return last wee
hisaccordingly.
books, &c., in the same place and state in which he had left
them. The purpose for which he left the house was merely
an excursion of pleasure.
Mr. CRAIG decided that under the circumstances de-
scribed the claimant should be considered as resident within
the meaning of the Act ; he was ready to admit that the
question was one of considerable difficulty, and that a con-
trary decision might be justified ; but as it was, he consi-
dered it his duty to lean rather to the side of the claimant.
Claim allowed.
The Court adjourned at half-past four.

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.
The Revising Barristers met yesterday to revise the
lists of Hampstead, Highgate, Hornsey, and Wilsden.
HAMPSTEAD.
(Before Mr. MARTIN.)
Amongst those objected to by the Overseers, was Mr.
dobn Easthope. His claim was disallowed by reason of not
being a resident for the period required by the Act.
LETTING HOUSES FOR A SHORT TIME.
Mr. W. A'Beckett was objected to by the Tories, on
two grounds ; first, that he was not the assignee of the
original lease, and, secondly, that he had let his house for
three months, and could not, therefore, be said to have been
in occupation for the last twelve months.
Mr. MARL IN postponed his decision until he received
some further information from Mr. A'Beckett. This was
an important question, particularly to 'the inhabitants of
Hampstead, which this objection appeared to involve, and
that was, whether a claimant letting a furnished house for
three months, with the animus revertendi, was entitled to
be placed on the list. He was inclined to think that he
was, but he would not then pronounce any decision on the

point.
SERVICE OF NOTICES SIGNED WHEN BLANK FOR THE NAME
OF THE PERSON OBJECTED TO—ID/PORTANT DECISION.
Mr. C. F. Adey (the Tory agent) was objected to, on
the ground of not being in possession a suflicent time to
qualify.
Mr. Adey showed that this objection was untenable. But
as be had been served with a notice of objection signed
when blank, and as a great many notices of the same kind
had been served, he was anxious to take an objection to
the notice.
Mr. Davis stated, in explanation, that a person had
brought him the names of a great number of persons in
this parish, to whom it was intended to object by way of
retaliation for the numerous objections taken by the Tories.
lie (Mr. Davis) was unwilling to have such sweeping a-
jectinns preferred, and went over the names with the per-
son referred to, and struck off those names to whom he
consentad to have notice of objection given. Amongst
those so distinguished, was the name of Mr. Adey. He
then signed a nu mti
ber of noces of objection ,in blank, and
the name of Mr, Adey was subsequently inserted in one of
them by another party.
Mr. MARTIN decided this to be a good service.
Mr. Adey's claim was, as we have before stated, allowed.
In a short time after this, Mr. Coventry came into Mr.
Martin's Court, and said that a question bad come under
his consideration in the other Court with respect to the
service of notice, in the decisions of which he was desirous
of having the assistance of his Learned Colleague. It ap-
peared that a voter in one of these parishes was of opinion
that a certain number of claimants on the list were not en-
titled to vote : but because he was unwilling to act in what
might be considered an invidious manner, by_signing no-
tices of objection himself, be went to Mr. Davies, and got
him to sign several blank notices. The names of the per-
sons objected to were subsequently supplied without Mr.
Davies's knowledge ; and when Mr. Davies was asked
whether he had any objections to the individuals against
whose claim notices of objection, signed by him, had been
served, he replied that he had not. Now the question was
whether these notices were valid.
Mr. MARTIN observed that the cases referred to by" Mr.
Coventry differed from that which he had decided with re-
spect to the objection served on Mr. Adey, in this :—that
in the latter it was proved that Mr. Davies, and the person
who applied to him, went over the names of the persons
proposed to be objected to, and ticked those whom they de-
termined to serve with notices. Amongst the names of
persons so marked was that of Mr. Adey. The notice
must, therefore, be held to have been given with Mr.
Davies's knowledge. In those, however, to which Mr.
Coventry alluded, no such selection of names was deter-
mined upon.
The Barristers were of opinion that the point was
one which might then be argued, and decided that Mr.
Coppock should speak in favour of' the validity of the no-
tices, which he accordingly did at great length.
Mr. MARTIN then delivered his opinion. This was a
point (he said) of difficulty and of importance. Ho was
certainly strongly impressed with the opinion, before be
entered on the performance of his duties on this occasion,
that the service of notices, signed in blank, was insufficient ;
and his reason for taking that view was, that, in his opinion,
objections should not be taken by any party without proper
consideration, and except on fit and weighty grpunds. His
wish was to discountenance, so far be could, any vexatious
system of giving objections by 1it019,514e, put he Innst Hear