The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-22 00:00:00

CITY Off' LONDON ELECTION.

REVISION OF VOTERS.-THIS fIAY.

Mr. TAMLYN took his seatin the Court of Kim's Bench
at lialf-pffst nine.
. .

oititt—TA4T-STREET.

The
.
The ehjections made_ by the Crofigetrtive party to the
claims of Clititle, White, MA ttlward Thofiltto Watson,
were withdrawn. •
Mt; dsepli .14',reetpp.n, of -fart-street, thf 6*:?,!..'et.y.i to ,I,:v
Mr. Goodeve, the Ce'riFiervatve agent, on the ground that
he had not paid up his rates.
Mr. Barker, the Collector, proved the peyis nit of the
rate tip td Christmas last.—Gaim allowed.
Anthony Ilattliet,--Ajectel to by Mr. Goodeve, the
entigefintite agent, for want If qualification.
The claimant did not aprear, and the objection was
allowed. •
_

IMPORTANT DECitifai
TAMLYN said there was a question svitit4t stood over
from yesterday triiettinti. for decision, to which he noWitished
to call the attention of tile fiffifetsional gentlemen on both
sides: In the case of Mr. Joseph Dotion, a claim had been
made, and g Nbti^4 had been served by Lim upon the
overseer, " claiming to bd eaced upon the rate for the
tithe being," The 27th Section Of the Act required that
the claimant siiUtiid "be rated to all rated for 12 months
previous to the last day or Jsly," and the 30th Section di•
meted that a notice should be served upon the overseer,
claiming to be rated upon the rate for the time being.
The question was, what rras the rate for the time being,
and he (Mr. Tamlyn) should be glad to hear the opinions
of the professional gentlemen present, previous to giving
his decision.
Mr. Rowcroft contended that the Act required the
overseer to do what was absolutely inipo,sible. He would
suppose a case of a rate having been made upcitt 100 houses
in a parish for the sum of 1001, The assessment is then made
out at the rate of 11. upon each house: A claim being made,
it would appear, according to the terms of the Act, that the
overseer was required to make a new assessment twee 101
parties. Then suppose, while the overseer was making
that new assessment another claim was put in, it would com-
pel him to alter that new assessment, and so on, as often as
a fresh claim was made. It was manifestly impossible that
the Overseer could comply with the provisions of the Act.
Mr. TAMLYN—The subsequent words of the section
provide a remedy fur that, because in case the Overseer
reftises or neglects to place the claimant on the rate, he
shall be deemed to have been rated after the service of
the notice. In this case a rate was made from July
1834, to November, and another rate was made in the
month of April 183.5. The notice of the claimant was
sent in on the 20th July, and in my opinion that claim
only refers to the last rate, and therefore the party has
not been rated for twelve months. If this be a right
construction of the Act, Mr. Dodson's claim cannot be
allowed. _ _ _ .

Mr. Rowcroft was only anxious that there should be a
correct decision come to. He understood that Mr. Craig,
in the other Court, had fixed that the discussion upon this
point should come on on Friday. In his opinion that por-
tion of the section meant nothing at all, and it appeared
that the parties who drew it up were entirely ignorant of
how rates were made in parishes.
Mr. TAMLYN having retired for a short time to consult.
his colleague, again came into Court, and gave it as his opi-
nion that " the rate for the time being" was the last rate,
and being in the case before the Court only from the 29th
April last, the claim of Mr. Dodson must be disallowed. •
Robert Buck, 60, Mark-lane, was objected to generally
by the Conservative party.
Mr. Trott was not in a condition to prove the residence
of Mr. Buck, and the objection was allowed.
David Clarke Thornhill was also objected to by Mr.
Goodeve, the Conservative agent.
Mr. Trott required that the notice of objection should be
proved.
A witness deposed that he bad left a copy of a notice of
objection to Mr. Thornhill's claim at the residence of Mr.
Wm. Scaley, who be understood was one of the overseers of
the parish.
The Vestry Clerk deposed that Mr. Scaley had nothing
to do with the making out of the list of claimants, nor was
his name affixed to the list of claimants, which had been
posted up on the church door. Mr. Scaley was elected upper
Overseer of the parish—he cannot say whether Mr. Scaley
acts as Overseer. He had received a list of objections from
Mr. Scaley.
Mr. Trott produced a witness, who deposed that he had
called at Mr. Scaley's residence on the 18th of July with
three notices of claims to register. He saw Mr. Scaley's
clerk, who told witness that he could not receive them, as
Mr. Scaley was not acting as an Overseer.
Mr. Rowcroft contended that the notice having been
served upon one of the overseers of the parish, was
sufficient. -
Mr. Trott said that by the 47th section, thc notice- of
objection must be served upon one of the overseers, who
who shall have made out the list in which the name ap-
pears. Now it had been proved that Mr. Scaley had no-
thing 0 do with the list so made out, and had not signed it.
Mr. ,TAMLYN thought there had been sufficient evidence
to prove that Mr. Scaley was one of the overseers of the
parish.
Mr. Trott—He has refused to act as such.

Mr. TAbILYN—He has received notices of objections.
Mr. Trott—He has received objections from the oppo-
site party, but he has refused to receive ours.
Mr. Rowcroft would send for Mr. Scaley, and that
would decide the question.
In the meantime the Court went into the claims of
Messrs. Augustus Rixon, Duncan Campbell, and George
Hain, but the Vestry Clerk having been sent for by the
Overseer, the cases, after having been partly heard, were
postponed until his return.