The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-28 00:00:00

THE REGISTRATIONS.

CITY OF LONDON—KING'S BENCH.
(Continued from The Sun of Saturday.)
The COURT postponed judgment in the case of Mr.
Balne, printer, in Gracechurch-street.
The claim of Moses Lyon, of 6, Ebenezer-square, St.
Botolph, Aldgate, was objected to on the ground that he
was not rated to all the poor-rates within the meaning of
the 27th section of the Act.
Mr. CRAIG said that the question involved the point
how far one party can pay all rates and taxes for another,
or whether such payment could be considered valid. He
would defer judgment.
In the course of the day it was stated that there still re-
mained 950 cases of all sorts, claims, and objections at
both sides, to be gone into.
Adjourned at a quarter to 5 o'clock till Monday.

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX.
On Saturday, the revising barristers met at White Con-
duit-house, for the purpose of revising the lists of claimants
for the several parishes of St. Luke, Old-street, St. Bo-
tolph-Without, Aldersgate-street, St. James and St. John,
Clerkenwell, St. Mary, Islington, St. Mary, Stoke New-
ington, St. John, Hackney, and St. Leonard, Shoreditch.
(Before Mr. MARTIN.)
ISLINGTON PARISH.
Mr. Venn and Mr. Hutchinson were both objected to by
the Tories on the same ground—viz., occupation of free-
hold land within a borough in which they resided.
Mr. Field said that he considered the votes to be good.

Consideration reserved.
The claim of the Rev. Mr. Hale, as prebendary of Isling-
ton, and as such entitled to the manor of Islington, was ob-
jected to on the ground of mis-description—that the claim
of " freehold manor, prebend of Islington," was a bad de-
scription, and that even if the vote was allowed the claim
ought to be amended.
The vote was eventually retained with a verbal alteration

ST. LEONARD'S, SHOREDITCH.
In this parish a ludicrous circumstance occurred. The
notices of objection failed on both sides, those of the Con-
servatives from a defect in service, those of the Liberals
from their having objected to the claims as claims " to vote
in the Tower Hamlets, in the county of Middlesex," which
Mr. Martin held to be bad notices.
The overseers' objections were therefore the only ones
gone into.
There was nothing done in Mr. Martin's court of any
public interest.
IN THE PARISH OF HACKNEY
The Tories were defeated. The conduct of their agent,
Mr. Adey, in raising frivolous objections generally, and in
this instance bringing some of the industrious classes away
from their occupation without cause, led some of the ho-
nest claimants to the expression of their opinion of such
cruel and unjust conduct.
We give the following from a Tory paper, as the re
stilt of the day's proceedings :
ISLINGTON PARISH
Overseers' objections
Sustained
Conservative objections
Sustained
Liberal objections
Sustained
ST. BOTOLPH, ALDERMANBURY.
Conservative objections
Sustained
Overseers' objections
Sustained
STOKE NEWINGTON.
Conservative objections
Adjourned
ST. LEONARD'S, SHOREDITCH.
Conservative objections
Liberal objections
Overseers' objections
Sustained
Reserved
HACKNEY.
Conservative objections
Broke down in service 26
Sustained 1
Liberal objections
Sustained 4
Overseers' objections
Sus'ained about
CLERKENWELL.
Conservative objections
Sustained
Adjourned
Liberal objections
Sustained
Stand over—New River shares
ST. LUKE'S.
Conservative objections
Sustained - -
Adjourned
(Before Mr. COVENTRY.)
CLERKENWELL PARISH.

82
34
22

30

Mr. Law, and five other persons, claimed as trustees
of Claremont Chapel. They received the rents, and
applied them in payment of the current expenses of the
year, and the surplus was disposed of at the discretion of
the trustees.
Mr. COVENTRY said there was at present some diffe-
place between himself and his learned colleague upon the
principle, and therefore that particular question had been
postponed.
Mr. Law thought it very hard.
Mr. COVENTRY said Mr. Law could not suppose that
he (Mr. Coventry) would decide the point to-day, con-
trary to the opinion of Mr. Martin, after it had been
determined that the consideration of the question should be
postponed.
The case consequently stands over.
Hugh Smith was objected to by the overseers. He
claimed for a 100/. share in the House of Correction,
which brought him in 71. 10s. per annum.—Expunged.
Several persons claimed for shares in the New River.
They were objected to by the Liberals. It appeared the
shares were conveyed by lease and release, as freehold pro-
perty ; each share was worth 18,000/.
Mr. Coppock contended, first, that the shareholders
were a corporate body.
Mr. COVENTRY thought not. He should consider the
case, and if ho found himself in doubt he would have it ar.
gued.

PARISH OF HACKNEY.
Mr. Coppoek objected to the reception of the Overseers'
list.
Mr. COVENTRY thought there was nothing in the ob-
jection.
A person was objected to by Mr. Charles Green who
stated that he wrote a letter and gave it to a little boy, who
swore that he delivered it to the claimant. No copy of the
notice was produced, but Mr. Green stated that the letter
contained a notice in the words of the Act. The overseer
then produced the notice which Mr. Green had given him,
and it appeared to be signed " C. Green, Church-street=
Mr. Adey took an objection to the notice.
Mr. COVENTRY called in Mr. MARTIN, and after con-
sulting together, the latter gentleman said the notice was
given to the party to enable him to attend and prove his
right to claim. No person had a right to sign a notice who
was not himself upon the list, and it was therefore requi-
site to be so given as toinforw the person objected to who

the objector was, so that he might see if his name was upon
the list. Therefore, whet'? the notico was so framed as not
to give every person in tht: county that information, it
would be bad. You should thetgfore know the parish,
in the present ease it was clear 314 but
Cirecn was known to
claimant, and theteclere he thought the notice a goo
Mr: rovENTrtv was of opinion the
d one th
e
notice wns good in
this etge. fiough it might be different wn'.4l.ry the claimant
lived at Brighton, and the objector in London'.-
The claimant then proved his qualification, ant
!his name
Wei§ Itetained on the list. -it of
A great tonmber of claims were expunged on accou. •
the property gis'ino a vote in the borough.
fiT. LUKE'S PARISH.
Thomas Lee and five other persons claimed for a rent-
drargee They were objected to by the 'Pores.
It appeared that prior to the fire of London, certain pro-
perty had heen given to the parishioners of St. Mildred,
Bread-street, and the rents of the houses were now applied
in reduction of the parish rates.
Mr. CovENTav did not think this would give a vote ;
but that if Mr. Dimes would send him a copy of the trust
deed, he would give it conssderation where the parties
claimed properly, but where they claimed for a rent charge
only they must be expunged.
Two brothers of the name of Sims vere objected to bY
the Tories. The claimants, however, proved that they were
entitled to a good freehold property, and their claims were
allowed.