The Sun.
London, England, 1835-09-26 00:00:00

•

THE REGISTRATIONS.

(Continued from the Sun of yesterday.)
CITY OF LONDON—KING'S BENCH.
The claim of Richard Davis the:► came "on. He Was op•
posed by Mr. Sharp, as agent for Mr. Williams, M.P. for
Coventry.

Mr. Rogers, on the other side, contended that the objee,
tion was invalid, because the objector's piece of abode was
not set down in the notice, as required by the-Aet.
The COURT held that no occupatitr, being proved, the
claim must be disallowed.
Mr. Pheeney, of Watling-street, was objected to, on the
ground that he had not paid IT, all his rates.
Mr. Pheeney had taken 7,ossession of the premises out of
which he claimed to at the half-quarter, at the end of
which a rate atne;unting to 30s. was due. Mr. Pheency
objected to
was not t, justice
payment of the entire rate, saying that he
justice bound to ,"pay more than the amount tie-
cr"*4 during the time of his possession. The overseer: in
consequence gave a receipt for the full amount, on payment
of the proportion duo at the time of the claim, not being
one-half of the rate.

Mr. CRAIG said, the claim to the whole rate bad been
relinquished, on the ground that the ratu-payer was not in
the present instance bound in equity to pay for the time
before which he came into the premises. Had the abatis.
donment by the collector of the full amount of the rate
anything of an eleemosynary character it. would have ficen
otherwise.

The claim was then allowed.
No other cases of interest occurred, anal the Qourt ae.-
journcd until the usual hour to-morrow.

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX,
Yesterday the Barristers held their Co art for the En-.
field district.

PARISH OF TOTTEI';IIIAM.
Mr. COVENTRY, when the lists were handed to him by
the Overseer, remarked that tbtre was an irrgularity in
the manner in which they had. 'been filled up.
Mr. Adey, for the Tories, said he would take the op-
portunity, before going into business, to state that there was
a number of bad services on his side, which they were not
in a situation to pro';e. These notices he would at once with-
draw, as he would be sorry unnecessarily to detain the gen-
tlemen.—( A_ laugh.)
The lice was handed in, and these objections accordingly
withdrawn.- . •,
Daniel Adcock claimed on a freehold a Meeting-
house, as owner.
Mr. COVENTRY allowed the vote.
- Mr. Thomas Burgess claimed qualifh%tion on a lease
held" for years."—Claim allowed.
S,3me persons had claimed as trustees for the River Lea
Navigation, the discussion on which, at the request of the
parties, was postponed ; as was also the decision of the
claims of some of the Cordwainers' Company, as freeholders
of certain premises in Edmonton.

Joseph Isaacs claimed on tie ground of occupation of
prem:ses,7consisting of a dwelling-house and stables.
His claim was objected to by the Tories, on the ground
that his Mother was a partner in his trade of coach-master ;
that her name was on the coaches ; that the claimant only
exclusively occupied the dwelling-house, the rent of which
was presumed to be no more than 851. per annum, and as
his mother was a partner in the business, and the horses
used in the business occupied the stable, in that part of the
premises she must be, they contended, consequently ac-
knowledged to hold a moiety ; and, if so, that it invalidated
the claimant's right to vote on the score of valuation.
Mr. A:ley further contended, that by a decision at
Hampstead, in the claim of Mr. Nun, coach-proprietor, the
Learned Barrister had admitted that the names " Nun and
Nightingale" being upon the coaches, was proof sufficient
of partnership, and that, counquently, the stables being
joint occupation, Nun could not be qualified by valuation.
Mr. MARTIN came ir.lo Court at Mr. Coventry's -re-
quest. He said he wished to impress upon them, that his
decision in the case of Nun and Nightingale, at Hampstead,
was no authority ; but he would state his reason for giving
his decision. There did not appear that there was any
doubt entertained, nor was the partnership denied: The
horses used in the coaches between Hampstead and London
occupied the stables, and although Mr. Nun was the per-
son exclusively rated, yet as the horses were conjoint pro-
perty, it was strong presumption that the sttkliles must con-
sequently be conjoint property, and on that ground he had
struck out the vote.

Mr. COVENTRY said the cases had no analogy. The part-
nership in this case had not been proved ; on the contrary,
it had been denied. It had peen stated that all the horses
were the property of the claimant ; and he would, there-
fore, allow the claim..

The claim of Wilnam Taylor, in the parish of Enfield,
gave rise to a tei.nous conversation and long examination :
it was evenwilly disallowed.
The rulrobers of objections in the different parishes, ar d
by tile different parties, were.as follows :