The Sun.
London, England, 1859-04-14 00:00:00

IRELAND.

It is announced on authority that Sir James Hig-
ginson is to start as a candidate for the borough of
Lisburn. The address of Sir Frederick Heygate
to the electors of the county of Londonderry is
published. He professes independent principles,
but he admits that his sympathies are with the
present Government. Mr. Robert Peel Dawson,
nephew of the late Sir Robert Peel, is also in the
field. He, too, is a follower of Lord Derby, and
thinks the unfortunate Ministerial Reform Bill
possessed of many points of merit. Very few have
so far had the moral courage to say so much in its
praise. The Northern Whig says that, from com-
munications made to that journal, " It would ap-
pear that the dominion of aristocratic landlords in
the county of Down may possibly be resisted at
the expected election, and that an effort to free the
county from the serfdom of territorial nomineedom
may be made by a resident gentleman, of sound
Liberal politics and thoroughly independent prin-
ciples, who is qualified in an eminent degree for
Parliamentary position, and whose name, when it
appears, will command the hearty support of all
the Liberal party in Down." It is believed, never•
theless, that territorial influence is too much in the
ascendant in the, county of Down to give colour to
the probability of a Liberal displacing either Lord
Edwin Hill or Colonel Forde. Lieut.-Colonel
Dickson is a candidate for the county of Limerick.
In his address he pronounces in favour of all that
is liberal ; but he carefully abstains from stating
to which of the great parties in the State he means
to attach himself.
.Mr. Synan is also in the field,
and is said to be pursuing an active canvass ; and
Mr. Henry Lyons, of Croom-house, has just re-
turned from London. with the view of pressing his
claims upon the electors. The three candidates
are Liberals, two positive and one doubtful.
Mr. Henry O'Sheil (late Mayor) has retired
from his canvass of the city of Limerick, and
the candidates are now reduced• to the sitting
members and Major Gavin. Two Liberals—
Mr. Loughnon and Mr. O'Donnell, both mem-
bers of the legal profession—are up for Kilkenny
city; Mr. Sullivan, the member in possession,
making no signs as yet of seeking re-election.
Sir Timothy O'Brien's retirement from the repre-
sentation of Cashel is announced, and Mr. Charles
Hemphill, who contested it at the last general
election, has addressed the very select constituency,
on ultra-Liberal principles. A contest is threatened
in the county of Tipperary. The O'Donoghue is
quite safe to win, but a run is to be made against
Mr. Waldron, who is a large landed proprietor in
the county, while his more favoured colleague does
not own apatch of ground there, Mr. Dixon O'Keefe
is spoken of as the coming man, and await 3 the
judgment of the county club. Major Boothby,
brother-in-law of Lord Fermoy, and an Englishman
by birth, has entered the lists for the borough. of.
Kinsale. His address is straightforward and in-
telligible. He places no' reliance on a measure of
reform emanating from the old opponents of
progress.

CORK, WEDNESDAY EVENING.
KINSALE.

Major Boothby, brother-in-law of Lord Fermoy,
Captain Brine, and Mr. George Wildridge, of
London, have addressed the electors. The Liberal
electors of Kinsale have requested Mr. John Arnott,
Mayor of Cork, to stand for the borough. Mr.
Arnott has not yet signified his intention.

DUNGARVAN.
Mr. J. F. Maguire has again addressed the
electors.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.-April 13.

The Court sat to-day at Westminster to hear rate
appeals. Present—Mr. Pashley, Q.C., Assistant-
Judge, presiding ; Mr. Pownell, Mr. Arden, and
Mr. H. H. Harwood.
Several appeals by the East London Waterworks
Company against rates made by the parishes of St.
George's East, Mile-end; St. John, Hackney;
Bethnal-green ; All Saints, Poplar; St, Anne,
Limehouse ; Shadwell ; St. Leonard, Shoreditch ;
and St. Mary, Whitechapel, were adjourned by
consent to next sessions.

THE IMPERIAL GASLIGHT AND COKE COMPANY V. THE

POOR••RATE OF PADDINGTON.

Mr. Bovill, Q.C., Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Woollett
were counsel for the appellants ; Mr. Dowdeswell
and Mr. Powell were for the parish. _

The question in this case was as to the rateable
value of the company's drains running through
Paddington. After the case on the part of the ap-
pellants had been gone into at length, a discussion
took place, the result of which was that by consent
the appeal was to be turned into a special case -for
the Court of Queen's Bench, on condition that, if
the parties could not agree to the terms of the case,
this Court should give judgment on the data now
before it.

THE GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY V. THE SAME.
Mr. Huddleston, Q.C.; Mr. Cripps, and Mr. Digby
were counsel for the appellants; Mr. Dowdeswell
and Mr. Powell for the parish; Mr. Metcalfe and
Mr.
.Little represented Mr. Henry De Bruno Austin
and others ; and Mr. Karslake appeared for Messrs.
Rigby, builders.
Mr. Huddleston said the rate appealed against
was made on the sth of October, 1858, and was fixed
by the parish at £30,063, but how the odd " 63"
came to be put on he was at a loss to understand,
after the manner in which they formerly dealt with
this rate. In 1846, upon an award by Mr. Pollock,
the rateable value was fixed at £7,378, in 1848
there was a slight increase, and in 1854, in
consequence of new buildings, &c., a round
sum of £2,000 was added to the rate, and
it was made. £lO,OOO. From that sum it was in-
creased to £15,000, and in 1856 it was made £20,000,
That amount, upon an argument on a special case,-
was reduced to £16,000. Yet, subsequently, with-
out any notice to the company, the parish increased
the rate to £30,063. Where they got the 63 from,
after having dealt with the rate in round thousands,
he could not tell,-but supposed it had been added to
make it appear that. the estimate for the rate had
been prepared with the greatest minuteness of de-
tail, an 4 was exact to a point." Although this enor-
mous increase had been thus suddenly .made, there
had been not only no proportionate increase of the
company's property, but no increase at all in point
of fact, and of course the company had no alterna-
tive but to come to this court upon an appeal. One
of the grounds upon which it was prayed by the
appeal that the rate might be quashed was, that in
Paddington there had been a systematic under-

rating of other property and a non-insertion in the
rate of property liable to be rated. The rateable
value of Paddington was something like £550;000,
yet he was prepared with evidence to show that
property of the rateable value of £lOO,OOO was not
rated at all. The parish had greatly extended, and
ground which had been used for garden purposes
had been taken for building. Buildings had been
erected, and although the ground had been rated to
the poor, since it had been built upon it had been
taken out of the rate altogether, and was not in-
cluded in the rate in respect of which the Great
Western Railway Company entered this appeal.
This, it appeared to him, was ladies to the greatest
possible degree. It was alleged that these buildings
would not berateable until completely finished and
let, and the question he should raise upon this point
was whether they ought not to be included in this
rate, by which the rate generally would be reduced.
If so, the rate was clearly bad.
Mr. Dowdeswell objected to this being gone into
and said he by no means admitted the accuracy of
his learned friend's statement. This was an appeal
by the company against the rate assessed upon
them ; it was quite another question whether these
buildings were rateable, which he denied.
Mr. Huddleston said the question affected the
legality of the rate altogether.

Aftei a long discussion,
The Assistant-Judge said he thought the most
convenient course would be to go into this part of
the case, and he would take the evidence of the
exclusion of property said to be rateable from the
rate, because if that were proved, it would quash
the rate.

Mr. Henry Tait, an,,accountant, was then called,
and he stated, on examination by Mr. Cripps, that
he had been employed to inquire what property
there was in Paddington not included in the rate.
He found that Mr. Henry De Bruno Austin had
about 150 first-class houses not rated. The rents
asked for them varied from £770 to £l2O a year.
They would give an average rateable value of
£20,000. Messrs. Rigby had buildings also un-
rated ; other persons had built houses which were
also excluded from the rate. Altogether he had cal-
culated the rateable value of all this property at
about £70,000. Some of the houses were finished
and fit for habitation.
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Karslake contended that
the houses which their clients had built, being un-
finished and unlet, were not liable to be rated at
all, there being no beneficial occupation. No value
could accrue to the parish until they were finished
and occupied, and it was submitted that the
parish had done quite right in excluding this pro-
perty from the computation for the rate.
Mr. Dowdeswell said there were two things
which the Court must determine—whether this pro-
perty was erroneously omitted from the rate, and
that to such an extent as to justify the Court in im-
posing upon the parish the signal inconvenience
which would result from the quashing of the rate,
by involving the paving, lighting, and other rates.
The Assistant-Judge ultimately ordered the rate
to be quashed, as certain property of a rateable
character had been omitted therefrom, but without
costs, and made an order of substitution under the
statute, the quashed rate to secure another..
Rate quashed accordingly.