The Sun.
London, England, 1850-11-12 00:00:00

respect of freehold /and of the annual value of 15/,, and
I was in possession of the estate. The property was
mortgaged to secure the repayment of 100/. lent
to - the respondent, but the mortgage did not
extend to the payment of interest on the loan. The
mortgage recited that the loan had been obtained some
time previously, but that all interest on the sum had been
paid up to the date of the deed. It was contended that
the land was not of the yearly value of 40s. clear of nil
charges and after payment of interest on the loan. The
respondent, on the other hand, contended that the in-
terest was not chargeable on the estate, which
had only been mortgaged as security for the
principal, and that he had sufficient interest in
it to entitle him to a vote. The Revising Barrister held
that there was no charge on the land operating, in abo-
lition of the annual value to the respondent, so as to
affect his right to be registered, and as the mortgagee
had not taken possession of the estate, he was entitled to
have his name on the register. Against that decision
the present appeal was instituted.
Mr. CORNER contended, on behalf of the appellant,
that the decision of the Revising Barrister ought to be
reversed, and referred to the case of Copeland v. Bart-
lett in support of his preposition. The opinion of the
Court in that case was that a member of a building so-
ciety, who purchased a garden And cottage, and mort-
gaged them to the society as security for the pay-
ment of the principal advanced to him and interest,
was not entitled to a vote, though he had possession of
the property, and had never failed to pay his regular
instalments during the time he had Leen in occupation.
The circumstances in that appeal were almost entirely
similar to those in the present case, with the exception
that the mortgage did not extend to the payment of
interest.

Mr. Sergeant BYLES submitted that the decision of the
Revising Barrister was quite correct.
The COURT was of opinion that the respondent had
not a freehold estate worth 408. a year clear of all de-
ductions and charges, and consequently that his name
ought to be expunged from the register.
The Revising Barrister's decision was therefore re-
versed.

BAIL COURT.—(THIS DAY.).
(Bofors Mr. Justice PATTESON.)

The grand jury for the term were sworn in and ad-
dressed'' by the Learned JUDGE this morning. His
Lordship told them that it was customary to swear in
two grand juries every term, but at present be was not
aware of there being anything at all for them to do, nor
was it likely that there would be, as it was usual to pre-
fer common indictments in the Central Criminal Court,
aad only cases of misdemeanour for keeping disorderly
houses, perjury, assaults, and conspita-y, were brought
into this court. Up to that hour, however, none had
been preferred, nor was it likely that any would be, at
least he hoped not, and their duties would therefore be
merely of a formal character.
The grand jury then retired.
HILL V. PARTRIDGE.

Mr. DOWDESWELL moved in this case for a rule to show
cause why the peremptory undertaking to proceed to
trial should not he enlarged. The Learned Gentleman
moved on an affidavit declaring the fact that he was
unable to find a material witness, whose evidence was
indi4penlably necessary for establishing his claim. The
name of the witness was John Thomas. He wae.a
miner, working in the Oak Farm Mines, near Dudley,
but the plaintiff was ignorant of his nick name, by which
he
,was known amongst his own fraternity. Miners,
the affidavits stated, were only known to each other by
those sobriquets, and until the plaintiff discovered John
Thomas's fictitious cognonien it would be impossible to
find him cut.—Application granted.

BANKRUPTCY,—(THIS DAY.)
(Before Mr. Commissioner EvANs.)
IN RE CAPTAIN WARNER.
In this caso bail was tendered on behalf of Captain
Warner, and Mr. Donaldson, of Finsbury, was accepted
in the sum of 5001, and Mr. Bliss, accountant of Moor-
gate'street, was appointed by the Commissioner to make
up the accounts.
The other cases were audit and dividend meetings
pro forma.