The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-28 00:00:00

PRICE OF SUGAR.

The Average Price of Brown or Muscovado Sugar, for the
week ending Sept. 24, 1844, is 335. 3d. per cwt., exclusive
of the Duties of Customs paid or payable thereon on the im-
portation thereof into Groat Britaui.

I EAST SURREY REGISTRATION.
Mr. Fish sat yesterday at the Workhouse Com-
mittee-room, Bermondsey, in order to revise the lists
. of voters in the Bermondsey district.
Mr. E. Meymott attended for the Conservatives,
and Mr. Jeans for the Liberals.
In the parish of St. George, Southwark, Mr.
W. Parmenter claimed to vote in respect of certain
property in the Skin-market, in Suffolk-street.
The claim was opposed by the Conservative agent.
Mr. Parmenter was examined in support of his
claim, and it appeared that he was possessed of the
interest in a number of houses and sheds built upon
the ground formerly occupied by the Skin-market.
He had to pay a ground-rent of 61/. a-year to the
City of Lendon, and the property produced 1201. a year.
On being cross-examined by Mr. Neymott, the
claimant said that he could not give a very particular
account of the property, and was unable to say
whether any of the houses were worth 101. a-year.
Mr. Meymott remarked that it was necessary the
property should be described; because if any of the
houses were worth 1 Al. a year, they would give a vote
for the borough, and therefore could not be made the
subject of a county qualification.
The claimant, in answer to questions put by the
Barrister, said, that in the Skin-market, for which
place he now claimed a right to vote, he would swear
there was no house that would let for 101. a year, ex-
clusive of taxes.
The REVISING BARRISTER thought this was suffi-
cient, and he inserted the name on the list.
In the parish of Rotherhithe, Mr. 'Wm. Marshall
claimed to have his name inserted in the list of voters.
The claim was opposed by Mr. Meymott, who
proved that he had served a notice of objection upon
the claimant, and also upon the overseer.
The REVISING BARRISTER expressed an opinion
that the notice was informal, it appearing upon the
face of it to be an objection to Mr. Marshall's name
remaining upon the list of voters, instead of objectingp
to the allowance of his claim to vote.
Mr. Meymott said he had followed the form pre-
scribed in the Act of Parliament.
The REVISING BARRISTER said the form of the ob-
jection did not at all apply to the case. It objected to
the name of a man being upon the list of voters, when,
in point of fact, it never was upon the list at all.
Mr. Meymott said the form was exactly in accord-
ance with the one prescribed by the Act, and if he
had deviated from it the notice would have been re-
jected as informal.
The REVISING BARRISTER having referred to the
Act of Parliament, said there did not appear to be
any other form laid down, and he should therefore
admit the notice.
Mr. Marshall did not attend to support his claim,
and the name was therefore expunged from the list.
The remaining lists were then gone through, and
when they were completed, Mr. Fish again took the
Thames Ditton list into consideration.
The second overseer, who had been ordered to at-
tend the court on the previous day, was called upon
to explain why there had been so much negligence
in the preparation of the lists.
The overseer, who had the appearance of an agri-
cultural labourer, said he was "no scholar." He
could not read, and did not understand the business.
He expected the vestry-clerk would have done all
that was necessary.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he supposed he could
not write.
lle replied that he could write his name, and that
was all.
The REVISING BARRISTER said that it was very
clear the person before him was quite unfit for the
office he held. The result of his negligence and in-
capacity would probably be, that a great many per-
sons would be disfranchised, and he had subjected
himself to very heavy penalties.
Mr. Meymott suggested that perhaps the Revising
Barrister might obtain some evidence which would
justify him in retaining the names on the list of voters,
and prevent them from being disfranchised through
the negligence of the overseer.
The REVISING BARRISTER then put some questions
to the overseer, and having obtained some information
relative to the claims, he said he thought a sufficient
case had been mada out to justify him, in the absence
of any formal objection, in retaining the names on
the list. He at the se:ne time said that, considering
the ignorance of the overseer, and the fact that he
had been put to the expense of coming up from
Thames Ditton to attend the court, he should not in-
flict any fine upon him, but he would not be allowed
' a farthing for expenses.
The following is the clause referred to by Mr.
Fish relative to the liability of overseers, by which it
will be seen they incur a heavyliability for negligence
or omission :—By the 97th section it is enacted,
" That every sheriff, under-sheriff, clerk of the peace,
overseer, &c., required by this Act to do any matter
or thing, shall, for every wilful misfeasance, or wilful
act of commission or omission, contrary to this Act,
forfeit to any party aggrieved the penal sum of 1001.,
or such less sum as the jury before whom may be
tried any action to be brought for the recovery of the
before-mentioned sum, shall consider just to be paid
by such party, to be recovered with full costs of suit
by action for debt, in any of her Majesty's superior
courts at Westminster."