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

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.
Ile expected the vestry- clerk would have done all
that was necessary.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he supposed he could
not write.

He replied that he could write his name, and that
was all.

The REVISING BARRISTER said that it was very
c'ear 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 made out to justify him, in the absence
of any formal objection, in retaining the names on
the list. He at the same 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 heavy liability 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."

POLICE INTELLIGENCE. -
(YESTERDAY.)
CLERKEIV WELL,
George Mackintosh, Jane Mackintosh, and Mary
Owen, were brought up on remand, charged with
highway robbery, accompanied with violence.
It appeared from the evidence of the prosecutor,
Mr. John S. Chapel, a feeble old man, whose head
was bound up, that he is a general dealer, and resides
at 4, Market-street, Oxford-street. Between nine
and ten o'clock on the night of Wednesday last, he
was returning home along Bedford-street, Bedford-
square, when he saw the prisoners walking together
on the pavement. He had not advanced more than a
few paces when the male prisoners rushed upon him,
knocked him down, and, his head falling against the
kerb, he became insensible • when he recovered con-
sciousness he found that he had been robbed of his
watch, keys, and chain, and that he was bleeding pro-
fusely from wounds in the head. A gentleman who
chanced to be passing raised him from the ground,
and be was removed to the London University Hos-
pital, where his wounds were dressed.

The watch was produced. It had been pawned by
an associate of the prisoners named Thompson, at Mr.
Lloyd's, in Stretton-street, 'Westminster.
The male prisoner, when asked for his defence, said
that he proved an alibi against the two policemen
whom he saw present on former occasions.
The policemen 70 and 99 B swore the prisoner at-
tempted to run away when they arrested him.—Re-
manded.