The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-27 00:00:00

PORTSOKEN WARD.

The poll was adjourned at twelve o'clock yesterday
until to-day at ten o'clock, in consequence of the Lord
Mayor's presence being required in the Ward of Bil
lingsgato. The numbers then wero for—
Mr. Sheriff Moon .
D. Salomons, Esq..
Maj ori ty
BOIL

94
132
-38

_
()UGH OF MARYLEBONE RE
GISTRATION.

(Before C. D. MOYLAN, Esq.)
The Revising Barrister sat in the St. Pancras vestry
yesterday to d►spose of the claims and objections in
that parish. There are 6,775 voters in St. Pancras ; 389
names having been added to thelist since the last revision.
The following is a list of the number of claims and
objections by the Liberals and Conservatives, and by
other persons in each of the following districts :
CLAIMS.
Reformers. Tories. Other persons. Total.
East Pancras ... 6 5 9 20
West Pancras ... 10 2 1 13
South Pancras... 15 2 13 30
North Pancras... 7 4 5 16

38 13
OBJECTIONS.

28 79

- .
Reformers. Tories. Total.
East Pancras 34 80 114
West Pancras l7 61 78
South Pancras
North Pancras

106 329 435
Mr. Tripp, residing at 20, Tavistock-place, claimed to
have his name placed on the register. He occupied two
rooms, for which he paid 50/. a year. The rates were
all paid before the 20th of July. Jane Farrell's name
appeared on the rate-book. He made a claim to the
overseers of the parish to be placed on the register,
which he left at the Anti-Corn-law League office.
The RETISIN ; BARRISTER said the Anti• Corn-law
League office was not the proper place to leave his claim.
It appeared that Mr. Tripp had not claimed to be put
on a rate made on the 9th September last year, which
The REVISING BARRISTER said would prevent him
from placing his name on the register : his name, how-
ever, would be on next year's register. Some persons
held that a person ought to claim to hare his name
placed on each rate, and although he did not quite coin.
tide in that opinion, yet he had no hesitation in advising
parties to do so.

The names of several persons who were proved to hold
subordinate offices in the service of the Government
were struck off ; as also the names of others who had not
resided twelve months at their places of abode, or had
removed.

The REVISING BARRISTER yesterday afternoon gave
his decision against the claim of Thomas Smith, whose
case was reported in The Sun. He occupied the second
floor of a house in Great Carlisle.-street, for which he
paid 53. 6d. per week, which Messrs. Ivemy and Allen
contended was sufficient to qualify him to vote ; whilst
Mr. Greenwood supported his objection on the ground
that the house was occupied by three parties, each of
whom paid a weekly rent. The house was rated at
201., and valued in the rate-book at 251.

EAST SURREY REGISTRATION.
The Revising Barrister yesterday held his Court at
he Vestry-hall, Camberwell.
Mr. E. Meymott appeared as the Conservative
agent, and Mr. Jeans attended for the Liberals.
In the Camberwell list, Mr. Thomas Moseley had,
under the head of "residence," described his place of
business, and also his private residence.
Mr. Jeans applied to have either one or the other
description removed from the list, as it was productive
of great inconvenience, in the event of any objection
being made to the vote, that there should be more
than one address.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he did not see what
inconvenience there could be in having a full descrip-
tion of the voter.
Mr. Jeans said that, some time ago, it was three
years before he could get a party into court, in con-
sequence of his having placed the description of his
residence and also his place of business upon the
register. The notice of objection was sent to his pri-
vate residence, and the Revising Barrister ruled that
a notice should also have been sent to his place of
business. In the case he alluded to, when he did at
length get the voter into court, it turned out that he
had no qualification, and yet his name had been re-
tained, for three years, upon the register.
The REvzsuso BARRISTER said he was quite sure
that he had not decided that notices to both places
were necessary. If a notice of objection was served
at the private residence, it was abundantly sufficient,
and the insertion of the place of business was mere
surplusage.
The claim was then left in its original form.
One of the overseers of Thames Ditton attended
with the list of voters and new claims in that parish.
It will be remembered that his duty was to have
attended at Kingston, but he did not do so, neither
did he send any lists, and the Revising Barrister ex-
pressed his intention to fine the overseers for their
negligence. The overseer now stated that the reason
he did not attend at Kingston was, that he received
no notice of the places of holding the courts in East
Surrey, but that by mistake the West Surrey meet-
ings were sent to him.
The REVISING BARRISTER said this might be a
reason for his not attending at Kingston, but it was
no excuse for his neglecting to send the lists to the
clerk of the peace, when no less than four applications
were made to him for them.

The overseer said he left it to his brother overseer.
The REVISING BARRISTER said this did not alter
the case, and hf should fine him 50s.
At the close of the business, Mr. Fish proceeded to
consider the Thames Ditton lists, and it appeared
that the overseers had not placed the list of new claims
upon the church door.
The REVISING BARRISTER said this was really most
gross and unpardonable neglect of duty. The clearest
instructions were sent to every overseer by the clerk
of the peace, but it appeared in this case they were
determined not to comply with them. He must ad-
journ the consideration of this list a second time, and
he should require the attendance of the other overseer,
whom he should certainly fine, as well as this one, for
his neglect.
Mr. Meymott said that these lists were made out
in the most bungling manner of any he had ever seen.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he was of the same ,
opinion, and it was high time the overseers were com-
pelled to perform their duties properly. There was
no excuse in this case, and he felt bound to prevent ,
the recurrence of such gross negligence ill future.