The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-23 00:00:00

the defendant was willing to make for her future
maintenance.

The defendant said that he had been paying 15s. a
week to maintain her in the asylum, and he was willing
to allow her half that sum if she would promise not to
come near or molest him again, as he had been in
danger of losing his situation through her turbulent
conduct.

Holland, the summoning officer, said that at the
expiration of her first confinement in the asylum,
Superintendent Johnson, with great kindness, re-
ceived her into his house, in the hope of being able
to effect a reconciliation with her husband, and her
conduct during the week she remained there was
uniformly good and perfectly rational.
After some further discussion, it was finally agreed
that the defendant should allow her Bs. per week, be-
sides providing her with some clothes and other
necessaries, and the parties then left the court.

WAAVDS W ORTH.

Thomas Hoy, John C'olleau, John Burn, and WM.
Leech, four able-bodied men, vrere brought up in cus-
tody, upon the following charge :
Mr. King, the master of the Wandsworth and
Clapham Union, stated that the prisoners were ad-
mitted on the previous night as destitute persons.
They were furnished with a bath, supper, and bed,
and in the morning were required to pick two pounds
of oakum each before breakfast. This they positively
refused to comply with. He had recently discovered
that a general combination had been entered into by
the mendicants to resist that particular portion of the
Act which required a casual pauper to execute a cer-
tain amount of labour in the morning before he had
breakfast, or otherwise to leave the house without
breakfast.

Mr. PAYNTER, after explaining the law to the pri-
soners, said it was evident, from the cool manner in
which they had gone to work, and the universal de-
fence that had been made by all casual paupers, brought
before him last week, that a combination or conspiracy
did exist, he could only tell the prisoners that, if they
expected to benefit themselves by such conduct, they
were miserably deceived. The last new Poor-law
Act passed enabled magistrates to treat these cases
more severely, and in future he would certainly act up
to the letter of the law. In this case he would only in-
flict a punishment of 21 days' hard labour, trusting
that the prisoners would advise other misguided per-
sons not to run into danger.
The prisoners, oh their way to the station- house,
said the master had guessed right—there was a com-
bination.

EAST SURREY REGISTRATION

Mr. S. C. Fish, the barrister appointed to revise the
lists of voters for the division of the county of Surrey,
held this first Court at Reigate, on Friday, at the
Town-hall.
Mr. Hart, of Reigate, attended as the Conservative
agent, and Mr. Jeans appeared for the Liberals.
There were several new claimants in the parish of
Warlingham. The first was that of Amos Ashby.
Mr. Jeans asked to be permitted to see the notice
of claim.
The REVISING BARRISTER asked him on what
ground he made the application. There had been no
objection made to the right of the party to vote.
Mr. Jeans submitted that he was entitled to see the
notice of claim, as he had reason to believe it was not
in proper form.
The Revising Barrister then handed over the claim
to Mr. Jeans, who then objected that the qualifica-
tion was altogether incorrectly described, and that the
claim could not be entertained.
The REVISING BARRISTER said the claim was cer-
tainly informal, and the name was expunged from
the list.
The other claims were then proceeded with, and
Mr. Jeans applied for permission to see each notice of
claim.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he would not allow
it, as it was merely a sort of fishing for objections. If
he was instructed that in any particular case the
notice was informal, he would allow him to see that
notice, but he would not permit him to see all the
notices for the chance of being able to take some ob-
j ection.

Mr. Jeans remarked, that having shown in one case
already that the notice was informal, he thought he
was justified in asking to see the others.
The REVISING BARRISTER said that as no formal
notice of objection had been given, he should consider
the overseers had done their duty, and he could not
permit the time of the court to be wasted in seeking
for objections.
The Rev. Mr. Fell claimed to vote. His qualifica-
tion was described as a rent-charge upon Warling-
ham Court Farm.
Mr. Jeans submitted that this was not a proper
description of the qualification. It should have been
a " freehold" rent-charge.
The REVISING BARRISTER said, that, no doubt, was
the proper description, but the 40th section of 'the
new Act gave him the power to amend the de-
scription.
The overseer was then examined, and he proved
that Mr. Fell received a yearly rent-charge of 101.
from the farm in question.
The REVISING} BARRISTER said that upon this evi-
dence he should insert the word " freehold."
The name was then placed upon the list.
Mr. Jeans said he trusted after what had taken
place, the court would now allow him to see all the
notices of new claims.
Mr. Hart objected, and said, that in the absence of
any formal objection, he though the court ought not
to allow this to be done. He was not aware whether
the claimants were Conservatives or Liberals, but he
objected to the course proposed by Mr. Jeans upon
principle.
The REVISING BARRISTER said they knew nothing
about Conservatives or Liberals in that court. If
Mr. Jeans really believed that any of the notices of
claims were informal, he did not think there could be
any objection to his being allowed to see them.
Mr. Hart said they were merely technical ob-
! jections.
Mr. Jeans said they were not merely technical ob-
i jections, for in one case the party had not even in-
serted he name of the division of the county or his
qualification, and all that he inserted was "farmer."
The REVISING BARRISTER decided that Mr.
Jeans should see any claim which he believed to be
informal, and one or two names were expunged upon
objections as to the description of qualification, &c.,
taken by Mr. Jeans.
In the parish of Holley, the right of a person who
claimed to vote was objected to by the overseer on the
ground that he was the keeper of the post-office.
The REVISING BARRISTER said that a person hold-
ing such an office was not entitled to vote, and he
therefore expunged the name.
No matter of any interest occurred in the other lists.
On Saturday Mr. Fish held his court at Croydon.
Mr. Jeans again attended on behalf of the Liberals,
and Mr. John Drummond and Mr. Chrees for the
Conservatives.
In the parish of Childen, John Brown claimed to
vote. He described his qualification as " farmer."
The REVISING BARRISTER said that if persons
would not take the trouble to comply with the pro-
visions of the Act of Parliament, they must abide by
the consequences, and he rejected the claim.
In the parish of Cashelton, the claim of Mr.
William S. Meryweather was objected to by the
Conservative agents. Mr. Meryweather claimed to
vote in respect of a freehold rent-charge upon land in
the parish of Cashelton.
Mr. Meryweather was examined in support of the
claim, and it appeared that, in right of his wife under
a will, which he produced, ht was in the receipt of
5001. a year from the land in question. The money
was paid to him by trustees.
Mr. Drummond said his objection to the right of
the claimant: was, that he did not possess such an in-
terest as amounted to a freehold rent-charge. The
father of Mrs. Meryweather had by his will devised
the property in question to trustees to be turned into
money, and out of the proceeds the trustees were
directed to pay over a sum of 5001. a year, and in point
of fact, Mr. Meryweather had no title whatever in the
land ; he could not enter upon it, and his interest was
merely a personalty, and not at all in the shape of a'
freehold.

The REVISING BARRISTER, having perused the will,
said that he was of opinion the claim could not be
admitted in its present shape. He would not give a
decided opinion, but he thought it probable, if the
application were removed for the qualification of a
cestuique trust, it might be successful ; but, at pre-
sent, he could not allow the claim.—Name expunged.
Mr. Montagu Turner, the son of the last applicant,
was also objected to by the Conservatives.
Mr. Drummond said that, in this case, he was un-
fortunately not able to produce his notice of objec-
tion, and he must, therefore, withdraw it. In order
to save Mr. Turner any trouble, he had written to him
to inform him that his vote would not be objected to,
and that he need not attend to support his claim.
Mr. Jeans said no such letter had been received,
and he intimated that he should apply for costs.
Mr. Drummond said he had done all in his power
to prevent the gentleman from being inconvenienced.
The REVISING BARRISTER said it was no case
for costs.
Mr. Marcus W. Turner also claimed to vote in re-
spect of the same property as Mr. Aleryweather.
The claim was disallowed upon the grounds stated
in the former case.

In the parish of: Croydon there were upwards of
200 fresh claims sent in by persons already on the re-
gister, but who considered their qualification and re-
sidence
improperly described, and which particulars
they amended on their fresh notice of claim.
The REVISING BARRISTER having, upon the ap-
plication of Mr. G. Penfold, who attprir!el f+l- -he
proceeded to consider the new one.
Mr. Jeans then said, that certain voters, consider-
ing the description of their qualification, residence