The Sun.
London, England, 1844-09-24 00:00:00

seers :

Paddington
St. Nlarylebone ... 26
St. Pancras

66 57
OBJECTIONS.

Reformers. Tories. Total.
Paddington
St. Marylebone
St. Pancras

586 1,174 1.760
Out of the above number, 393 are objected to by both
ptirt,es. There are upwards of 15,000 names on the re-
giiter. Since last year, about 950 names have been adled.
The name of Michael Ryan, registered as living at
No. 2 and 5, Horace-street, was objected to by the Con-
servatives, on the ground that he lived at No. 26 in that
street, and was merely the owner, and not the occupier,
of the houses in question.
Mr. Allen apprehended that it was merely a mistake
as to the place of abode, and that the Revising Barrister
had power given to him under the Act to amend it.
Mr. Greenwood thought it was not a mistake, and
could not be taken in that light.
Mr. Ryan was sworn and examined—He said, " I
cannot tell you the value of the house No. 26 in Horace-
street; I only know that itis of great value to me ; 15/.
a year is the rent."
After some discussion the mistake was rectified, and
the vote retained on the list.
The names of Lords Beresford and Faversham were
objected to, on the ground that they were Peers. The
objections were allowed.
Several other names were struck off the list of voters
for the parish of All Souls who had been entered on it
by the overseers, but who were not duly qualified.

EAST SURREY REGISTRATION

The Revising Barrister, Mr. S. C. Fish, yesterday
attended at the Town-hall, Kingston, for the purpose
of revising the lists of voters in that district.
Mr. E. Meymott, attended as the Conservative agent,
and Mr. Jeans for the Liberals.

A good deal of inconvenience was occasioned by
the negligence of the overseers in the country districts,
and they appeared to be certainly ignorant of the
I luty which the law required them to perform, and in
some instances parties were disfranchised through their

negligence.
In Thames Ditton parish the overseer had sent in
no list, either of voters or new claims; neither did he
attend to present any list whatever to the Court.
Mr. Fish remarked that such conduct was really
too bad, and he should feel compelled to take notice
of it. _ _ _

The Deputy-Clerk of the Peace said he had written
to the overseer and requested that the lists might be
forwarded, but he took no notice of his application.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he. should adjourn
the consideration of the list until a future day, and,
unless some very good cause was shown for the
neglect, he should certainly fine the overseer for not
sending the lists, and also for not attending the Court.
In the parish of Kingston the claim to vote made by
Mr. Edward May was objected to by the Conservative
agent.
Mr. Meymott said that this case involved a matter
of some importance. The nature of objection to the
overseer had been posted in due time, and he would
new ask the overseer whether he had ever received it ?
The overseer said he had not.
Mr. Meymott said that, under these circumstances,
he was unable to press his objection; it was clear,
however, that the post could not be relied upon.
Mr. Jeans said that the notice of objection appeared
to be addressed on the back of it to the overseers of
Richmond, and this probably accounted for the over-
seers of Kingston not having received it.
Mr. Meymott said the notice was addressed to the
oveeseers of Kingston-on-Thames, and he knew
nothing of the address at the back of it to the over-
seers of Richmond.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he could not enter
into any question relative to the non-delivery of the
notice. The forms of the Act of Parliament had nut
been complied with, and the name of the voter must,
therefore, remain upon the list.
Mr. E. H. V. Lewes claimed to have his name
placed upon the list of voters. He described his quali-
fication as being one undivided fourth part of certain
property at Kingston.
Mr. Jeans objected to the claim, on the ground that
the qualification was not properly described. Mr.
Lewes should have stated that he had a freehold
interest.
The REVISING BARRISTER thought the objection
was well founded.
Mr. Jeans said he believed the gentleman was a
lawyer, and therefore he ought to have known what
the law required.
The REVISING BARRISTER decided that the quali-
fication was not properly described, and he struck out
the name.
James Laurence claimed to vote.
Mr. Jeans said the claimant held an appointment
under the Post-office, and he was not entitled to vote
The REVISING BARRISTER asked if any objection
had been taken to his claim ?
Mr. Jeans said he was not aware that there was ;
but as the Revising Barrister had struck out a claim
of a similar nature at the Reigate Court, he thought
it was his duty to make the present objection.
Mr. Fish said that in that case the party was ob-
jected to by the overseers.
Mr. Meymott said that where no formal objection
was made to the claim, it ought not to be disallowed.
Although the party could not vote, there ,aas no
reason why his name should not be upon the register.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he should retain the
name upon the list.
When the other parishes had been gone through, the
question arose what should be done in the case ut
Thames Ditton.
The REVISING BARRISTER said he should adjourn
the consideration of the list until Thursday, when he
should sit at Camberwell, and as he had before stated,
he should certainly fine the Overseer for his neglect.