Abingdon, out no list of 107. householders, yet that as the Borough of claimant had complied with the provisions of the 1832. Act of Parliament, and as he had proved his qualification as a 107. householder, he was entitled to be put upon a list of voters. Mr. Graham asked upon what list the barristers would insert the name of the claimant ? Mr. Corbett.-We shall return him as a 107. householder to the returning officer. A voter, of the name of Shellar, desired in the first instance to be put on the list as a scot and lot voter; but as it appeared he had not paid his rates up to the 31st of July, that claim was given up. Mr. Harris then proposed to prove the right of the claimant to claim as a 101. householder. Mr. Graham asked, if, when a person forfeited the right reserved to him as a scot and lot payer, he could fall back on the other and new right created by the Act of Parliament ? Mr. Corbett said that a voter could certainly claim in respect of the two rights, and if he should prove his qualification under the Act as a 107. householder, he was entitled to the franchise. It was proved by the vestry-clerk, that the house of the claimant was one of the 450 houses in the borough of Abingdon which had been returned to Government as 10%. houses. Borough of Abingdon, 1832. Evidence of value may be re ceived to rebut the The claim was accordingly allowed. A list of the 101. occupiers, who had complied with the requisites of the Act of Parliament, was then made out by the barrister. Joseph Felton, a claimant, was rated at 97. per annum. of the house was the proper qualification, and if amount for there was evidence to prove that the value of the which the claimant's house was 10l., his vote was good. premises are rated. The assessed tax-gatherer swore the house was worth 127. a-year, and the claim was allowed. (a) Finsbury, 1832. In the case of David Laycock, it appeared that the claimant was rated at 71. only, but was otherwise duly qualified. The claimant resided in his own house, and swore that its annual value was more than 10%. The overseers were of the same opinion, and the Court, on this evidence, allowed the claim. (a) In the Bedfordshire case, 2 Luders, 449, the resolution of the committee was, that the value of a freehold, in right of which an elector votes, is the rent which a tenant will give for it, and not what the owner, occupying it himself, may possibly acquire by it. The claimant paid only 87. per annum rent; but it appeared in evidence, that the value of the house was 107. per annum. The Court decided, that where evidence is given that the rent paid is not equal to the value of the occupation, the real value must be the guide ;-Manning's Notes of Revision, 19. 1832. In the case of William Gregg, on reference to Reading, the books, it appeared that the claimant was rated at 71. only. The Court told him the law required that he should be rated at 107. The claimant stated that he paid a rent of 10l. per annum, and the Court allowed his vote. per annum wharfage. Thomas Terry claimed to be put on the list Granary and right of 10%. voters in right of a granary held by him. of free It appeared that the claimant paid 57. rent for the granary, and an additional 5l. for a right of free wharfage connected with it. The claim was rejected. Mr. McLaurin claimed to be inserted in the re- Claim in share of gistry, as having a right to vote in respect of a respect of share for 250l. in the Metropolitan New North- New road. Northroad ex Mr. Coventry, after inspecting the Act of Par- punged. liament which had been obtained for the formation of the road, said that it was manifest, from the terms of the Act, any share or interest the claimant might possess was personal property, and therefore the claim must be disallowed. Parochial A freeman's vote was objected to, on the ground St Alban's. of his having received parochial relief. The facts relief by were, that he had applied to his parish for work, labour does not disquawhich was furnished him at something under the lify. |