The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1867-10-01 00:00:00

REVISION OF TRR VOTEILS LIST.

_
The Revising Barrister, E Platt, EN., held his wart
in the Townhall, 'Wareham, on Thursday last. eon-
mewling with the list for the county reprewntatioo. In
this there was 'no change made worthy of notice. The
revision of the borough list commenced at 12 o'clock, by
which time • goodly number of peeve= were preeent,
but the proc *dings lacked that interest by which they
have beenoharisctriaed in formic yeeze. The first parish
proceeded with was
Bill Ream—James Ford, jun.—Mr. Atkinson for
the support of the claim. Opposed by Mr. Harker.
The applicant not appearing to support his claim it was
struck out.—John Bargees, residing at Winterborne
Kingston.—Mr. Harker objected to this claim on the
ground that the gross value of the property wss not
£lO. Mr. Scutt, overseer of the parish, produced the
rate book, in which the estimated value was only Eft.
In reply to Mr. Atkinson, who appeared in support of
the claimant, Mr. Burgess stated that the property
consisted of seven acres and two lug of land, which by the
Improvement be had made upon it he should consider
was fully worth 10 gIIiDOLS. The land was let to the
Rev. Mr. Leigh for 30 years, at £7 per year, and when
he died he allowed his man servant to have it for • year
at the semi rental, but he then told him he should take
It into his own poemesien.—Mr. Harker pointed out
'hat only two years ago the lend was let for only L"7.—
Mr. Atkinson submitted that though that was the case,
and it had been let for a long period at that rental, still
It did not alter the fact that the land was worth more
now through the improvements made by the owner since
he took it into his own possession. —ln reply t 3 his
Honour, Mr. Scutt. the overseer said he considered the
land wag worth 10 =loam—His Honour having re-
marked on the great difference between the rent paid
by the former tenant, and the sum at which the land
was valued by the owner, said he could not allow the
claim.--George Patrick.—Mr. Hooker objected to this
claimant on the ground that the land for which he
claimed was not of sufficient value. It MU returned by
the overseer at LE 10'. —Claimant stated that be paid
£l2loe. for a house and 2f acres of land, which he rented
of Mr. Dmx, and Di 10s. to Mrs. Barton for land he
rented of her.—Objection oirermled.—Hervey House,
Henry Jenkins, and J sines Joiner —Neither of them
parties appearing in support of their claims, they were
ordered to be struck out. —Peter Langdon.—This
claimant was objected to by Mr. Harker on the ground
that the land for which he claimed was only a 10a
Claimant admitting that that was the rent he paid the
objection was held good.—Robert Miller. —Kr. Harker
objected on the ground that there was no such • build-
ing oa the land as was required to give the claimant a
vote.. Kr. Atkinson appeared to support the claim.—
Mr. Miller stated that he paid £6O rent. There was a
building on the land.— Mr. Barker: What sort of a
building. Is it • dog kennel or what ?—Claimant: ft
is • shed opened at the sides, completely enclosed, made
of wood.—Mr. Hacker: Is it not merely a place for
horses and cows to go under. A.—Well, the cows do
go there when the thee be busy. I put seed in the
bending or any of my farming implements.—His
Honour: There appears but little doubt there is a
building on the land.—Mr. Atkinson said the elaimant
had had • vote for 90 years.--Obj,ction overruled.
COIFS CAUL& —George Crocker, William Caine.,
Samuel Evans, John Hibbs, Thomas Chinehon Horlock,
James Bevian Jove's, William Vye Smith, James Tacker,
Robert Wilson Wright. Non* of these parties appear-
ing In support of their claims, their names were struck
out. —Mr. Atkinson remarked that it appeared the
people of Code were not expecting an 4=Bon very
soon. _ . .

-11.0.1iDOL -Moro were four new claims and five
objeoted votes in this wish. John Lima-This
claimant was supported by both solicitors, and his claim
allowed.—Henry John Panton.-This claimant was
supported by Mr. Harker, and opposed by Mr. Atkinson,
on the pound that he sublet the land he rented to
others.-The claimant stated that he rented under
Mr. Cleveland Filliter, and paid £l2 per year rent He
produced a receipt, which his Honour considered • very
singular one. It began, "Received and due this day,"
and was a receipt for • whole year's rent. Claimant
further stated that be had paid his rent at Lady-day,
and paid for the whole year at ones. No part of the
money was paid back.-In croweproination by Mr.
Atkinson. witness raid at first be had only once let his
field. He let Mr. Missy put in • sow there now and
then. Could nog say how much Mr. A mey paid. He
might have had two or three cows there at a time.
li•ing closely pressed, claimant said he received £2 or
£3 from Mr. Army-His Honour : That would make it
• sub-letting.-Mr. Harker submitted that a person
meld allow • person to put in stock to eat of the field,
without its being • sub-letting.-His Honour: Dow
loog ago is it since you saw Mr. Amoy's 'owe there?-
After some hesitation claimant admitted to have seen
them there two or three dap previous.-Claim die-
allowed.—Francis Squire, South-street, Wareham.
Claim for hips" and bind at North Port -Mr.
Atkinson ea the claimant, Mr. Harker opposed
on the grotto of there not being sufficient building. It
appeared that the building was used as a store-house,
and occasionally as a workshop.-Claim allowed.
John Limingtoo struck out, obiimant not appearing.
—Robert William Summers and William Summers,
Atkinson, and opposed by Mr. H ker.
supportedlUZ
Dliy Mr.
tliedp um
ism together, and William
stated that they paid £2O 10*. yearly.-Ohjeotion over-
ruled and claim allowed.—Georgo Whittle.-Mr.
Harker objected to this claim. The circumstances of
the case was somewhat panther, and show what can
be done by young men when prudent and careful.-
Claimant said that he was serving as • journeyman in
Mr. Selby's shop, in Wareham, but that he was in
partnership with his father in a farm. Ho was engaged
at Mr. Selby's every day in the week, but cent benne
to dinner and to sleep. There was an agreement between
his father (who was upwards of 70 year.), and himself,
by which he was to share the profile with his father. --
His Honour: Did you put any capita/ into this farm?
-"Yes."-How mach ?-" 1250."-How long ago did
you enter with your father on this farm?-" Two years
age."-How old were you then ?-"19 years old."-
And you put 1.50 into the oonoern?-"Yee."-Mr.
Atkinson said such were the facts, and it was very
creditable to the young man.-Claimant said he was
liable for the rent, and handed in • receipt made out in
his own and his father's name.-Objection over-ruled
and claim allowed.—Robert West, objected to by Mr.
Harker.-Claimant said the land was his own property,
and the overseer considered it was worth at least £l5 if
let. -Objection over-rolled.
PAMIR'S Or BOLT 'TRINITY, WAllallall.-Oeorge
Best. -Mr. Atkinson objected to this elaimant on the
ground that a building forming part of the claim was
not of the description required.-Mr. Harker for the
claimant. -Claimant Mated that he used the building
to store wood. There was a saw pit, and parties who
bought timber of him sometimes cut it up there. It
tested on stakes in the ground and had • wooden roof.
-Objection overruled and claim allowed.—James
Hollingham, Bricklayers Arms.-Objected to by Mr.
Atkinson and supported by Mr. Harker.-Claimant
stated that he had rented the property 15 or 16 pert
and paid RIO • year. -Objection overruled and claim
ellowed.—William Mate, printer and publisher,
Weet-street-This was a new claim, supported by Mr.
Harker and opposed by Mr. Atkinson.-Claimant
stated that he rented a house at All yearly rental, and
sometimes resided there with his family. He let •
portion of the downstair apartments to Mr. Tre ,
solicitor, at de. 6& per week. It was • weekly hiring.
He also let apartments to • Mrs. Davis at is. 6d. per
week.-Mr. Atkinson : Then you pay rent and by sub-
letting make over £22 per year, besides having part of
the house in your own possession. Does not Mr.
Tribbatt claim also for the boom? "Ye.." Kr. Atkinson
submitted MP as the rent was £2l for the two
parties and by sub-letting they made more than that
amount, neither of the claimants had • right to be put
on the register. -Mr. Harker maintained that as Mr.
Kate had melesive possession to the premises by retain-
ing to himself the power to open and shut the door
when he pleased, the claho'was a good one. -In reply to
Mr. Atkinson, Mr. Mate stated that Mr. Tribbett,
jun., bad Bole charge of the house, that Mr. Trevenen
nor the other lodger could enter if the door was closed,
without ringing the bell. Mr. Trevenen's name was on
his own (icor entered by the penises and on his
window blinds, but that he had no power or control
over tbe house. He had been very mrehl and watebed
this point, so as to have the power of claiming a vote.
-By the request of the Barrister Mr. Trevenen gave
corroborative evidence. Mr. Tribbett, jun., was then
celled. He stated that be always retained ponseselon of
the the front door key, and no one had any right to
enter or go out after the door was fastened without his
permimion. He had repeated instructions from Mr.
Mate so to act. Mrs. Davis occupied two rooms
upstairs, and was obliged to ring the bell if the front
door was shut. He kept tb• front door constantly
locked up at night. In the day it was sometimes
open and ahut. The servant answered the door
sometimes.-The judge was of opinion that there was
no letting to bar the elialm, sad allowed both Mr. Mate's
7.llfarLke-r.
Krfor.
and Mr. Tribbetra.--Clawg• Penny.- Claimant not
psaring to support, his application, the claim was
dtk7inulliriti MCIt :violent stated
strock out—Georp Roe.- Claim withdrawn.
HOLY Timm (withiciutl-roJobn Cooper claimed for
a house and lands at
tadharbeankbadoprePVled by Mr.
Atkinson. Does not that include a right in a four-share
In Reek Moors. A. I have • right in East Moors. I
Cannot say what I pay separately for IL-What is it
worth? Oh, not ninth. It hardly pep for cutting the
gram. It is not worth 22 per year. Md you not have
a risk of hay lest year off that share? "Yes." What
world you take for that? After some hesitation
claimant dated he should not like to take lees than £5
for it. -His Honour: What do you estimate the worth
of the property at Stoborough without the fourahare ?
"I cannot my." Yr. Harker eonteaded that the
property at Stoborougla maid not be fairly separated
horn the four-share building. It was, however, proved
that the one was a common right, end the other Land
rent of Mr. Caleraft-Claim disallowed.—An °Nee-
tkm was also raised by Mr. Atkinson for to the same
clamant, for a claim for land his own property. This
OV•Crulad.---George Randall dinned tot lands as

Iltoborough, rented of Kr. Cale:raft, at £I3 per annum.
Ohjestion by Kr. Atkinsoo overruled and claim allowed.
ST. MARTIN'S (in parish).—.lsrues Taylor claimed for
house and garden and workshop. 110 was suppo7ted
by Mr. Harker, end opposed by Kr. Atkinson.
—Claimant said his rent was 1:10 17s. He paid 17,
17e. for an off garden, which he let to two other per i.e
for the same money. He bad also a common right,
which might be worth 154. a year, but be woe 001 aware
when he took the house that be had such a right, and
hal paid rent for several years before he knew that it
helo lied to him.—Claim allowed.—The name of
George Bridle was struck out, he not appearing to
support his claim.--William Best claimed for a boom
sod garden in Weat-street. —Kr. Atkinson opposed.
and inquired of the claimant whether when he took the
hon. there was not an undentanding there was to be a
set-off for repairs. This claimant denied, and his claim
was allowed.— —Charles Burton Dngdale and George
Bright were both struck out, neither parties appearing.
—Robert Laws, objected to by Kr. Atkinson, claimed
as oompher of a house and garden in Nortli-strest at the
yearly rental of £lO. He denied having stated it was
not worth more than £B, or that be had received a
farthing from his landlord. He might have had • bare
or two—(laughter).—Claim allowed.
ST. MARTIN'S (ontparish).—Robert Dean claimed for
house and land lits own property.—Mr. Harker opposed.
Claim allowed.---James Fancy, of Houghton Heath,
claimed for his own property, which he stated was worth
EIO per year, and that he bad been offered that sum.
but did not mean to give up the possession.--Kr.
Harker suppnrted, Mr. Atkinson for the objection.—
Claim .flowed.
Br. Maar (in-parish).—John Pearson Monteith. No
objection was raised to this claimant —Allowed.—
William Cox George Kerley. and George Orchard.
All these paiiits not appearing to support their claims
their names were struck out.
This closed the lists. The revising Isarriater having
expressed his gratification at the gentlemanly and
pleasant wanner in which the two solicitors had con-
dusted their eases, the proceedings terminated.

_
The results ere am foIIo,"r-
Liberal Claim. sustained ... 3
Libe-al Objections sustained ... ... 6