The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1839-04-26 00:00:00

TUESDAY.

At the sitting of the committee this day, the Chairman said
that the question involved in the vote of William Milligen
was so important, and as no counsel had been heard against
the validity of this vote, the committee was desirous of hearing
Mr. Thesiger.
The learned counsel then addressed the committee at some
length, after which Mr. Austin was heard in reply.
The committee deliberated with closed doors for a consider-
able time, and on counsel and agents re-appearing, they were
informed that the committee held the vote to be a good one,
consequently it was retained.
Mr. Bere then proposed to strike off the vote of John Hal-
Ewell, registered for a house and land in the Hermitage ;

Wigan.
Mary Allen, the owner of a house in Wigan-lane, was called
to prove that the voter went into her house on the 11th of
November last, a brother of the voter having previously oc-
cupied it, but had then quitted it.
The assistant overseer of the poor stated that he called on
the voter in October last for a rate owing for the Wigan-lane
house. In July preceding Halliwell was living at the Her-
mitage house. Witness said that he intended to alter the
rating.
In his cross-examination he stated that he was appointed
by the board of guardians assistant overseer. Mr. Gaskill
was clerk to the board ; and Mr. Lord the chairman. The
Hermitage is a farm house.
In defence of the vote Mr. Cockburn called Roger Halli-
well, the father of the voter, who stated that he and his son
were in partnership at the farm ; that the partnership com-
menced two years ago last July ; that the farm consisted of
two or three acres of land ; that his son, who was a joiner by
trade, had continued in partnership up to the present moment ;
that he put his flour into a room in the farm house ; that he
kept a huckster's shop ; that the farm and house were rented
of Mr. Walmsley ; and, finally, that the voter had now a
right to the same premises, as he ever had.
Cross-examined--I took the farm. My son Roger had
previously occupied it. I considered my son was the land-
lord. Upon my oath I did not see Mr. Woodward, the
steward, and take the farm from him. After I took possession
I saw Mr. Woodward's son. At that time I had paid some
rent to my son. I had taken possession before I entered
into partnership with my son John. I think I had paid two
half-years' rent to my son Roger before I paid any rent to
Mr. 'Woodward. John is a married man, and was living at
the Hermitage at the time of registration. Before his mar-
riage he was living with the family for seven years. (It
appeared there were two houses in the Hermitage.) John
married shortly after we went into partnership. When he
went to Mrs. Allen's, in October, he took nearly all his
furniture. He left behind two tables —one was a dining-
table. He also left some pictures—l may call them wax
figures. (A laugh.) I do not know what the figures are ;
they are figures of human beings--children, or something of
that sort. (Laughtzr.) They are about the size to go into
my hat. They do not stand upon anything but their own
legs. (A laugh.) They are upon a ledge in the bed room.
Ido not know what they are worth. Ido not admire such
things. I should think they are worth a shilling or two. My
son did not think proper to take away these figures. The
two tables are there still. The value of the house is £6
a year, without the land. We have each of us two cows on
the farm. The oven on the premises is used by John and
Roger. Roger lives at Scholes Bridge, about three quarters
of a mile from the Hermitage.
Re-examined.—The house consists of ten apartments.
John has four. He bakes his bread in one of the rooms, and
keeps his flour in another. He left the tables without asking
me. Half the rent is paid by my son.
In answer to a question put by Mr. Thesiger, the witness
said, " I voted for Mr. Ewart."
Mr. Cockburn then addressed the committee in support of
the vote, contending that there was no alteration in the qua-
lification since the period of registration.
Mr. Thesiger recapitulated the facts, and argued against
the validy of the vote.
Before any decision was come to the hour of adjoummen
arrived.

WEDNESDAY.

The committee met this day at eleven o'clock.
The Chairman announce i that the vote of John Halliwell,
which was under consideration since yesterday, was a good
vote.
Mr. THESIGER then said that before he proceeded with other
votes, he had an application to make, and which was of great
importance. It was, that the committee would reconsider
their decision of yesterday. as regarded the vote of William.
Milligan, and allow it to be re-argued. He made the appli-
cation on two distinct grounds ; first, that the decision of the
committee was looked upon by the legal profession with no
little surprise, and they differed in tote from it. The other
ground was, that after he had concluded his address, and in
his absence, an hon. member called for the rate-book, the
inspection of which, finding Milligan's name on it as rated,
had, he had no doubt, its due weight with the committee. It
was customary at trials at Nisi Prius for the judges never to
call for or receive evidence which had not been tendered by
counsel. There were many precedents that such an applica-
tion was granted. He would instance the Hull and Youghal
cases, though he was free to admit there were cases where
similar applications were decided otherwise. But he would
contend, in all the annals of trials there never was an instance
where a judge called for a document or witness which had not
been produced by counsel ; and he was convinced that if any
judge did so, an application for a new trial would be granted.
Moreover he was placed in a false position ' • his learned friend
Mr. Austen should have first supported the vote, and he
should have been heard in reply. His learned friend had the
last word, and in arguing the case he took quite a different
line of argument than that he should have pursued in answer
to his. If he had had the reply, an opportunity would have
been afforded him of commenting upon the fresh evidence
called for by the hon. member in his absence. The produc-
tion of the rate-book, he had no doubt, influenced not a little
the minds of the committee, and he therefore respectfully
submitted that it ought not to have been received after he
had closed his address. It was the duty of counsel on both
sides to furnish the evidence upon which they meant to rely.
Upon these two grounds he contended that his application
for re-arguing the case ought to be granted.
Mr. ETWALL.—Did you not in your argument allude to
rates ?
Mr. THESIGER.—I certainly did, but not to the particular
entry, which could only be received as evidence in this par-
ticular case. The book itself, though put in for general
purposes, was only evidence in particular cases
Mr. COCKBURN, in reply, complained of the unfair advan-
tage which had been taken to re-argue the case. It was the
last effort made to support an expiring cause. The applica-
tion of his learned friend was without precedent ; such an
application never was granted, except where it was shown
that the party was taken by surprise. In the present instance
such was not even attempted to be said was the case. His
learned friend had quoted the Hull and Youghall cases, but
he would call his attention to the Kinsale case, when his
learned friend had successfully opposed a similar application.
(Laughter.) Why did not his learned friend make his ap-
plication sooner ! No, it was thought not necessary, but in
consultrtion, his learned friend, finding the impression which
the powerful argument of his friend, Mr. Austin, had made
on the committee, then thought it imperatively necessary to
have it re-argued, knowing, as they well did, that if they
were not able to upset that decision, their case against the
sitting member had not a leg to stand upon. The grounds
upon which the application was made he trusted he should
b 3 able to show the committee were equally fallacious. The
first was, that the legal profession entertained a contrary
opinion from the committee. He should be glad to know
what influence such an opinion would have with them ; and
secondly, that an hon. member had called for further evi-
dence after his learned friend had closed his address: The
cases which had been quoted by his learned friend had no
analogy. The committee were alone the judges, and had a
right to look into any documents they chose, and ascertain
the truth by any means they could. The object of the appli-
cation was to sustain a case which had not a leg to stand upon.
The room was then cleared, and after 20 minutes' delibera-
tion,
The CHAIRMAN announced that the committee declined to
grant the application.
Mr. BERE, on the part of the petitioner, proposed to
strike off the vote of the Rev. J. Fleetwood, a Catholic-priest.
Elijah Rhodes stated, that Mr. Fleetwood previous to
November last, was a Catholic curate in Wigan, and occupied
a part of a house adjoining the chapel. At that period he got
unwell, and went to reside with the Rev. Mr. Gallen, at
Paddington, about 20 miles from Wigan. Oh the evening
previous to the election, he returned and slept that night in
the house, and remained about ten days. The house was
furnished. Witness could not say to whom the furniture
belonged. When Mr. Fleetwood left he took away his
books, leaving nothing behind him but an old trunk.
Mr. Bere, against the vote, contended that the rev. gentle-
man once leaving the premises for such a period was a vir-
tual abandonment of possession. The furniture was not his,
and therefore there could be no plea of possession upon that
ground, and an old trunk representing a possession. His
returning the very eve of the election, evidently showed that
it was for the purpose of establishing a colourable possession
to enable him to vote. The house was only to be occupied
as long as the duties of the office, to which it was attached,
were performed, and the moment he ceased to perform the
duties he relinquiihed the right of the enjoyment of posses-
sion. It was the same as in the case of a curate of the esta-
blished church, who, as soon as he ceased to perform the
duties from which he derived his domicile, forfeited posses-
sion. It was true he might call a Mr. Middlehurst and Mr.
Dowling, but those witnesses were in the enemy's camp, and
he therefore preferred to let the case rest on its merits, and
the intelligence of the committee.
Mr. COCKBURN, in support of the vote, submitted that the
rev. gentleman, the voter, Mr. Fleetwood, never relinquished
the possession of his apartments in the house ; they remained
unoccupied up to the period of his return. As to the removal
of his books, they were perhaps the only solace which he had
while he went into that beautiful part of Cheshire in search of
his health. His learned friend had ample opportunity of
showing his abandonment of possession, by calling any of the
rev. gentlemen alluded to, or even his bishop, who would be
able to say whether he had removed him from his cure or not,
or gave him privilege to perform spiritual duties elsewhere.
He would put it to the committee seriously whether the Rev.
Mr. Fleetwood, clothed with the sacred character of priest,
would lend himself to such a device for political purposes.
The room was then cleared, and, after a quarter of an
hour's deliberation, the vote was declared to be good.
Mr. Benz then objected to the vote of Henry Hampson..
In support and against the vote there was much contradic-
tory evidence.
The room was cleared, but the committee deferred an-
nouncing their decision until to-morrow.L-Adjourned.