The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-02 00:00:00

SOUTH CHESHIRE REGISTRATION

The Revising Barrister (Edward Young, Esq.) com-
menced his labours for the Wirral district, on Saturday last'
at the Birkenhead Hotel, and we are glad to report that every'
thing has passed off in the most satisfactory manner, and !"
the clear gain of the conservatives. The new claims sent le
by the conservatives greatly exceeded those sent in by the
radicals.
The court was attended professionally by Mr. Peacoekl
assisted by Mr. More, on the part of the conservatives, w'
Mr. Parry of Chester, assisted by Mr. W. W. Mortimer, ell
the part of the radicals. No case of any interest occurred
t
but on the revision of the Birkenhead list, a little merrirnee
was excited on Mr. Peacock proving a notice of objectil
against " Parker Black," who claimed in respect of a eel)
charge arising out of houses in Camden-street ; Mr. Pee;
cock, to the surprise of the court stated, that Barker Bise_,
was a black dog belonging to Mr. W. W. Mortimer. (Itc)
of laughter.) This dog, said Mr. Peacock, must be a mighty
;
favourite with its master, for he was actually conferring
privilege upon it, which he himself did not possess. (Gre,S;
laughter.) He hardly expected that the partisans a 0.,
whig-radical ministry would be the first to throw ridicule t
the 'reform bill—a bill which was again and again, duri4l..;
progress through the House of Commons, characterised
the great charter of our liberties, but it would seem not to
work quite so favourably for the radical interest as was ant)"
cipated. He thought Mr. Mortimer was paying a poor con);
pliment to the ten pounders when he classed his dog start
them. (Roars of laughter.) Now, continued Mr. Peacock
I do not hesitate to state, that if the name of Barker Black w
not struck off the list, in the event of an election, there ar.:
plenty of the unwashed who would be ready to vote in
name.
It is almost needless to add that Barker Black was struck
off the list.
Mr. Joseph Christopher Ewart, one of the newly 1111;
pointed magistrates for Cheshire, followed the fate of Bartel
Black, and was struck off the fist of voters for want of prop"
qualification.
The decisions of the revising barrister seemed on the we--hale
•
to give satisfaction, but he made one decision of rather 1 r
extraordinary nature, and we notice it merely to guard' 're,
conservative friends against acting upon it ; the case w
this :—Mr. John Lomax was objected to by the conservatifeil:
in consequence of having removed about two years ago fr°,
Eldon-place, Tranmere, to Holt Hill; it appeared he elid
never made any fresh claim after such removal ; the fact •
removal was admitted, but the revising barrister held tbs't
removal front one part of a township to another was ne, to
good ground of objection, unless the party was objecteod
the first year, after his removal. Mr. Peacoeleproteet
against this decision as being opposed to both the letter 04
spirit of the reform act, and at variance with the decisions "A
the revising barristers in all other counties, and he instaaie
the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, who was struck (i),•
the London list, on the ground that he had .removed to
next house, and he showed the absurdity of the decision v..
applying the case to large towns. The revising barrie_,tet;
however, adhered to the opinion he at first- expressed ' • tti•
decision operated favourably to the radicals in several cases
which subsequently came before the court.
Mr. William Ravenscroft, jun., claimed as owner of a fret;
hold house in Church-street. He was objected to by tt;
conservatives. He said he was the owner of the house '5
question. On his cross-examination, he said, the. housekea
not been conveyed to him. His father had given it to him 7/
word of mouth. (Laughter.) He had no deed or writing
any sort to prove his title. on
The Revising Barrister (smiling) : Then I am afraid 1
have no title of any sort to this house. To convey freeketh
property a deed is neeesssay, and, iu the event of the dell
of your father, I have no doubt it would be taken from Y°o.
I must strike off your name—name struck off accordingly:
d
Here one of the Overseers called out Barker Black age'''
which convulsed the court with laughter. a It'
Mr. George Law, of Holt-hill, claimed for houses at sserej
hill. He complained bitterly of the way he had been tres ;00
by the conservatives, having been knocked off the list
years ago, when it was notorious he had property worth ,' 10 0
than £l,OOO a year. Mr. Peacock called for the prodoetio,
of Mr. Fairhurst 's will, under which, Mr. Law claimed tito
when, it appeared, that the property was settled upon
wife for her own separate use. The Revising Barrister asbe
that was a fatal objection to his claim, and his name must ss
struck off. Mr. Law, however, insisted that his claim Ifse,
perfectly good ; when he qualified as occupier of the bon
po
he was struck off, and now he qualified as owner, he was 50r.
struck off. There was neither law nor justice in the ca
He left the court much dissatisfied with the result.
George Meakin claimed for a freehold house in Traiinser g'
e
He was objected to by the conservatives, and did not aliPtcof
to prove his claim. The Overseer of Tranmere stated 0s
he knew the claimant owned the house, but whether it 00
freehold or leasehold he did not know, nor did he kl!o.
whether there was a mortgage on the property. The elsiort
ant was in Scotland. Mr. Peacock objected to this loose eiog
of evidence, and insisted upon the claimant either aePesrcer,
in person, or sending some one wbo could- speak witiLt off
tainty as to the tenure, and who could speak to the fs tos
the claimant receiving 40s. a year, after paying the ititer`-n•
the existing mortgage. The Revising Barrister said be co
sidered the proof sufficient, and allowed the claim. • 110
William Jones claimed for two houses at Wallasey tthe
was objected to by the radicals. He did not appear, newer
Overseer (Mr. Hill) proved that the claimant was thef,,eth
of the property, and received the rents ; and, he be"; of
there was no mortgage on the property, as the claimae*•or
well off in the world. The Revising Barrister,- to the oaf
prise of all present said, unless the Overseer would S•tbs
there was no mortgage on the property, he would 'expnetose,
name. Mr. Peacock reminded him of his former dee1...40;
the facts of which were exactly the same as in the Plies&
case. A good deal of discussion took place, and it is be