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.) sat,
menced his labours for the Wirral district, on SaturdaY
at the Birkenhead Hotel, and we are glad to report that to
thing has passed off in the most satisfactory manner, an iti
the clear gain of the conservatives. The new claims sell ,be
by the conservatives greatly exceeded those sent in LI
radicals. •
The court was attended professionally by Mr. Peacoi
assisted by Mr. More, on the part of the conservatives,
Mr. Parry of Chester, assisted by Mr. W. W. Mortinlerred.
the part of the radicals. No case of any interest occur cot
but on the revision of the Birkenhead list, a little tneenlios
was excited on Mr. Peacock proving a notice of obieerest
against " Parker Black," who claimed in respect of $ per
charge arising out of houses in Camden-street ; Mr•igs,)
cock, to the surprise of the court stated, that Barker,gar!
was a black dog belonging to Mr. W. W. Mortimer. (Tat!
of laughter.) This dog, said Mr. Peacock, must be a °Tog°
favourite with its master, for he was actually confer,ar-rot
privilege upon it, which he him Self did not possess. k`;
laughter.) He hardly expected that the partisans 0: 00
whig-radical ministry would be the first to throw ridicule id
the reform bill—a bill which was again and again, duril so
progress through the House of Commons, characterise to
the great charter of our liberties, but it would seem 'll,lti'
work quite so favourably for the radical interest as was
,0"
cipated. He thought Mr. Mortimer was paying a poor„-04
phment to the ten pounders when he classed his dog 11'4,
them. (Roars of laughter.) Now, continued Mr. Peaco,ii
I do not hesitate to state, that it the name of Barker B1°:
not struck off the list, in the event of an election, there Ui
plenty of the unwashed who would be ready to vote If/
name

It is almost needless to add that Barker Black was stru.
off the list.
Mr. Joseph Christopher Ewart, one of the peal! I<<
pointed magistrates for Cheshire, followed the fate ofParover
Black, and was struck off the list of voters for want of P
qualification.
The decisions of the revising barrister seemed on the4r

to give satisfaction, but he ;ride one decision of ratb`doo;
extraordinary nature, and we notice it merely to gdsr, Iry
conservative friends against acting upon it ; the e47''i,ei.
this :—Mr. John Lomax was objected to by the conservPiTed,
in consequence of having removed about two years ttit°
Eldon-place, Tranmere, to Holt Hill; it appeared 11,10
never made any fresh claim after such removal ; the
removal was admitted, but the revising barrister held frt'
removal from one part of a township to another Nos
~,It'
good ground of objection, unless the party was object :otei
the first year, after his removal. Mr. Peacock pe°' 00;
against this decision as being opposed to both the letter4ol
spirit of the reform act, and at variance with the decisio"vd‘
the revising barristers in all other counties, and he insts,,
the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, who was strue'llo
the London list, on the ground that he had removed tailt)f
next house, and he showed the absurdity of the decisity
applying • the case to large towns. —The revising bar!' ;hi'
however, adhered to the opinion he at first expressed ;cod
decision operated favourably to the radicals in several
which subsequently came before the court. fret'
Mr. William Ravenscroft, jun., claimed as owner of ti„
hold house in Church-street. He was objected to Il 0
conservatives. He said he was the owner of the bete ,
question. On his cross-examination, he said, the 11011':tev
not been conveyed to him. His father had given it to It! ,4
word of mouth. (Laughter.) He had no deed or writ'
any sort to prove his title. a
The Revising Barrister (smiling): Then I am dir,3,lel)o•l,
have no title of any sort to this house. To convey tr'les''
property a deed is necesssay, arid, in the event of the
,oJ
of your father, I have no doubt it would be taken frodii,.
I must strike off your name—name struck off accordingi/'
Here one of the Overseers called out Barker Black .
which convulsed the court with laughter.
. George Law, of Holt-hill, claimed for houses dtti
hill. Ile complained bitterly of the way he had beed,ti tid`i
by the conservatives, having been knocked off- the
years ago, when it was notorious he had property wdet.,"„ete
than £l,OOO a year. Mr. Peacock•called for the proultivi;
of Mr. Fairhurst's will, under which, Mr. Law elairde.l.o
when, it appeared, that the property was settled 01":„1.9',,,
wife for her own separate use. The Revising Barri6"d
that was a fatal objection to his claim, and his name 0;0 it"
struck off. Mr. Law, however, insisted that his eb°1100,;
perfectly good ; when he qualified as occupier of th" 01,,-
he was struck off, and now he qualified as owner, be ~``' Or'
struck off. There was neither law nor justice in the
He left the court much dissatisfied with the result. of;
George Meakin claimed for a freehold house in TO prt
He was objected to by the conservatives, and did Ol;
to prove his claim. The Overseer of Tranmere stat it
he knew the claimant owned the house, but whether 1;00,,
freehold or leasehold he did not know, nor did licejsoll
whether there was a mortgage on the property. The 50::1
ant was in Scotland. Mr. Peacock objected to thislo°o4,
of evidence, arid insisted upon the claimant either 31!rb c' of
w
in person, or sending some one who could speak ' fief of
tainty as to the tenure, and who could speak to the rest
the claimant receiving ,10s. a year, after paying the to';e
the existing mortgage. The Revising Barrister said "
sidered the proof sufficient, and allowed the claim.
William Jones claimed for two houses at Wallaqiit
was objected to by the radicals. He did not appear,' "el,
Overseer (Mr. Hill) proved that the claimant was tieelie*:4o
of the property, and received the rents ; and, Ile uot
there was no mortgage on the property, as the clalo,lo i"gr
well off in the world. The Revising Barrister, to O''be
w prise of all present said, unless the Overseer "°,04e',11.
there was no mortgage on the property, he would exPieesii in
name. Mr. Peacock reminded hint of his former' uneegd
the facts of which were exactly the same as in belie
case. A good deal of discussion took place, and it