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.) co "
-
menced his labours for the Wirral district, on SaturdaY "'
at the Birkenhead Hotel, and we are glad to report tbateve,T,
thing has passed off in the most satisfactory manner, awl, ip
the clear E..in of the conservatives. The new claims see"
by the conservatives greatly exceeded those sent in by t""hg
radicals.
eoet'
The court was attended professiOnally by Mr. Pea _nil
assisted by Mr. More, on the part of the conservatives. ""Ø
Mr. Parry of Chester, assisted by Mr. W. W..Mortimert
the part of the radicals. No case of any interest occurre;t
but on the revision of the Birkenhead list, a little tnerrilo%o
was excited on Mr. Peacock proving a notice of obietpt
against " Parker Black," who claimed in respect of a
charge arising out of houses in Camden-street ; Mr. t,i
cock, to the surpzise of the court stated, that Barker
was a black dog belonging to Mr. W. W—Mortiwer•
of laughter.) This dog, said Mr. Peacock, must be a
favourite with its master, for he was actually conferoWej
privilege upon it, which he himself did not possess. (C3rele
laughter.) He hardly expected that the partisans of t 2„
whig-radical ministry would be the first to throw ridicule
the reform bill—a bill which was again and again, during' lo
progress through the House of Commons, characterised,i
to
the great charter of our liberties, but it would seem 11°`t,
work quite so favourably for the radical interest as was 10..„
cipated. He thought Mr. Mortimer was paying a poor 04
pliment to the ten pounders when he classed his dog 8111_,%',
them. (Roars of laughter.) Now, continued Mr. Pescur,
I do not hesitate to state, that if the name of Barker 1113cRo
not struck off the list, in the event of an election, there ;jlf
plenty of the unwashed who would be ready to vote in
name. act
It is almost needless to add that Barker Black was str-

off the list.
Mr. Joseph Christopher Ewart, one of the newlY Yer
pointed magistrates for Cheshire, followed the fate of 138cer
Black, and was struck off the list of voterstor want of Pr°l
qualification.
qm,.•

be 01/°l.:

..ecisions of the revising barrister seemed on the ,o 0
to give satisfaction, but he made one decision of ratile',"
extraordinary nature, and we notice it merely to'guouosi
conservative friends against acting upon it; the ease.lo,
this :—Mr. John Lomax was objected to by the conservieo,o
in consequence of having removed about two years ago trbsil
Eldon-place, Tranmere, to Holt Hill ; it appeared he t
thou
never made any fresh claim after such removal ; the itcgt
removal was admitted, but the revising barrister held ts
removed from one part of a township to another wol/,jlo
good ground of objection, unless the party was objecte ted
Me just year, after his removal. Mr. Peacock protegiso
osl
against this decision as being opposed to both the letter,
spirit of the reform act, and at variance with the decisl".d
the revising barristers in all other counties, and he instao,4
the case of Mr. Daniel Whittle Harvey, who was strucl‘tba
the London list, on the ground that he had removed t° bf
next house, and he showed the absurdity of the decisionter,
applying the case to large towns. The revising barriabj#
however, adhered to the opinion he at first expressed ; 1,0
decision operated favourably to the radicals in several ca"
which subsequently came before the court.
Mr. William Ravenscroft, jun., claimed as owner of a irtece
hold house in Church-street. He was objected to by
conservatives. He said he was the owner of the botOebd
question. On his cross-examination, he said, the house
not been conveyed to him. His father had given it to billj
word of mouth. (Laughter.) He had no deed or writia

any sort to prove his title
The R- • 3arr'-'

fraid.),ll;

Q) : Tr

evising Barrister (smiling, .len lam a. ;;(P
have no title of any sort to this house. To convey fretstl)
property a deed is necesasay, and, in the event of the w;ou,
of your father, I have no doubt it would be taken
I must strike off your name—name struck off accordiug ,itt,
Here one of the Overseers called out Barker Black sb
which convulsed the court with laughter. oft'
Mr. George Law, of Holt-hill, claimed for houses at --tev
hill. He complained bitterly of the way he had been fr,e-two
by the conservatives, having been knocked off the li",ore
years ago, when it was notorious he had property worth "iioti
than £l,OOO a year. Mr. Peacock called for the prodOeittif
of Mr. Fairhurst's will, under which, Mr. Law claimed bid
when, it appeared, that the property was settled upolloiJ
wife for her own separate use. The Revising Barrister.,
that was a fatal objection to his claim, and his name 133'100
struck off. Mr. Law, however, insisted that his clajoloc,
perfectly good ; when he qualified as occupier of the b°,1,01
he was struck off, and now he qualified as owner, he wBlesoe'
struck off. There was neither -law nor justice in the

He left the court much dissatisfied with the result. etc'
George Meakin t
claimed for a freehold house in Tree
He was objected to by the conservatives, and did not sPo
to prove his claim. The Overseer of Tranuiere state.d 00
he knew the claimant owned the house, but whether oo'
freehold or leasehold he did not know, nor did he aid
whether there was a mortgage on the property. Tire c:tor,
ant was in Scotland. Mr. Peacock objected to this 1006Lrito
of evidence, and insisted upon the claimant either aP.Pr
in person, or sending some one who could speak witletri
tainty as to the tenure, and who could speak to the St o
the claimant receiving 40s. a year, after paying the inte'',oo'
the existing mortgage. The Revising Barrister said he
It!
sidered the proof sufficient, and allowed the claiw.
William Jones claimed for two houses at WallaottlV,
was objected to by the radicals. He did not ;appear! u",vot,'
Overseer (Mr. Hill) proved that the claimant was the:?,oo.;
of the property, and received the rents ; and, he bet - Orr,
there was no mortgage on the property. as the claims,— 001,
well off in the world. The Revising Barrister, to tiseoits,'
prise of all present said, unless the Overseer woulu„Letl):
there was no mortgage on the property, he would esf'u"`iicwir
name. Mr. Peacock reminded him of his former de'ror42A
the facts of which were exactly the same as in the
case. A good deal of discussion took place, and it if