The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-06 00:00:00

Well, if that house was appointed before Friday or Satur-
day you can tell us where it is ?—lt is in either one or the
other.

Can you tell us what house it is next to
Can you tell us what house it is near
row leading out of it.
What is the sign of the house
bage. (Laughter.)
You are not a tailor, are you
by trade

—I cannot.
—There is Richmond-

'—lt is the sign of the cab-

'—Yes, I am a tailor, s:

Then Ido not wonder at your going there. Have you
often been at the sign of the cabbage to pass your evenings?—
Not often.

How often, about half a dozen times?-

—I cannot say

The claima.nt was further cross-examined, from which it
appeared pretty clear that his rate had been paid by the
Protector Society, and upon the assessments and tenancy of
his premises.

The collector stated that the rates had been paid not in
July as the witness stated, but on the 31st of August.
Mr. WuxiNs made an able speech against the vote, in
which he pointed out a variety of contradictions in the tes-
timony of the witness. After Mr. JAMES had replied, the
court held that the vote was good, Mr WRIGHT dissenting
on the ground that a fraud upon the spirit of the act of par-
liament bad been proved.
Michael G. Cosgrove, house Back Portland-street, another
" Protector," was opposed by Mr. .liViLi9Ns.

Where, asked the learned counsel, did you get the money
from to pay your rates ?—I got it from a particular friend.
Who is your " particular friend ?"—That is my business.
The MAYOR called upon the witness to answer the clues.
tion.

Mr. WiLxlNs.—Who is the particular friend that lent you
the money ?—I cannot tell you who he is.

Do you mean to tell the court you do not know who he is
—I do mean to tell the court so.

Mr. HARVEY.—My mind is made up. We shall reject
this vote.—Vote struck out.

Patrick Cavanagh, house Bostock-street, another " Pro-
tector," had his vote struck out, it appearing that he had not
been properly rated.

William
Carrol, a " Protector," claiming for a house in
Chadwick-street, was opposed by Mr. WILKINS. It appear-
ed that there had been sufficient residence ; but that before
the rates were paid, the name in the rate-book was inserted
as William M'Ardle. This name, however, was altered by
the overseers on the application of Carrol, when he paid his
rates to his own name.

Mr. WlLKlNsnowcontended that the vote was bad, on
the ground that the court had no power to alter the rate-
book, or consider any thing in it as a mistake. If Carrol
were to appeal on such a ground, for instance, the rate would
be quashed. He submitted, therefore, that there was no
proof that Carrol was rated.
Mr. JAMES replied that there was latent ambiguity in the
rate-book, and that he had now a right to call evidence to
prove that William Carrol and William M'Ardle were the
same person.
Mr. Witicuszs rejoined that the question of ambiguity had
nothing to do with the case, and that if the principle were
allowed of altering these names, any name might be altered.
Mr. WRIGHT said his opinion was that the vote was a good

one.
Mr. HARVEY said, as the party had not taken advantge of
the error in the rate-book to refuse to pay his rates, it would
be inequitable now to deprive him of his vote. Then came
the question whether the rate-book was conclusive, and whe-
ther it could be altered ? It appeared to him that it was
conclusive, and that evidence might be gone into to prove
that it was ambiguous, and might be altered.
The MAYOR concurred with Mr. Harvey.
Carroll was then cross-examined by Mr.