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

SCOTLAND WARD

In this ward forty-one objections ;ere withdrawn by the
consent of both parties.
Robert Burnett, house, Hornby-street, was cbjected to by
the conservatives. The notice server having been called he
was cross-examined by 'Mr. Wilkins. It appeared that he
had not read the objection before he served it, and that he
could not repeat even the substance of it to the court.
Mr. WILKINS then asked the court whether there was
any proof that the notice had been served as the act re-
quired. As soon as the man got the notices he packed them
altogether; he wrote upon a certain wiper that he had served
a copy of it on Burnett, in Hornby-street ; but he distinctly
stated that he would not tell what the contents of that paper
were. Under such circumstances there was no evidence that
he had served a legal notice.

Mr. JAMES, in reply, contended that the man was igno-
rant, and that it was not to be expected he should correctly
repeat the very words of the notice. He bad, however, proved
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of the act.
Mr. HARVEY said he should have been satisfied that the
objection was good, if the act had not stated that the notice
of objection should be in the form therein given, or " to the
like effect."

Mr. WRIGIIT thought that Mr. James had answered him-
self of his own argument. He said the notice was good be-
cause the man was ignorant, because he had neglected to
read, and could not recollect what the contents of it were.
Could any man be allowed to say, " I served the papers
which were given to me upon the persons for whom they
were intended, but I did not read one of them till two or
three days afterwards." The man's memory was bad ; he
could not recollect the main points of the objection which it
was his bounden duty to do. With regard to the words," to
the like effect" in the act, he apprehended that they meant
the words of the notice itself, but it was clear that the copy
must be an exact copy of the notice served. He thought,
therefore, in this case the notice had not been proved.
The MAYOR said he had no doubt that the notice was
good.

The party claiming not being present the investigation into
the qualification was postponed.
Joseph Burch, house, Burlington-street, was objected to
by the Whigs. The claimant stated that a friend had paid his
rates for him, and that he was indebted to him for the
amount.

Mr. JAMES objected to the vote. The only proof before
the court was that the rates had been paid, but it had not
been proved that they had been paid by the party autho-
rised ; and the court could not take this witness's statement
of.the authority.

Mr. 'WiLKis'sreplied that the facts spoke for themselves.
The man said, " I did not pay my rates myself, but a friend
did, and to him lam indebted for the amount." The rates
were paid, and it was the fair inference that they had been
paid by the party deputed.
Mr. JAMES rejoined that the attendance of the party who
had paid the rates was necessary. The court were not to be
satisfied with the fact that the rates were paid ; it must be
proved that the voter had paid them himself or by some
agent.

-Mr. HARVEY thought the deputation must be connected
with the payment. The Assessor then further examined the
claimant, who said that a person named Davies had paid his
rates. Davies lived, he believed, in Grosvenor-street : he
had known him a few weeks. First saw him in Burlington-
street, and witness began the conversation by telling him he
wished to pe on the register ; told him what length of time he
bad lived in the house, and that if he would pay the rates, he
would pay him again. Davies said that should be done. Mr.
Davies was solicitor for a brewhouse near Vauxhall-road.
Gave him no note of hand or written acknowledgement for
the money, nor had any time been fixed for the repayment.
The rates were paid for three years.
Mr. WRIGHT thought certainly this vote ought not to be
allowed. It was a system of fraud upon the spirit of the act
of parliament. The payment of rates was sufficiently proved,
but the question was whether this was not a system carried
on for the purpose of committing a fraud upon the act of par-
liament. He thought it was.
Mr. WILKINS thought the case was perfectly analagous to
that of Aldersey decided yesterday.
Mr. JAMES observed, that that decision was not upon his

Mr. HARVEY said the case had not been opened as a pay-
ment by the party himself; he (Mr. H.) had recourse, there-
fore, to the presumption qui facit per atiurn fecit per se, but
that presumption had been shaken by the examination which
he had instituted.

The MAYoa said, in his opinion, there was no evidence of
the party having paid the rates himself. A long argument
ensued, Mr. Wilkins strenuously contending for the suffi-
ciency of the payment. The Court, however, held differently,
and the vote was struck out.
John Brown, house, Back Portland-street, was objected
to by the .ionservatives. The notice of objection, after some
cavil, was proved ; and Ann Brown, wife of the claimant, was
called to establish the vote. She proved an occupation of
three years, and the payment of all the rates for that time.
The following colloquy took place between Mr. Wilkins and
the witness :

Well, Mrs. Brown, what is Mr. Brown ?—He is an Irish-
man, sir.

What does he get ?-1-le is a labourer, and gets 16s. a week.
Who paid these rates ?—I did myself.
When?—On the 31st August.
How much did you pay ?—I paid three years' rates.
What was the amount ?—I think it was £l. 7s. 6d.
From whom did you receive the money ?—I borrowed it
from a neighbour.

Mr. JAI:IES objected to any questions being asked of this
kind.

Mr. WILKINS said, surely he could not be objected to, as
he was only following the example of his learned friend in a
former case.

Mr. HARVEY thought that some discretion must be
allowed to counsel in putting questions. The question might
be put.
Mr. WILKINS then resumed his cross-examination. From
whom, he asked, did you receive this £1 7s. 6d. ?—I bor-
rowed part of it, and the remainder I had myself.
What was the name of the person from whom you bor-
rowed part ?—lt is no matter to you.
Oh ! but if it is matter to me, I'll thank you to tell me.
Mr. HARVEY.—Mrs. Brown, answer the question.
Well, sir, if I borrowed the money, and have to pay it
back, it's no matter to him.
Mr. WiLiciNs.—Now, Mrs. Brown, from whom did you
borrow the money ?—You would not know him, if I were to
tell you.—(Great laughter.).
Oh ! but I'll run the risk of that. You are not doing
yourself much credit by this sort of answers. Mrs. Brown,
now I will thank you to tell me from whom you received this
money ?—I borrowed it, as I tould you before.—(Continued
laughter.)
From whom ?—John Carrol.

What is John Carrol ?—A labourer.
Did you give John Carrol any ackiiowledgment for the
money ?—No, sir.
Was any person present when he lent it to you ?—No ; only
his wife.

Where did he lend it to you?—ln his own house.
On what day did you borrow it?—On the day I paid it.
Do you mcan to say that you borrowed it from John Car-
rol, or that John Carrol got it from some one for you ?—I
borrowed it from him, and can't tell where he got it.—Do you
mean to state you cannot tell whether he borrowed the money
from some one else ? _ _

Ilere Mr. James interposed, but the examination was con-
tinued some time longer, with the view of ascertaining whe-
ther the money had not been paid by the Protector Society,
but the witness swore, most distinctly, that she knew nothing
of such an institution. Neither could she tell that Carrol
was an agent of the society.
Mr. HARVEY—Can you carry this any further?
Mr. WiLluxs—No.
The vote was then allowed, Mr. Wright i imating that lie
differed in opinion upon it with his brother sessor.
James Bracken, house, Back Portland t, was objected
to by the conservatives, on the groun t his rates had
been paid jaLthe Protector Society. .This claimant was also
subjected very long cross-examination. He said he had
IIFF
paid the rates himself, but had given the receipt for them to
a person who name he did not know, and whose place of
business, under the advice of Mr, James, he refused to dis.

close. Mr. Wilkins then argued, that he had traced the pay-
ment of the rates to the Protector Society, and he called upon
the Court to disallow the vote, as it was a violation of the
spirit of the act of Parliament, and, next year, might create
scenes that would for ever disgrace the town or Liverpool.
Mr. Harvey decided that the vote was good. Mr. Wright
dissented, and the Mayor said, that he had taken an opinion
upon the question, by which he should be guided. He was
of opinion, then, that Mr. Wilkins had no right to put the
questions which he had, and that the money being paid from
the hands of the party himself did not prove that he was
merely the instrument of paying it. He had the power of
misapplying the money. The vote was, therefore, good. Al-
lowed.

Mr. WILKINS—I would much rather the Mayor would
act upon his own opinion than upon that of other people.
The MAYOR—I am sure you will give me credit when I
say that it is the best opinion I can form.
Mr. WILKINS.—I atn quite certain of that ; but the
opinion you have read is not law, indeed.
In several cases, the rates of which had been paid in the
same manner, the wives appeared, when the rates had been
paid by the husbands. This was held not to be sufficient evi-
dence of payment, and the cases were postponed.
John Carrol, house Back Portland-street, was opposed by
Mr. WILKINS, who asked him if he had lent Mrs. Brown
[case reported above] any money to pay her rates. He re-
plied that he could not recollect. When, asked the counsel,
did she get the money from you ? She did not get it from
me to my knowledge. - You paid your own rates on the 31st
August ? My wife paid them, sir. Have you any receipt
for them ? I have not seen it, as I was not there. Why,
were you out of town ? No. Where were you then ? I was
walking in procession on that day. What procession? The
procession of the Independent Order of Odd Fellows. You
are a very odd fellow, and we shall be glad to see Mrs. Car-
rol on Monday. Case adjourned to produce Mrs. Carrol.
At this period of the business the Assessors intimated that
a notice would be issued, to the effect that, after this day, in
all cases where the rates had been paid otherwise than year
by year, all the parties who had paid them must attend to
prove the payments. This announcement was received with
applause.
Patrick Cantwell claimed for a house in William-street,
but was opposed by Mr. WILKINS. It appeared that last
year the name had been properly entered in the rate-book,
but that for the two preceding years it had been entered as
John Cantwell. Mr. WILKINS, on this, objected that the
parties could not be identical, and that, if they were, the as-
sessors had no power to amend the rate-book for the last two
years, inasmuch as it had always been held to prove itself.
He cited several cases from Rogers, Delane, and other re-
porters of election decisions.

Mr. JAMES took a contrary view, relying upon the fact
that there was no other Patrick Cantwell in the neighbour-
hood, and that Patrick. Cantwell had paid the rates for the
three years.

Mr. HARVEY and the MAYOR were of opinion that the
objection was unsound, and Mr. WRIGHT that it was valid.
The investigation therefore proceeded. Bridget Cantwell,
sister to the claimant, was called in support of the vote, and
she stated that she had paid the rates for him in his absence.
From whom, inquired Mr. WILKINS, in cross-examina-
tion, did you get this money ?

Mr: J;IMES.—You have no right, Mr. Wilkins, to ask that
question.

- Mr. WILKINS.—This woman stated, that she got the
money, in her brother's absence; and that she paid it in his
absence; and, in order to ascertain whether it was a pay-
ment of her brother's or her own, surely I have a right to
ask her where she got the money.
Mr. HARVEY.—Yes, I think you have.

Witness.—l got it honestly, gentlemen.
Mr. WILKINs.—If you got it honestly then you will have
no objection to tell us from whom you got it ?—I got it
honestly, I tell you.
I do not accuse you of getting it dishonestly?
shan't tell you.
Did your brother know of you getting it
receipts

'—Well, I

'—l gave him the

Before he went out he knew of you going to receive it
Yes.

I want to know, did he know where yon were to get it
from ?—I do not know.

Mr. WILKINS.—I submit to the Court, that, if ever there
was a case for the attendance of the party himself, this is

Mr. JAMES, before the Court decided, wished to ex-
amine the witness. Did your brother, he asked, know you
were going to pay the rates ?—No. But you told him that
you were going to pay them ?—Yes.
At that time you had not got the money ?—Did you un-
derstand me when I asked you whether you got the money
upon your own account or your brother's ?—I got it upon
my own account.

Mr.
HARVEY.—YOU are out of court, Mr. James. We
shall reject this vote. You have called this witness as the
agent, and the agent has disproved her authority. Vote
disallowed.

The Court adjourned at six o'clock

MONDAY

The court opened this morning at nine o'clock. Before
the commencement of business, the MAYOR announced that
at one o'clock the court would adjourn for half an hour, and
sit until eight o'clock in the evening.

Mr. HARVEY said that as he was means of not reject-
ing the claim of an Irishman on Saturday who refused to an-
swer the questions put to him, he would state that the court
was now of opinion that they ought not in future to allow the
vote of any man who refused to answer a question. In one
case the court had allowed the vote in which the witnesses
refused to answer, and in another they had not; one, then,
would balance the other, and it was now distinctly to be un-
derstood that if any man refused to answer, the Court would
reject him.

Mr. JAMES.—You have put it generally. You say if a
man refuses to answer a question.
Mr. HARVEY.—No : I said, or meant to say, if he refuses
to answer a question, which, in our opinion, is one that
ought to be answered.

Mr. JAMES said that as far as he was concerned he thought
this a very correct determination.
Mr. WRIGHT observed that if the court had once com-
mitted error they ought not to persevere in it.
The MAYOR said counsel would save themselves and the
court a great deal of time and trouble if they would consent
to withdraw such objections as were frivolous.
Mr. WILKINS and Mr. JAMES observed that this was
most desirable, and that they would do their utmost to adopt
the suggestion.

ST. PETERS' WARD

The objections on both sides in this ward were withdrawn
by mutual consent. There were 331 by the conservatives,
and 131 by the Whigs.

SCOTLAND WARD REVISION

Michael Collins, Carlton-street, was objected to by the
conservatives. In cross-examination, by Mr. WILKINs,
the claimant stated that all his rates for three years had been
paid. The learned counsel produced a paper, and said he
got this paper from the same place where he got the money
from. He could not, however, tell where the place was.
The following dialogue then took place
Did you ever see this paper before
never looked at it before