The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1840-10-16 00:00:00

MITNICIPAL REVISION.

TUESDAY.
The court proceeded this morning with the claims in Great
George Ward.
Amongst the earliest claims preferred was that of Mr.
Councillor Cooper, who soon substantiated his right, and de-
parted.
John Cosgrove, house New Bird-street, was opposed by
the conservatives. His wife appeared, and Mr. Wilkins
questioned her respecting the notice of claim. Mrs. Cos-
grove stated that her husband could not write, but he had
put his mark to the notice. The next question elicited that
the witness only supposed that her husband had put his mark
to the instrument, as he had told her so.
Mr. Wilkins said that was no evidence, and the testimony
of the woman must be rejected. In some preceding cases he
had perceived, by the signatures to these notices, that they
were only so many tricks. He did not comment upon them
at the time.
Mr. James.—Then you have no right to do it now.
Mr. Wilkins.—What I wish the court to understand is
that I believe signatures to these notices to have been written
in a feigned hand. The notice before the court was evidently
bad.
Mr. James said the notice was not before the court, as
there was an utter absence of all proofs. His friend rejected
the evidence of the woman, yet laid it before the court, and
argued upon it. It was not shown that the man had not au-
thorised some one to sign the document for him.
Mr. Wright said, if so, it was for Mr. James to prove that
fact.
Mr. James contended at some length that the presumption
of law was that the man had authorised the signature.
Mr. Wilkins said the point to which he had brought the
case, left the burden of proof on his learned friend.
The name of the claimant was struck off.
John Cosgrove, of Henderson's-buildings, Norfolk-street,
opposed by the conservatives.
The claimant said he had paid his rates duly, and the mo-
ney was lent to him by the collector. Mr. Wilkins hereupon
conceiving that something extraordinary was to be elicited,
set himself to work for a searching cross-examination. After
proceeding with great solemnity for some time, Mr. Wilkins
asked what collector it was who had done this friendly office
for the claimant? The witness replied that it was the col-
lector of the Protector Society ! (A laugh.) Oh, dear ! ex-
claimed Mr. Wilkins, I thought you meant one of the tax-
collectors. Most of the individuals in court had entertained
a similar erroneous impression.
Mr. Wilkins asked the claimant if he knew of any paper
having been sent to the Town-clerk's office. The reply was
in the negative. The notice of claim was shown to the wit-
ness, and he was asked if he knew the signature. He said
he did not know that he had ever seen it before, but it was
like his writing. Mr. Wilkins desired the witness to write
his name on a piece of paper, which was complied with.
Mr. James.—Did you make any claim to be put upon the
registry ?
Cosgrove.—No, but there's them as I authorised to do
that saam for me.
Mr. James.—Who was it ?
Cosgrove.—The Protector Society.
Mr. Wilkins.—What was the object of that which you au-
thorised them to do?
Cosgrove.—To be put upon the rigistration an' have a vote
s aem as another man.
Mr. Wilkins.—l am bound to say, that, though he appears
not to be very confident about it himself, that the signature
appears to be his writing.
William Davies, house and shop, St. James's-street, was
opposed by the reformers. The claimant proved that he had
occupied his premises four years, and that he had paid his
rates regularly.
On cross-examination by Mr. James, the claimant said he
did not sign any paper. He authorised a friend to write his
name for him on the notice to claim. He did not exactly
know where, but it was about a couple of months since. The
person whom he authorised was a young man in the shop of
Mr. Cooper, the ironmonger. It was Mr. Cooper, the can-
didate for Great George Ward. The young man was secre-
tary for the ward. Witness went to him and told him that he
was to claim his rights for him to be registered in the book.
Vote allowed.
Daniel Dougherty, who claimed for a house in Norfolk-
street, was opposed by the conservatives. The payment of
his taxes was proved.
Mr. Wilkins asked for the notice of claim, and showed it
to Dougherty. The claimant swore that it was his writing.
Mr. Wilkins requested him to write his name.
Witness.—lv I maake a mistaak I hope you'll 'scuse me :
I've trimmer in my hand, for I niver bin 'customed to the
prisince of sitch gintlemen as yer wortchup.
The witness wrote his name in a large scrawlins. hand. The
signature on the notice was written in a very clerkly style.
Mr. Wilkins (holding up the notice)—And you persist in
averring that this is your writing?
Mr. James.—Pray give it to him in his hand. If you are
to examine him you know the rule, that lie should have it in
his hand.
Mr. Wilkins.—Vey well. Certainly, I have no objection
to his holding it in his hand. Now, sir, do you tell the court
that that is your signature ?
Witness.—l do. That is my hand.
Mr. Wilkins.—What is your hand?
Witness.—This here signature, let me see, I can't exactly
read it—here it is, but I dont exactly know the figures.
S.E.P.T. (spelling the date.) Sept, Sept—what is this about
Sept? (to a person near him.)
The Mayor.—The vote is bad.—Struck off.
Terence M`Kenna, who claimed for a house, No. 29, Jor-
dan-street, was opposed by the conservatives. Having
dWsiilgkaneids
iputt. the
The
replynotice into
was
hpirisoah,eadadpsayamadenatskoefdhihsitarateifs
hein the affirmative. Mr. Wilkins requested the witness to
'l
Mr.
a
write his name upon a sheet of paper. He did so, and there
was a considerable difference in the character of the two sig-
natures, which resembled each other in no respect save that
both were very badly written. Before the notice was put
into his hand the witness had stated, that he sometimes
spelled Terence with one r, and sometimes with two, as it
was perfectly. immaterial, both ways being correct. In the
notice the signature was " Terrace ;" in the signature
written in court " Terence." Mr. Wilkins again asked the
man if he would swear that the notice of claim was his
writing. He said he would swear it. He signed it at the
Protector-office, and Mr. Bond, one of the clerks, saw him.
Mr. Wilkins said, he would merely leave it to the court to
say whether the same person had written these two names.
Mr. James, having examined the two signatures, said it
was ;very evident that with an unskilful writer, who was
fluttered by being under examination, who wrote under great
disadvantages where he stood and who had no fixed character
of writing, a great difference might be expected, but he was
of opinion that the hands were the same. The man had
written at the Protector-office on a ruled line and had
probably taken great pains.
The Mayor directed that the claimant should write his
name on a ruled line on another sheet of paper. This was
done, when there appeared the most marked dissimilarity in
all the three signatures. The vote was allowed.
Mr. Samuel Kuipe was called, and he stepped into the
witness-box immediately. Mr. Knipe claimed a vote in this
ward for a counting-house, 50, Roscoe-street. Mr. Knipe
claimed as rated in the parish of Liverpool, for houses in
Great Orford-street, and Chestnut-street, from 1835, and by
demise from his sister, Mary Knipe, who was rated for the
house and shop in Roscoe-street, in the last twenty years.
Mr. Crook, the deputytown-clerk, not perceiving that Mr.
Knipe had entered the witness-box, called out, " Samuel
Knipe, struck of ! " Mr. Knipe seemed somewhat shocked
at this, but Mr. Wright directed the attention of the town-
clerk to the fact of Mr. Knipe having answered in propria
persona, though he had not replied by the customary
" here ! " A dead pause ensued for a few moments, which
was broken by Mr. James, who said
Mr. Knipe, are you a radical or a tory this year ? (Laugh-
ter.) Mr. Knipe made no reply.
Mr. James.—Shall 1 undertake to establish your claim, or
shall I leave you to my learned friend ? (Laughter,)
Mr. Wilkins.—Nay, I shall have nothing to do with him.
Mr. Penington.—No person seems to know who he belongs
to.
Mr. James.—(Laughing.)—Will you allow us to put you
on the list, Mr. Knipe ?
This sort of badinage continued for some time, Mr. Knipe
standing in the box, but no person asking him a question
touching his claim. At length Mr. Wright, one of the asses-
sors, undertook to question? Mr. Knipe, who minutely traced
his movements from several residences. Mr. James said,
there was a confusion of occupancies, so that he could red
exactly comprehend how the case stood ; but as it appeared
that Mr. Knipe was to be left in his hands, he would endea-
vour to discover the ground of his claim.
Mr. Knipe.—l claim by descent from my sister.—(Laugh-
ter.)
Mr. James.—By descent from your sister ?
Mr. Knipe.—Yes. The counting-house was occupied by
my sister regUlarly till I took possession of it.
Mr. James.—And what do:you do at this counting-house ?
Mr. Knipe.—l sell wine and coals. (Laughter.)
Mr. James.—Wine and coals ! And when did your sister
die ?
Mr. Knipe.—On the 17th January last.
Mr. James.—And did you take immediate possession of
the place as a counting-house ?
Mr. Knipe.—l did.
Mr. James.—Did you do any business there on that day ?
Mr. Knipe.—l did.
Mr. James.—Pray what business are you, Mr. Knipe ?
Mr. Knipe.—l am a wine-merchant, and deal in coals.
The examination continued, and the following replies were
given. My sister died at four o'clock in the afternoon of the
17th January. She died in the counting-house. I was there
at the time. I remained in the room about half an hour after
she died, and I left the house about ten o'clock. I don't
think I transacted any business in the room that day. I have
carried on business as a wine-merchant in Chestnut-street
and Great Orford-street. I went to Great Orford-street on
the 18th September, 1835. I lived there and did business
there in a vault underneath. On the 18th March, 1837, I
moved to the next door, where 'remained till the 15th June,
1839, and paid all my taxes. I then moved to No. 18, Chest-
nut-street, where I now reside.
Mr. Wright.—lt is not necessary to prove that he had
other counting-houses.
Mr. James.—His sister did not occupy the place as a
counting-house. Do you now reside at the house which was
your sister's?
Mr. Knipe.—No ; but here is a paper that will settle the
business for you. (Handing over a paper.)
Mr. James (reading).—" Samuel Knipe, offices, 18, Ches-
nut-straetebt,oathndthseos,eßpolascceos ?
Roscoe-street." Then you carry on bu-
siness Mr. Knipe.—lf people bring orders for coals or wine to
either place, we take them in.
Mr. James (laughing).—Oh, when people bring orders to
your office, you take them in, do you? (Laughter.) And
do you take people in at Roscoe-street, too? (Laughter.)
Mr. Knipe.—Not the people, but the orders, sir, we do.
We take in the orders anywhere.
Mr. James submitted that Mr. Knipe was not entitled to
have his claim allowed for what he called his counting-house
by descent. He did not occupy it as a dwelling-house, that
was clear. He had succeeded his sister in something, but
what was it? Was it a dwelling-house? It was clear it was
occupied as a dwelling-house by her, for the very place that
he claimed for as a counting-house was her sleeping apart-
ment. He had not succeeded to her occupation of it as a
dwelling-house, and the court could not now alter the de-
scription, because he confessed that he had never occupied it
as a dwelling-house. Therefore it must stand as a counting-
house, and as a counting-house the claim was bad. The
court could riot assert that that was a dwelling-house, which
the claimant himself stated was not a dwelling-house.
The Mayor.—Mr. Wilkins, have you anything to offer in
reply ?
Mr. Wilkins.—l am not interfering in Mr. Knipe's case
at all.
The Mayor.—Have you never been accustomed to sleep
at the premises in Roscoe-street, Mr. Knipe ?
Mr. Knipe.—No, sir.
The Mayor.—Then the vote is not allowed.
Anthony Doyle, a young Hibernian, who claimed for a
house, No. 2, Trowbridge-street, in Abercromby Ward, was
supported by the reformers.
Mrs James.—Have you paid your rates, Mr. Doyle?
Mr. Doyle.—l have, sir.
Mr. James.—How long have you resided at No. 2, Trow-
bridge-street?
Mr. Doyle.—Since January last.
Mr. James.—Where did you live before that ?
Mr. Doyle.—Nowhere. (Laughter.)
Mr. James.—l suppose you were in lodgings?
Mr. Doyle.—Yes, sir.
Mr. James.—Oh, well, I suppose you got married then ?
Mr. Doyle (laughing).—Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. James.—And your wife occupied the house?
Mr. Doyle.—No, sir ; we neither of us ever had a house
till we got married ! (Laughter.)

Mr. ,Tames.—Then I'm afraid you have claimed to little
purpose.—Struck oft'.
The court adjourned at five o'clock.

WEDNESDAY.

During the whole of this day the court was again occupied
with the claims.

The case which excited most interest during the day, was
that of Richard Jones, who claimed fora house in Henderson-
street. The claimant was supported by the reformers.
It was objected by Mr. Wilkins, that the delivery of the
notice of claims at the town-clerk's office must be proved.
3lr. James insisted that it was sufficient that the notice
appeared to have been received by the town-clerk, and duly
put upon his list of claimants.
Mr. Assessor Harvey, after reading the clauses of the act
bearing upon the subject, and stating that it was a case of
very great difficulty, held that, the notice having been given
at the town-clerk's office, must be proved.
Mr. Assessor Wright concurred.
The Mayor dissented, and expressed his opinion to the
following effect :—The notice appearing to have been regu-
larly received by the town-clerk, in the absence of all sus-
picion, the party may adopt the notice, and it is for the
other party to show, on cross-examination, that the notice
was not the act of the claimant. The case of notice of ob-
jection is distinguishable; in that case notice to the party,
as well as to the town-clerk, is required by the act.
The assessors holding against the mayor's opinions the
proof was required, and finally the claim was rejected.
James Taggart claimed to be registered for a house in
Otty's-court, Lower Grafton-street. The claimant was
supported by the reformers.

Mr. Wilkins said the court had, in a former case, stated
that the party was to be bound by the notice. In this case
Taggart claimed for " Otty's, Lower Grafton-street. This
was what he had set forth in the notice as the ground of his
claim.

Mr. James having examined the notice, said the claim was
made for Otty's-court, Lower Grafton-street, and afterwards
the claimant stated that he was rated in Otty's, Lower Graf-
ton-street, which was evidently a mere clerical error, and the
court could not disallow the vote on such a ground.
The Mayor having examined the notice, said it was plain
the claim was for Otty's-court, though the error stated oc-
curred subsequently.
Mr. Wilkins said that error was in the statement of his
ground of claim, and was very material. The court having
laid down the rule, ought to do one of two things, either
abide by it, or state that they would abandon it.
The Mayor said both the learned assessors arid himself had
agreed.

Wilkins.—Against, as I suppose.
The Mayor.—lt is a good vote. Why did you suppose
that we had so decided?

Mr. Wilkins.—Because I saw that you had made up your
minds long ago. You, Mr. Mayor, not being a lawyer, de-
cide every case upon its merits.
The Mayor.—l thought you had foreseen our conclusion
from a conviction of what it ought to be.
Mr. Wilkins.—(Laughing.)—No, sir. I should like no
one better than yourself, Sir. Mayor, as an arbitrator on a
question of right.
The court adjourned at half-past five o'clock.