The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1835-09-22 00:00:00

REVISING BARRISTERS' COURT, —Father

The courts were reopened to-day pursuant to adjournment
from Wednesday. We have selected a few cases from th 4
number that were disputed during the day. Mr. Blanchard,
Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Abrahall and Mr. Heywood, Were tint
gentlemen who presided in the various cunt ts.

CORN RXCHANGIi.
Mr. Edward Seger claimed to be registered as part other of.
the Liverpool Corn Exchange. Mr. Peacock objected to the
claim on the ground that the shares in the building were per-
sonal estate. He stated that the legal estate in the building
was vested in l 6 trustees fur the proprietors. who were 77 in
number; and a subsequent deed, to which all the proprietor'
were parties, embodied all the rules of the company; by the 3d
rule it was expressly declared that the shares should be consiA
dered as personalty, and transferred as such. The 7th rule peel
scribed the mode of choosing the committee, who it declared
should have power to let the stalls, receive the rents, and, after
defraying the current expenses, invest the surplus in one of the
banks; it was therefore quite cleat from this clause that the
trustees were excluded from voting, as they were,not in receipt
of the rents of the building, and it was equally clear that the
committee, as such, were not entitled to he registered, as they
had neither the legal nor equitable interest in the property. It
would he understood, be contended, that when any of the trus-
tees happened to be chosen committeemen, they would be enti-
tled to be registered, as being trustees in receipt of the rent
within the gleaning of the 23 sec. of the reform act, but surely
the accidental circumstance of a trustee being one of the corn-,
mittee could confer no such right, for it was in his character as
committeeman, and not as trustee, that he received the rents,
for in the latter character he was by the rules of the company
excluded from any power in the management of the concern.
Mr. Greenwood said there was no pretence for the proprietors
claiming to be registered, as their shares were expressly de,
clared to be personal estate, and as the committee, by the laws of
the company, have the entire management and control of the
property, the trustees were clearly excluded from voting, not
tiling in receipt of the rents. Claim disallowed.
The names of Joshua Walmsley, James Marsden, and Wm.
Haling, all radicals, who had qualified for the same property,
were struck off the register.
David Davies, Prices-street, claimed as exustee of the Welsh
Baptist Chapel, Great Crossball-street, was one out of 19 truss
tees appointed to conduct the affairs of the chapel. He, as
trustee, received the rents, made good all necessary repairs,
and paid the clergyman. Mr. Carson contended that there
was no proof adduced, delegating to the claimant the power
which he had exercised.

Mr. Heywood, the revising barrister, said it was evident the
trustees were in possession, and as no one disputed their rights
the court had not the power. Moreover, it appeared that they
received and appropriated the funds of the chapel, the minister
having no voice in the direction of its affairs, he being paid his
stipend bs• the trustees. It was evident that some persons must
conduct their business, and be considered that the claim had
been fully made out.

The Wow. William Dallison was opposed by Mr. Curry. He
claimed to vote on the rent of pews in a freehold chapel in Ren-
shaw-street.

A number of cases were cited in support of and against the
which was at last settled by Mr. Greenwood, who came
from an adjoining court, after conferring with Mr. Heywood,
and hearing evidence on both sides, gave judgment to this
effect—that if an act of parliament was produced, which would
go to establish the property as freehold, the vote would be
allowed. There was no evidence in the present case to provd
4 freehold qualification, it was more of the nature of an ease.
went, and would not confer a vote. Claim dismissed,
Charles Emtnes, of the York Tavern, Brownlow-bill, was ob-
jected to by Mr. Carson, he having registered as Chas. Amines.
It appeared his claim had been sent in by his orders, but the
person writing it had committed an error in spelling the name.
A person appeared to speak to the identity of the property for
which &Times sought to vote, and Mr. Curry applied to have
the qualification amended; but to this the court would . not
agree, considering the blunder fatal to the clislin. Struck off.
Mr. Peter Hope claimed for freehold land in Paril-street,
which he stated to be worth £7OO or £BOO. Mr. Carson ob-
jected' to theAualification, inasmuch as the land was vacant,
and questioned whether it would yield a-qualification in -the
state it was then in, as no person wo ild take possession with-
out at least a wall being erected. Mr. Hope contended that if
he were desirous of letting the ground he could do's° for five
times that amount, but that it was his object to sell the ground,
The court considered he had made out his claim, and allowed
the vote.

'the court adjourned in the evening until the lett October.