The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1843-10-03 00:00:00

THE LIVERPOOL. STANDARD

,een their operation ?

VOTERS

REVISION OF THE MUNICIPAL LIST OF

Yesterday morning Robertson Gladstone, Esq., Mayor,
with the revising assessors, Thos. C.ir-on, Esq., :end John
Yates, jun.. Esq , held a c .urt for toe revision of the
municipal list of voters. At the opening of the court
there were hut few persons in attend nice. Mr. Snowball
and Mr. Berry, solicitors, appeared as alents for the
Reform party, and Mr. Al..ss, solicitor, for the Conserva-
tives.

On the opening of the proceedings,
Mr. CARSON, addressing Mr. Snowball, said, he under-
stood there were a number of professional gentlemen pre-
sent, and he hoped it would be convenient to decide their
case at once.

Mr. SNOWBALL said, the ground of objection to these
gentlemen was, that an attorney's office was not a count-
ing-house. He then cited a case tried before Mr. Justice
Erskine, at the Chester assizes. In that case he said a
man was indicted under the 7th and Bth Geo. IV. chap.
4, which enacts, that if any person broke and enterer into
any shop, warehouse, or counting-house. he was liable to
fifteen years' transportation. The prisoner was found
guilty under the indictment for entering the office of Mr.
Skerratt, attorney, of Cheshire, and sentenced to fifteen
years' transportation, but on the following morning the
prisoner was brought up and sentenced on the simple
larceny, Mr. Justice Erskine holding that the indictment
was bad, on the ground ►hat an attorney's office did not
come within the words in the statute—" shop, warehouse,
or counting-house." Mr. Snowball proceeded to say, the
case was not published, but read an extract from a letter
written by the attorney in the case, which corroborated
the statement he had made.

Mr. BERRY said, the best plan would be to call one of
the cases on and then -decide it.

Peter Wright, of Castle-street Ward, was then called.
He said he had occupied an office for thirty years in
Brunswick-street, as solicitor or attorney, and he unfor-
tunately transacted business to a great extent as trustee
and executor—he paid and received money to a great ex-
tent. He had also been an householder for three years
within the borough.
Mr. SNOWBALL added, that they never beard an attor-
ney's office called a counting-house until this bill was
passed. Nobody ever said, "I am going to an attorney's
counting-house."
Mr. Moss contended that a solicitor's office was a
counting-house to all intents and purposes. It was not at
all necessary that it should be an office for the receipt and
payment of money. Besides, he apprehended the act
must be construed beneficially, so as to admit of the great-
est number of persons possible.

Mr. Berry followed at some length, contending that
they must construe an act of parliament in the same way
they would a will—they must not come to inquire into
what the party intended, except by the meaning of the
words in the document itself, and therefore that the ob-
jection taken by Mr. Snowball was correct. In corrobo-
ration of his view be read an opinion by Mr. Welsby,
barrister, given on a case submitted to him, and in which
he stated that he conceived the office of a solicitor or sur.
veyor, where he carried on his professional business, did
not fall within the meaning of the word " counting-house."
Mr, Welsby added, however, that the case had been dif-
ferently decided in different places. Mr. Berry concluded
by saying that he would be happy to join with others in
getting an alteration of the act, but he thought it would
best answer the justice of the case to decide to decide that
Mr. Yates, and other gentlemen were not entitled to vote
under the meaning of the act of parliament.
Mr. Moss said the absence of any judicial decision on
this point was the best proof that no case could arise on
it. The objection had frequently been taken, but always
overruled. With regard to Mr. Wright, he said he was a
trustee and executor, as most attorney's were. He was
also a cash-keeper, and there was no doubt that consti-
tuted his office a counting-house.

Mr. WRIGHT said there was a great difference between
a penal and a remedial statute. There was no doubt a
penal act would be construed with the greatest strictness,
but not so with a remedial statute. He then referred them
to the meaning of the word counting-house, as given in
the various dictionaries, and contended there was no doubt
that an a torney's office came within the meaning of the
term counting-house. Mr. Moss said Johnson's meaning
of the word was " a room appropriated by traders for their
books and accounts." He added, that most attorneys
were money scriveners—persons into whose hands money
was placed for the purpose of increasing it.
Mr. YATES said that if they held the argument of Mr.
Snowball and Mr. Berry, they would hold that no build-
ing but that which was at all times described precisely in
the act of parliament could be a counting-house. Now,
many merchants' counting-houses were called offices.
The word counting-house was going out, and in fact it
would soon be obsolete.

Mr. SNOWBALL said professional men's places of busi-
ness were always called offices.

The Court considered the question, and then

Mr. CARSON said the court considered, on general
grounds, that an attorney's office was a counting-house,
As far as his own judgment went, he was of opinion that
the profession of attorney was connected with accounts.
He received and paid money as a scrivener. He received
money to lay out, and he accounted for it to his client;
when he received a debt and costs he accounted for it to
his client, and on that account, and on general grounds,
he thought an attorney's office was a counting-house. The
question was raised some time ago before Mr. Turner, a
barrister. and it was then decided that an attorney's office
was a counting-house. The question had never been be-
fore a higher court, and at that time of day, eight years
after the passing of the municipal act, it. was too late to
attempt to alter the decision.

Mr: YATES said he entirely concurred in what Mr.
Carson had said.

Mr. BERRY said that as this question would probably
be brought before another tribunal, and as the election of
particular gentlemen in the present balanced state of the
constituency might depend on the decision of this ques-
tion, he would not withdraw the objections, but require
that all the gentlemen might be examined, when he would
take objection to them.
Mr. YATES.—How many are there?

Mr. BERRY.—About 50, and there are several gentle-
men now in the council whose seats may be objected to.
Mr. CARSON thought one case would be sufficient to
raise the point.
Mr. BERRY said he had proposed to the assessors to
take the opinion of the Attorney-General on the subject,
and if his opinion was averse to that given by Mr. Welsby,
he would withdraw the objections, but as that was not ac-
ceded to, he must go on and have all the qualifications
proved, but he did not at all wish to impede the business
of the court.

The names of all the attorneys were then called, and
such as were present were heard in support of their quali-
fications. Their votes were all allowed. Mr. Berry
asked in each case whether they occupied their offices ex-
cept for the purposes of a solicitor's or attorney's office.
Mr. Carson, the assessor, was one of those objected to,
and on entering upon the case said, " I suppose you don't
object to the jurisdiction, do you, Mr. Snowball ?" His
vote was allowed by the court.
Another question arose during the day as to whether a
rate was to be considered a law from the day of signing or
from the day of publication. The Mayor and Mr. Carso❑
agreed that the day of publication was the proper time,
Mr. Yates dissenting.

M r. Berry having kept his seat in asking questions from
the parties appearing,

The MAYOR, addressing him, said " I am not very par-
ticular about forms, but I think it is but right that you
stand up when you ask questions.
Mr. BERRY.— I beg our pardon, but as it was only a
short question I thought I might do it without standing
up.

William Hardisty, of Scotland-road, was objected to
by Mr. Snowball. It appeared the claimant occupied a
house in conjunction with his father in Scotland-road.
Previous to 1841, the father occupied a house in Gill-street,
after which the receipts were made out in the name of
father and son jointly, and in course of examination
Mr. Hardisty said he paid his father a certain sum for
his proportion of the expenses of the house. There was
only one key to the house, and his mother engaged the
servants. The court decided the vote was bad, Mr.
Carson observing that there was always most difficulty in
proving the joint occupancies. To be a joint occupancy
the parties must hare everything in common. Each must
have a key, and they must engage the servants jointly.
Mr. Moss thought it was sufficient to prove the tenancy,
in ratio to what uses the house was put or the interest the
parties bad it. Mr. Yates said the parties might be
tenants, although only one of them was occupant, and
therefore it was important to know about the occupancy.
The vote was disallowed.

Hugh M'Bride, dock-master, was objected to by Mr.
Berry, on the ground that he lived in a house paid for by
the Dock Committee, but Mr. Carson said this point had
already been decided in the case of Mr Amos, of Kirk-
dale Gaol. Another oblection was, that though he had
paid the rates of 1842, yet he was not put upon the rate.
It was proved however, that he claimed to he rated upoli
entering the new premises at the dock, arid alter he left
his house in Waterloo-road, and therefore the vote was
allowed.

Charles Wye 'Williams was objected to on the ;r ,nrcl
that the premises for which he was rattd belonged to
the City of Dublin Company, and that the company
also paid the rates. Mr. Carson said if it could be shown
that Mr. Williams occupied premises in his own right,
independently of the company, then he would be allowed
to vote, but tailing that, he was not entitled. The gen-
tleman who appeared for Mr. Williams, said his, (Mr.
W.'s) business was the business of the company, aod he
did not occupy premises independent of the company.
The vote was accordingly disallowed.

Morgan Flanagan, Jf.Blackstoek-street, was objected
to by the conservaties on the ground that he was a servant
of Mr. Stockdale, who paid the rates. The applicant
stated that he paid rent to Mr. Stockdale, and gut the
money from his agent to pay the taxes. Mr. Moss con-
tended that this was a payment of the rent by the land-
lord for political purposes, and not a bona fide payment
by the tenant. Flanagan stated that he paid more rent
for the house than he would have done, if the landlord did
not pay the taxes. He said the mom y was given to
him. and he might have done as he liked with it. After
some consultation, the vote was allowed. The objection
against the parties under the same circumstances were not
entered into.

The court proceeded to the end of St. Paul's Ward,
and having sat till a little after seven o'clock. then ad-
journed. The claims in No. 6 Castle-street Ward will
be proceeded with this morning at ten o'clock.

REDUCED DUTY ON CUBA TIMBER : INFRACTION
OF RECIPROCITY TRE ATIES.—A treasury order has been
recently received, directing that Cuba timber, for ship-
hUildinc purposes, is to be henceforth adu.itted at the
same duty as teak wood, as the Lords of the Admir a lty
are of opinion, that great advantages will result from in .
creased facilities for its admission.