The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1845-09-23 00:00:00

REVISING BARRISTER'S COURT.

On Wednesday last, Thomas Shav Brandreth,
the barrister at-law appointed to revise the parliamentary
list of voters, commenced his sittings in the Nisi Prins
Court, Chapel-street.
It was agreed that the objections and claims of house-
holders in the parish be first proceeded with ; the objec-
tions and claims in the out-townships on the following
day, and the freemen'S list on Friday. The objections
this year were exclusively made by the Anti-Monopoly.
Society, and were 422 against householders, and 1066
against freemen. The Conservatives made none. Mr.
E. Bretherton appeared to substantiate the objections,
and Mr. James Moss for the Conservative party.
The name of John Atkinson, Burlington-street, having
been called, the notice of objection by Charles M'Allister
was proved.
Mr. Moss objected to the form of the notice. In it
the list was called " The Liverpool list of persona entitled
to vote, &c." Now he found nothing in the act which
authorised the list to be so called. There was a certain
form prescribed, but nothing to justify its being called the
Liverpool list." Tbere were also essential variances
between the form given in the act and the notice or objec-
tion.
The BARRISTER was of opinion that these variances
were of no consequence.
Mr. Moss then objected to the notice, on the ground
that its transmission to the post-office had not been
proved, but the Court held that the post-mark was suffi-
cient evidence on that point.
Mr. Atkinson was then called. but as he did not appear
his name was struck off, Mr. BRETHERTON remarking
that he was dead. •
Me. Moss said he would answer for him, but, on his
admitting that he had no written authority to do ,so, the
name was struck off.
• James Atkins was objected to on the ground that he
had not resided twelve months in the house for which his
name was inserted in the list. Mr. Atkins, it appeared,.
had removed within the year from Great Howard-street
to Great Orford-street.
Mr. BRETEERTON quoted the case of Bartlet v. Gibbs,
in which it bad been decided by the judges that parties so
removing ought to be registered for both houses, but not
being sa, the barrister could not amend the list.
Toe BARRISTER decided that the case was decisive and
the vote not admissible, so that the name was struck out,
as were also the names of many others objected to on

grounds.
The householders on the Liverpool list not having been.
disposed of on Wednesday, the court yesterday pro-
ceeded with the remainder, and it appearing about noon
that t! ey would occupy the whole day, it was decided to.
t ke the freemen on Friday and ..-:aturday morning, and
the out-townships on !Monday.
At the close of the court on Thursday the objections
and claims of the Liverpool householders' list had been
entirely disposed of. The result was as follows :,—Objec-
dons against Monopolists. 240 ; struck off, 162 • with-
drawn, 54 ; allowed, 24. Claims stowed :—Freeiradersp.
6 ; Monopolists, 2.
On Friday, the lists of freemen were commenced, the
number of objections made by the radicals was 1,066.
The majority of these were on the ground of removals and
misdescriptions, and as Thomas Shaw Brandreth, Esq.,
has declared that he has the power to amend any such
errors or omissions, little change will be effected. Up to
the end of the letter C, only son.e half-dozen votes were
struck out, in consequence of the parties having moved.
beyond the limits.
On Saturday the barrister decided that the objection
urged on the previous day by the Tory party was
invalid, and that the postmark was sufficient proof of
the date of the objection. A number of parties were
then struck off the list; and tho court adjourned until
Monday morning.