The Liverpool Standard and General Commercial Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1842-10-07 00:00:00

By the table, the registrar and are theltonly parties
to whom fees are allowed, therefore, if the registrar procures
a person to do part of his duties, such as swearing the wit-
nesses in court (a fee for this act being allowed him by the
table,) he would have to pay such a person so deputed. In
the present case, the registrar has a fixed salary in lieu of
fees, and still beyond this the borough fund is charged with
£25 per annum, which is paid to Edward Fitzgerald, as be-
fore-mentioned, for acting as crier.
The committee consider the present crier's position is si-
milar to that of the sergeant-at-mace ; he has the situation,
by appointment of the sergeant, under the Gth section of the
local act, but is improvided with any legal fee.
The committee consequently find nothing to recommend
respecting the crier, before the council have removed the
difficulties that he is in.

The mace-bearer, James Halsall, appears to have £lO per
annum for carrying the mace in the mayor's processions.
He is also crier of the court of quarter sessions, with a sa-
lary of £l5 per annum, and is a constable in Mr. Dowling's
department, for which latter duty he receives 255. a-week.
James Halsall is, therefore in receipt of £9O per annum,
payable out of the borough fund.
As mace-bearer, he is appointed by the sergeant, under
the said section G. He is certainly not an officer of the bo-
rough court, nor entitled to any fees by the table. It will,
therefore, be necessary for the council to consider this ques-
tion, and whether the £lO per annum has been legally paid.
If he is a corporate officer, the committee think that the
council have a just cause to blame the framers of the act of
parliament, for suffering the appointment to be taken from
them, and in vesting it in the sergeant-at-mace.
The bailiffs, appointed by the serjeant at mace, under the
before-mentioned 6th section of the local act, the committee
find they have received only certain of the fees set forth in
the table, and the serjeant has taken and returned to the
treasurer of the borough fund the tees for summonsing juries,
and calling plaintiffs on nonsuit, as before stated, which, of
right, belong to the bailiffs, as directed by the table. Upon
this part of the question the committee have to call the at-
tention of the council, finding that the registrar has directed '
other persons than the above appointed bailiffs to summons
the jurors, who have received a fixed salary. If the bailiffs
appointed by the serjeant can claim the fees, and not the per-
sons who have, to the present time, summonsed the jurors'
then the proviso in the 19th section of the local act would ap-
pear to have been violated, and £2O per annum to have been
illegally paid to M'Combe and Chalmers, the committee con-
sidering that half of what they receive may be taken for ser-
vices rendered to the Borough Court, and the other half
taken for their duties connected with the quarter sessions.
It will be for the council to consider whether, for the last
five years, the following salaries are a legal and justifiable
charge on the borough fund, viz.:—
The serjeant at mace
The crier
The mace-bearer
The sub-bailiffs, 4,10—a moiety

. . . . £350 per annum.
.... 25 „

10 .„

20 „

£405
JOHN B. LLOYD, Chairman.