The Liverpool Standard, and General Advertiser.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1854-10-24 00:00:00

TOWNSHIP OF BIRKENHEAD.

had been no imprisonmen
walked quietly to the police-office, and that the seaman
from whom the plaintiff had received the note, had not
sailed in one of Messrs. M`lver's vessels ; and that, on
ascertaining this, Mr. Shaw had pointed the fact out to
the plaintiff, and requested him to return the money.
The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff—damages,
405., without costs.

BREACH OP CONTRACT,

PORTER 21. GIBBON.—
plaintiff his interest
lane, of which he had

fhe cietennant as
in a public-house
a leas

to forty sh

Mr. Shand

and prove
the rental

allowed

London

1 that

YESTERDAY, Matthew Gantt, Esq., the barrister
appointed to revise the list of voters for the Southern
Division of Cheshire, held a court at the Town-hall, Bir-
kenhead, for the purpose of revising the list of voters
whose qualifications arise out oft property within the
township of Birkenhead.
Mr. Bremner, solicitor, instructed by Mr. Jenkin, of
Birkenhead, appeared for the Conservatives, and Mr.
Bretherton, solicitor, for the Radicals.
There were 93 laims altogether, and 57 objections,
including the objections made to new claims. The Con-
servatives made 24 claims, and ;the Radio*ls 28 (new
claims). The objections made by the Radicals were 14.
The Conservatives only made one objection, in addition to
the objections to the new Radical claims before alluded to,
and that was to Mr. Edward Cardwell, M.P., which, as
will be seen, from what is stated below, was afterwards
withdrawn. .

The list of claims were first gone through, and were all
allowed, with the exception of a claim made by Mr.Edwd.
Greenwood Kaye, which was struck out in consequence of
the residence of the claimant not being in accordance with
the Act of Parliament.
After the list of claims had been gone through, the
objections were proceeded with.
Mr. Bretherton, on the part of the Radicals, objected
to Messrs. Jas. Bourne, Raymond W. Houghton, Samuel
Holme, James Holme, John Buck Lloyd, Francis Shand,
Thos. Headlam Duckworth, Thos. Sands, John Abraham
Tinnie, and Charles Turner, whose names appeared on the
register as the joint owners of a house in Camden-street,
)laintilf having Birkenh--'

Mr. Tinnie was present to answer the objection' on
behalf of all these gentlemen. He was examined at some
length by Mr. Bretherton, with the view of showing that
the nett rental arising from the property did not amount
to forty shillings a-year each; but Mr. Tinnie showed
that it amounted to much more, the annual rent of the
property being £4O, out of which the ordinary deduction
only had to be made.

The Revising Barrister, on hearing Mr. Tinnie's evidence,
overruled the objection, and retained all the votes.
Mr. Tinnie here stated to the court that he noticed Mr.
Edward Cardwell was objected to as owner of a house in
Camden-street. He (Mr. Tinnie) was ready to appear for
him.

Mr. Bretherton inquired if Mr. Tinnie was authorised
by Mr. Cardwell to appear.
Mr. Tinnie replied that he was not directly authorised,
but he was joint-owner with Mr. Cardwell, and he wished
to be impartial.
The Barrister.—Have you a share of the house P
Mr. Tinnie.—l have a share of the house for which Mr.
Cardwell's name appears.
Mr. Bremner.—Then, we will withdraw the objection
to the Right Hon. the President of the Board of Trade.
Mr. Tinnie.—The Right Hon. the President of the
Board of Trade, with whomll am associated

The Barrister.—ln what way ? At the Board of Trade ?
(Loud laughter.)
Mr. Tinnier No, Sir, as joint-owner of the house.

The Barrister.—l see. -
The objection to the Right Hon. Gentleman was then
withdrawn.
Mr. Alexaude"

d, whose name appeared on the list

as part-owner of a house in Back eliester-street; was
objected to by Mr. Bretherton, on the ground that Mr.
Shand's annual interest in the propeity did not amount

his agent, Mr. Hughes, were examined,
, after paying all deductions, his share of
nore than forty shillin

.year.—Vote

Mr. Shand applied for costs, on the ground that the ob-
jection was vexatious, and that he had been compelled to
travel from London in order to defend his vote.

The Barrister said he did notlreel justified in allowing
costs, inasmuch as Mr. Shand's agent was present, and
there was no necessity for Mr. Shand to have come from

The names of Mr. Richard Bright, jun., of Dingle-hill,
Toxteth-park, and twenty-seven others, who claimed to be
on the register for property in Brook-street, were objected
to by Mr. Bremner, and as none of them appeared to sup-
port the claims, all the names were struck out.
The result of the revision is a great gain to the Con-
servatives, having succeeded in all their claims and ob-
jections—twenty-four of the former and twenty-eight of
the latter; and the Radicals having failed in all their
objections.