Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

6 articles on this Page



REVISION COURT. The Court for the revision of the lists of voters for 'he b of Haverfordwest was held at the Shire HaJJ. on Thursday, before Josiah Rees, Esq, barrister-at- ( law. The business transacted occupied the Court but a ven short time, and the attendance was very small. Mr W. V. James, solicitor, represented the Conservative interest, and Mr W. John, solicitor, appeared for the Liberal party. THE FREEMEN'S LISTS. William Marychurch, on the list of Freemen, was objected to by Mr James, on the grouud that he was non-resident. Mr Joseph Marychurch, examined by Mr John, de- posed I and my son are joint occupiers of the farm of Dudwell, which is about five miles from Haverfordwest. Wo are jointly rated to the parochial rates. My son is now at Cardiff: his wife has been down here for the last four or five months, and during a portion of that time Mrs Marychurch and her children have resided and slept at Dudwell. He is joint occupier in every respect: and has as much right to he there as I have. The lease was granted to him. By Mr James Previous to my son's going to Car- diff, he resided at Swansea. His wife went off, and a dwelling house was hired by him. He has also a busi- ness there. He has contemplated removing from Swan- sea to Cardiff, and carrying on some other business there. In the summer his wife and family were in Haverfordwest, staying in Bridge Street. They lived there, and paid for it, I don't know that my son has been here for a week at a time since he removed. lie comes down by rail, and goes back in a couple of days. He has been down within the last month three times. I don't know that. he has ever been a month without coming down. We have separate rooms at Dudwell, By the Barrister He has been the greater part of the time in Glamorganshire, attending to his business there. By Mr John: My son has furniture at Dudwell not connected with the partnership but we are joint owners of the furniture generally. We are joint owners of the stock and crop Mr John submitted that the evidence proved there was a bona fide residence within seven miles of Haver- fordwest. It was true that the voter had a residence at Swansea and would shortly have another at Cardiff but nevertheless the evidence was quite distinct that he had also a residence at Dudwell. He need hardly say that if a man's means permitted, and he had a whim for anything of the kind, he might have a house in every town in the kingdom. The residence of the voter was not in this case a colourable one it was a bona fide occu- pation of a large farm, for which he and his father paid rates. Mr James contended that there was not auflfoient residence to meet the requirements of the act. He was willing to admit that the voter and his family occasionally came to Dudwell, but the evidence, he thought, showed that the primary residence was at Swansea where his business was. The voter had taken a house at Swansea, and furnisned it, and he was going from there to Cardiff, intending to reside there. He thought there could be little doubt, that the headquarters were at Swansea, and that he had no residence at Dudwell within the meaning of the act. The Barrister said he was of opinion that there was sufficient residence, and retained the vote. He expressed his willingness to grant a case for a superior court, but Mr James said he did not wish for one, remarking that the Reform Bill would bo shortly in operation, and it was not necessary to lesort to a proceeding which was ex- pensive. Thomas Lloyd, of the Merlin's Bridge, and Jno. Carter, of Bullford, were objected to by Mr James. The names were expunged. ST. MARY'S. James Bowen, Mariner's Square, claimed in respect of a house in his occupation of the value of £10 a year. ihe claim, which was supported by Mr JohD, was admitted. James Alexander Reid claimed as occupier of a house in Dew-street, for which he paid £10 a year, Mr James supported the claim, which was admitted. James David Brown claimed to be inserted in th e freeholder's list in respect of Kensington House. It was stated that the claimant's name was already on the list lof occupiers. Mr John supported the claim, whicht having been proved by Mr J. Marychurch, was admitted. PRENDERGAST. Thomas Harries, of the Old Bridge, chimed as occupier of a building and land of the value of £ 36 a year. The claim, which was supported by Mr John, was admitted. ST. MARTIN'S. Jno. James Jenkins, of Castle Square, claimed to be inserted on the freeholder's list in respect of the house in his occupation. Mr John supported the claim, which was admitted. James Criddle, of Bridge-street, claimed as occupier of a house in Bridge-street. Mr John supported. Mr Baker, the assistant overseer, said the name of the claimant had been accidentally omitted. The name had been expunged in the previous year in consequence of non-payment of rates. The name was inserted on the list. Joseph Davies, of Barn-street, claimed as occupier of houses in immediate succession. The claimant had resided in a house in Bridge street of the value of £ 19 annually, and had removed to Barn-street, where he now occupied a house of the annual value ofJSlO 10s. The claim was admitted. Edward Wilson, who was supported by Mr James, claimed as occupier of a house in Holloway of the annual value of XIO he had previously resided ifl Gloucester Terrace, where be had paid £ 15 a year. The claim was admitted. ST. THOMVS. John Phillips, of Grove-row, (objected to by Mr James) and Thomas Martin Watts (objected to by Mr john) were struck off she list. John James, of Hill-street, claimed to be inserted in the freeholder's list in respect of houses owned by hiol in St. Thomas Green. The claim (which was supported by Mr James) wa* admitted. William John, junior, claimed in respect of a house owned by him in Hill-street. Mr James supported. The claim was admitted. Thomas Lewis, of Gnat-street, claimed in respect of a house in his occupation in Goat-street. Mr John sup- ported. Mr G. Thomas, of St. Martin's, proved that the claimant held a lease of the house, and that he paid £3 a year ground rent. The inside repairs were done by the claimant, but the roof was repaired by the landlord. The house, previous to the granting of the lease, was let for XIO a year. The claim was admitted. Thomas Williams, on the list of occupiers, was ob- jected to by Mr James. The name was expunged. UZMASTON. There were no alterations made in the lists for this parish.