Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

27 articles on this Page

THE MAYOR'S JUBILEE MEDAL.…

CITY POLICE COURT. —i

CHESTER BOARD OF GUARDIANS.…

[No title]

CHESTER LANTERN CYCLE PARADE.…

ALLEGED ATTEMPTED MURDER NEAR…

NORTH WALES POOR LAW CONFERENCE…

SMASH IN NORTHGATE STREET.…

SUICIDE OF A CHESTER WOMAN.…

Advertising

HAWARDEN FLOWER SHOW. 4

MOLD LICENSED VICTUALLERS'…

REVISION COURTS. ♦

News
Cite
Share

REVISION COURTS. ♦ CHESTER. Mr. E. Burke Wood, revising barrister, pre- sided over the court for the revision of the parliamentary and municipal voters' lists for the borough of Chester on Monday morning. Among others present were Messrs. H. W. Lovett (representing the Conserva- tives), James Sellars (Liberals), W. Peers (clerk of committees), W. Shone (assistant overseer), and Beresford Adams. THE NEW CRANE STREET ALMHOUSES. CLAIMS OF OCCUPANTS. The Conservatives supported Parliamentary and municipal votes for eleven residents in the almshouses belonging to the Duke of West- minster in New Crane street. The Liberals objected on the ground that the occupiers were in receipt of alms.—Mr. Lovett said the alms were the private gift of the Duke of West- minster, who gave them to any respectable person irrespective of age, creed, politics, or anything else. The Duke could give them a month's notice if he chose to do so, and if they did not clear out they had to pay JE1 a month rent. —Mr. Burke Wood said it appeared to him that the claims could be looked at from different standpoints; some might be good and some bad.—Mr. Sellars said this was not so; one would govern the rest.—Mr. W. Shone, assistant overseer, said these houses had been rated through the action of the Assessment Com- mittee, who instructed him to rate every- thing. The almshouses under the Charity Trustees were exempted, but the houses in New Crane-street were part and parcel of the Duke of Westminster's estate, and as much his property as Eaton Hall. The Duke had therefore to pay rates on the places, and the people were registered as tenants.—Mr. Sellars put in the case of Harrison v. Carter in support of his contention that the receipt of alms was a disqualification. The houses under notice, he said, had been occupied for the last 100 years, and had never been on the franchise.— Mr. Lovett: That was because the occupiers formerly were all freemen, and as such were entitled to their votes. Now, how- ever, some of the occupiers are not freemen— five of them are.—Mr. SeUars: I don't object to the freemen except in regard to the municipal votes, but I object to the others both on account of their parliamentary and municipal votes.— Mr. Lovett: This is a private matter apart from all other almshouses.—Mr. Sellars further con- tended that the Duke of Westminster was bound by deed to pay the doles (5s. a week) to the occupiers of the almshouses.—Mr. Lovett said the Duke could do what he liked with them. —Mr. Burke Wood: It appears to me that nearly all the freemen have been elbowed out.— Mr. Sellars: It was not owing to the Duke of Westminster that the freemen were removed, because I know for a fact that there was a little bit of unpleasant feeling existing because they had their money reduced from 7s. 6d. to 53. —The Revising Barrister thought the existence or non-existence of a deed was an important point.—Mr. Peers said he might be able to obtain information on the matter, and the case was therefore adjourned. A TRAVELLER'S LODGER VOTE ALLOWED. The Liberals objected to Arthur Edward French's vote as a freeman. Mr. F. French appeared in support of his son. Mr. Sellars contended that French lived and worked at Warrington.—Mr. French: Mind you don't go too fast. (Laughter.) Continuing, Major French said the case had been settled three or four years ago, when his son was travelling for a Wrexham firm. At present he was travelling for Mr. Rowson, of Chester and Warrington, and came home every week end, living in the house 145 nights out of the yearly 365. The vote was allowed. TUESDAY. THE ALMSHOUSES QUESTION. The matter of the New Crane-street alms- houses was again opened.—Mr. W. H. Churton, who appeared to support the votes of the occupants, contended that there was nothing in the objection. The only question to be decided was whether the cases were brought within the Act of Parliament, and the occupants disquali- fied on the ground 'parochial relief or other alms.' There had been many cases upon the question, but those who had been disqualified were receiving alms under public trusts, where trustees had appointed persons to occupy almshouses, and in trusts where the people selected were indigent and poor, and practically unable to maintain themselves. He could not find any case where a person who occupied a private almshouse at the discretion of the donor was disqualified on the ground of parish relief or other alms. If he personally chose to give a man a certain sum a week it was not in reason that that man should be dis- qualified. Mr. BURKE WOOD: Is there no deed ? Mr. CHURTON I am not aware of it; if there is one it is at the discretion of the Duke of Westminster to select whom he likes. Mr. SELLARS contended these people were occupants at will. Mr. CHURTON did not see how they could be tenants at will, when by the agreement they bound themselves to go out on a month's notice. Mr. BURKE WOOD: Where do 'other alms' come in ? Mr. CHURTON After reading the decisions, so far as I can make out, is that other alms' are such alms as would render a person practically less independent, or that they were poor people. The case was again adjourned in order that the occupants of the houses might be examined. INCIDENT AT HAWARDEN. The conduct of the Christian' insurgents in Crete some time ago proved that so-called ad- herents of the Cross can be as guilty of excesses as the followers of the Crescent. An act of enormity on the part of a Christian or Christians is now alleged to have taken place even within the shores of England. At the Hawarden Revision Court on Friday, before Mr. R. Cecil Grosvenor, revising barrister, a man named Joseph Latham, of Queen's Ferry, claimed an ownership vote on account of a freehold house and land at Pentre, —Mr. T. W. Hughes, Flint, objected on behalf of the Conservatives, Mr. J. Morgans (Mold) appearing on behalf of the Liberals.—The Revising Barrister (to Latham) Do you own the house ? Yes.—Have you the deeds ? No, some Christians filched them.—You cannot produce the deeds ? No, J have been robbed by Christians—not Mohammedans nor Turks—close to Hawarden. (Laughter.)— What ? I can produce the will, legal advice, &c.—The vote was allowed. The other business of the court was merely formal, the only persons present besides the revising barrister and the agents being three claimants, a spectator, and a policeman. FLINT. The Hon. Cecil Grosvenor held a revision court at Flint on Friday. Mr. T. W. Hughes (Messrs. Hughes and Hughes, Flint) repre- sented the Conservatives, and Mr. J. Morgan, Mold, the Liberals. Among the claims for lodger votes were several by young men who reside with their parents, paying sums varying from 153. to 25s. a week for board and lodging. The Revising Barrister said that in the case of sons residing with their parents it was very difficult to decide whether the payments were bona fide or not, and he had therefore decided that in no case would he grant a vote to such claimants unless they produced receipts shewing that the rent was paid regularly; and as none of the claimants was able to produce receipts the claims were disallowed. The register for the borough of Flint shews a decrease of nearly 200 as compared with 1894.

[No title]

THE ROYAL VISIT TO SCOTLAND.…

THE RAILWAY MYSTERY. +

AUCTION SALES. +

[No title]

KENYON V. MOSS. «.

ALLEGED QUARREL AT TARVIN…

[No title]

! OFFICERS COMMANDING VOLUNTEER…

!WEEKLY STATE OF THE CHESTER…

Advertising

Family Notices

Advertising

[No title]