Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

9 articles on this Page


[No title]



rHE REVISION OF THE BOROUGH I ( LIST. A Coxon, Esq., the revising barrister, held a court for the revision of the list of voters in the borough on Thurslhy last, in the Town H n. This was the first revision held in the town since the passing of the new act relating to the matter, and which gives the Revising Barrister very great discretionary powers. The proceed- ings, however, were conducted in much the usual way, the principal difference being that the names were taken in districts insead of alphabetically. Mr. Evan Morris and Mr. T. Bury, assisted by Mr. Bevan and Mr. Edwin Jones, appeared for the Conservatives. The Liberals of the North Ward were represented by Mr. John Jones; East Ward, Mr. Humphreys; South Ward, Mr. Owen G. Jones and the West Ward, Mr. Ashton Bradley. Mr. Tilston also assisted. THE QUESTION OF THE STANSTY LIST. Mr. John Jones called the attention of the Barrister to the mistake which had been made in regard to the Stansty list, which was before him. It would have come to his notice that in Stansty the assistant officer failed to publish a proper list. He failed to publish list D, and insr.ead published a list applying to "Scott and Loti," that was to say, list 2 of form D. The list, he need not tell him, was inapplicable to Stansty, and the question was how he would deal with with it. The facts were these. His friends opposite served notices of objection and put in new claims on the 25th August. No action was taken, and the officer did not discover his mistake until after the service upon him of those claims, and he seemed to have attempted to rectify his error by publishing a list of claims, whether persons had sent in claims or not. In the new list he put the names of every one who were omitted from the first erroneous list. He did this in the hope of correcting the mistake he had made. This being the case he put it to the Barrister whether he would deal with the error in Stansty by sec. 28, sub-sec. 1. The Barrister said the question was whether an error of this sort vitiated the whole list. Mr. John Jones pointed out sub-sec. 12, but Mr. Coxon was of opinion that this section did not apply. Unless he was obliged to do different he was at present in favour of holding that the heading could not be mis- leading to anybody. Subject to what was to be said, by the other side he should hold that this mistake did not vitiate the whole publication. If he held that this was a good publication the claims became immaterial. He believed it had been held that if the overseer entered a claim, such was sufficient to give him jurisdic- tion to deal with is. Mr. John Jones said it was so. Mr. T. Bury said they did not contest this matter, but lie wished to state the facts of their case. They I submitted that the publication was an erroneous one, and that the list was insufficient. It was a list describ- ing a particular qualification, and that qualification did not exist in Stansty. Therefore, they fearing that the Barrister would treat the list as a nullity altogether, took the precaution of claiming for their friends in Stansty afresh, and objecting to the list as published. They said that the head must govern the entire list, and that the head was erroneous, but perhaps the Barrister was of opinion that the overseer, under the circumstances, was justified in publishing, or that he couid wink at the list of claims which had been made. All they wanted was to prevent Stansty from being dis- franchised. His powers of amendment were very great, and if he could see his way to rectify this blunder he would no doubt do so. In the first place they must con- tend that the list was bad, and in the second place that their objection must prevail unless the Barrister was of opinion that the overseer, in publishing this new list, thereby rectified the matter, although he was not in a position to show that he had had any formal claims made by these parties. The question was whether the overseer was justified in putting a name on. Mr. E van Morris said if the object was to give these parties the franchise, he thought there was another way out of the difficulty, as he understood the overseer had published the old list. Mr. Price (the overseer) said so far as he was con- cerned, he had taken the greatest care to get the list correct. He got out one and gave it to his clerk to copy, after which it was sent direct to the printer. He (Mr. Price) never thought of examining it until Mr. Bevan turned up on the night of the 25th August. (Laughter). The Barrister Your remarks are to the effect that there has been an error. (Laughter). Mr. Price There has been no collusion, sir. The Barrister Oh, no. Mr. John Jones I did nothing but scold Price when I saw him. (Laughter). Mr. Evan Morris If it had been the other way about perhaps you would not have. (Laughter). The Barrister said what he proposed to do was to reat the list as if properly published, and any objections would be gone into. The Court then proceeded with the list of new claims for Stansty, a great number of which were adjourned until the evening sitting. ERDDIG AND BERSHAM. There were no objections in Bersham, and but one new claim, that of Mr. Henry Hodgkins, Off a Terrace, which was allowed. In Erddig there were no objections or claims. WREXHAM REGIS. The North Ward was taken first. REV. M. ILDrrOllD, GROVE-ROAD, Was objected to by the Conservatives, en the ground that he was required to occupy the house as minister. All previous ministers had resided in this house, and as they were liable to removal, their successors would occupy the same .premises. The question was whether Mr. Bamford had the house as part of his emolument or whether lie'was compelled to live there. Mr. Tilston proved that it was optional to the minister to live in this house, and the claim was accordingly allowed. MR. JOHN BEALE, EGERTON-STREET, Was objected to by the Liberals, on the grounds that he had not occupied the house sufficiently long. The ■objection notice stated that "you have not occupied this house and garden for twelve months." The Barrister said the notice would bear the interpre- tation that Mr. Beale had been from his house for twelve months. Mr. Jones said he thought the notice would bear the other interpretation also. The Barrister: As an old special pleader I think I should say no. Mr. Jones If I was at home I could put my hand on a rule of logic which showed that it did. In answer to a question, Mr. Jones said No. 3, Egerton-street, was a house occupied by Mr. Richard Jones. Mr. Bury Mr. Richard Jones is down for No. 2. In the course of further remarks it was stated that there were no numbers on these houses. Mr. Beale was called and stated that he had lived in this house for seven years, and he had always under- stood that his house was No. 3, although there was no number on it. The Barrister If there is no number on Mr. Beale's house then the number is surlusage and is not necessary to the description. Mr. McRae, agent for the Liberals, stated that No. 3 was marked on Mr. Richard Jones's house. Mr. Williams, the overseer, said he had always served the notices on Mr. Beale as living tit No. 3. He then explained that the confusion in the numbers had occurred through Mr. Richard Jones converting what was one house into two. The Barrister Mr. Richard Jones, by converting one house into two cannot take away Mr. Beale's number, and therefore the claim is allowed. (Applause). The Barrister Silence Mr. John Jones It is fair to fight these things. The Barrister Oh, yes, of course it is. Mr. John Jones (to Mr. Beale): You are welcome to your vote without any grudge from me. Mr. Beale I have had a vote for forty years, and never been objected to before, and as this is vexatious I shall ask for costs. The Barrister I think if I make costs I ought to make them upon Mr. Richard Jones. (Laughter). Mr. John Jones (to Mr. Beale): Call on your friend as you pass. (Laughter). MR. JAMES NIXON, QUEEN-STREET, Was objected to by the Liberals, on the grounds of a. misdescription. He was on the list as occupying 17, Queen-street, and the objection was that the correct number was Hi. Mr. McRae stated that 17 was the correct number, and Mr. Nixon upon this asked for costs. Mr. John Jones It was a mis-reading of the number. The Barrister Well, you will have to pay 2s. (id. for it, that's all. (Laughter). This was the first case in which costs were allowed. MR. ASHTON BRADLEY, HIGH-STREET, Who made a new claim, was objected to by the Conservatives. Mr. Bury said their instructions were that Mr. Bradley resided in Llangollen. The Barrister Well, has he kept on his lodgings here] Mr. Bradley stated that he had rooms at Llangollen, and had resided there since May, but he still held rooms at his father's house, where were the greater quantity of his books and clothes, &c. He claimed for his offices. The Barrister Then you ordinarily reside in your father's house ? Mr. Bradley Yes. The Barrister Well, that is sufficient. MR. JAMES GRIFFITH, SPRING-ROAD, Was objected to by the Liberals, on the ground that he did not remove direct from Market-street to Spring- road. Mr. John Jones: Did you not go into lodgings between times ? Mr. Griffith (crossly): No, I did not. Mr. John Jones Don't bite me. (Laughter). Mr. Griffith You know I did not, and you only want to take away my vote. The Barrister The claim is allowed. Mr. Griffith I have lost the sale of my fish to-day, Mr. Jones, who is to pay me for that ? Mr. Jones I cannot help that. The Barrister It is only a claim, you see. There will be no costs. MR. EDWARD HORTON, REGENT-STREET, Was objected to by the Conservatives, on the ground of misdescription and not sufficient occupation. Mr. Horton was described as living in Hope-street, whereas he lives in Regent-street. Mr. Jones argued that there was no distinction, and the whole street was generally called Hope-street. In regard to the second ground the Barrister was of 'I r opinion that the premises had only been occupied by claimant as manager for his brother. Therefore the laim was not allowed. MR: R. H. V. KYRKE, WESTMINSTER BUILDINGS, Wns objected to by the Liberals on the grounds of in- sufficient occupation. Similar objection was made at the last revision, when the was not allowed. It appeared that although Mr. Kyrke had entire control j of his chambers, and possessed the right of entry at any < hour, he did not hold a key of the entrance. After discussion Mr. Jarvis, the landlord of the, offices, was called, and he stated that Mr. Kvrke had a perfect right to a key if he wished for one, but as the premises were always open before Mr. Kyrke arrived, and remained open for some time after he went, he had never needed one. He had, however, held a kev since the last revision court. The claim was allowed. fR. GEORGE THOMAS, ROSENEATH. Mr. Thomas claimed in respect of offices at Rose- neath, which he jointly occupied with Mr. Low. He was objected to the Liberals, on the ground of insufficient occupation. After examination the Barrister said it appeared to him that the offices were occupied by Mr. Low, although Mr. Thomas, being a partner with him, had access to the offices. He questioned very much ■ whether he really had any occupation. If it had appeared that Mr. Low had at any time received rent from Mr. Thomas it would have been different. He was not satisfied, and the claim would not be allowed. A sitting was held in the evening which lasted until 10.30, at which time the North and East Wards were completed. Nothing of interest or importance transpired during the evening sitting. FRIDAY. The business of the court was commenced at ten o'clock punctually. Wrexham Regis, South Ward, was first proceed with. MR. S. T. BAUGH, TEMPLE-ROW, Was objected to by the Conservatives on the ground that the alleged qualification premises were of in- sufficient rental, and also of misdescription. It was stated that the premises were jointly occupied by Mr. Baugh and his partners, and therefore the rental was insufficient. Mr. John Jones asked if it was not permissible for on8 partner alone to claim a vote. The Barrister replied in the negative, and the ob- jection was accordingly sustained. MR. A. C. BAUGH, TEMPLE-ROW, Was objected to by the Conservatives on the ground of insufficient rental. | Mr. Baugh said be occupied two rooms as offices at an annual rental of ,£1;"). One of these rooms was jointly occupied by bis temporary partner, Mr. Isaac1 Shone, who contributed per year. # Mr. Evan Morris argued that it was a joint occupa- t-ior. of the whole of the premises. The Barrister: Hardly it is a joint occupation of part of the offices. Air. Morris said Mr. Bau jh could not have two qualifications as joint and also as separate occupier. He must confine himself to one or the other. After furthur argument, the Barrister said he was of opinion that there was a sufficient qualification, and allowed the claim. THE BARRISTER'S IDEA OF PRINTERS. In reference to a clerical error in the list, the Barrister said printers had curious propensities. They could read the most abominably bad writing, and, if anything was well written they would be sure to make a mistake. (Laughter). About three o'clock the court adjourned until seven in the eve¡¡Íng. FLINT. At the Borough Registration Court held at Flint, on Thursday, the 2nd inst., a test case of some interest governing the validity or otherwise of about 80 Liberal objections was decided by the Revising Barrister W. L. Foulkes Esq. Mr. J. Powell, solicitor, Wrexham (for Mr. Evan Morris), appeared for the Conservatives and Mr. of Holywell appeared for the Liberals. Mr. Powell argued that the notices of objection were bad on the ground that there being two Parliamentary lists for the Borough of Flint the objector should have described in his notice to the overseer the list upon which the name of the voter to whom lie objected stood, and, also I that where there were two or more persons of the same name on the list of voters one of whom is intended to be objected to the objector should distinguish him in some way, in his notice to the overseer, from the other or others of the same name on the list. Neither of these precautions were taken in making the objections referred to. Mr. Evans argued that the Revising Barrister had power under the act of 1878 to amend and remedy the defective notices, but Air. Powell strongly con- tended, in opposition, that the act did not give the Barrister such power. The court eventually decided, after much consideration, that the whole of the objections were bad and allowed the votes <,cconling-ly.


[No title]



[No title]