Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

3 articles on this Page



HAVERFORDWEST REVISION COURT. OBJECTIONS TO THE HAVER- FORDWEST FREEHOLDERS. A TORY LODGER AS A "WARMING PAN." The Revising Barrister, Mr Arthur Lewis, opened this court in the Temperance Hall at 12 o'clock on last Wednesday morning. The proceedings were rather interesting. Mr John George, on behalf of the Liberals, contested the transfer of the Haverfordwest freeholders to the county without their making claim, and the question was argued out at length. The result, however, is still in abeyance, as the Revising Barrister will not deliver his decision till he sits at Old Milford on October 8th. The ordinary objections to claimants were somewhat few, and presented no special feature worthy of remark. Mr W. G. Eaton-Evans, solicitor, appeared for *he Conservatives, and Mr John George attended s Liberal agent. There were over 30 objections by Mr John George to the transfer of freeholders in the borough from the Parliamentary iist for the borough to the list for the county on the ground that they had not claimed to be transferred. After some preliminary discussion it was agreed to take a test case, and let the decision in that case apply to all. Mr Lewis agreed to take Mr Samson's case as a test. Mr John George put in his objection to Mr Marlay Samson's vote. He objected to Mr Samson's name being included in the Parlia- mentary list of ownership electors tor the parish of Prendergast on the ground that he had not claimed to be transferred from the borough list. All the cases were identical. Mr Samson said that his name having been put on the list by the overseers the Revising Barrister had no power to go behind that list and inquire whether he had made a claim in writing or not. That had been decided by the case of Da vies v. Hopkins. Mr Lewis: You say I have no power to go behind the published list ? Mr Samson Yes. On the authority of that decision I say it is not competent for you to go behind and inquire whether notice of claim was given or whether there had been sufficient notice. Having referred to the decision in the case of Da vies and Hopkins, Mr Lewis said he was rather staggered by it, because it seemed to imply that if the overseer s published a list of claimants there was no right for him to hear any objection. Mr George It is net a list of claimants. It is published as a list of voters. Mr Samson If an objection cannot be enter- tained to a list of claimants it follows a fortiori that it cannot be entertained to a published list of voters. The overseers published this list as if the persons were on the register. The whole of his argument rested upon the contention that, where the overseers had published the names as a borough list, the claimants could not be called upon to produce their notice. Mr George Tite.overseer has no right to put a person on the ownership list without a claim. This list is published as a list of ownership and parochial electors, and not claimants. Mr Lewis I quite understand that point. It is published by the overseers as a list of owner- ship voters, then it is on the same footing as the ordinary ownership list. Mr George: My contention is that there is no list. Mr Lewis said there was a list whether it was a good one or not. Mr George repeated that lie held there was no list in existence. The list now before them should have been a copy of the register, but it was not in the register at all. Mr Lewis agreed that he did not think it was a list at all. Mr Samson argued that Mr Lewis could not inquire into it at all. Mr Lewis replied that lie thought there was a good deal in what Mr George said. This list did not appear in the old register, and therefore he did not think this was an ownership list. Mr Samson said that long before they came to whether it was or was not a list, they had to consider what power the Revising Barrister had to entertain the objection to his name. His name appeared in the list published by the overseers. They may have committed an error, but that was not a matter with which the Revising Barrister could deal, unless he was competent to inquire whether or not a claim was made. Mr Samson submitted that lie was not empowered to go into the question as to whether an actual claim was made by these persons, amt, therefore, could not go into the objections. Mr Lewis This purports to be an ownership list. Mr George You expunged the list altogether, and where can it arise again ? Mr Samson said there was a list of ownership claimants in each borough, who had a right to vote in the County. There was before the Re- vising Barrister a list of persons published by the Overseers, who, they said, were entitled to vote in the county. That list could have been made out only by persons sending in their claims, and as far as that list was concerned, the Revising Barrister should remain in ignorance whether those claims had been sent in. The Revising Barrister was not entitled to require him to prove that lie gave notice of claim, and must, therefore, accept the list published by the Overseers, upon which his name appeared. lie should accept it as a list and assume that the Overseers had re- ceived the claims, as it was not, competent for him to inquire whether the claims had been made. In fact, the names of persons who had made claims appeared on that list. Mr Lewis (to the Overseer) Did you publish this at the same time as you published the other lists Mr Rogers (Overseer) Yes, sir. On the 20th June. Mr Samson Therefore, that is a list in exist- ence properly published by the Overseer. If there is a list in existence you have no power to go into the question whether or not I gave notice to the Overseer, or into the sufficiency of that notice. Mr Lewis Until my decision these persons had a right to vote as owners in the borough. Mr Samson You arc met with this difficulty that, if you hold there is no list in exist- ence, you cannot create a list that the overseers have not published. As their names appear there it is evident that there is a list of some sort in existelice. Mr George aid his contention was that, in the !( lirst place, there was no list and no copy of the register. The Ibt was not in existence in the register, and had not been included because it had been expunged altogether by the Revising Barrister. However, it was revi ved in some mysterious manner. His second contention was that all freeholders should claim, and must claim for a freehold vote before they could be put on. Mr Lewis remarked that the difference seemed to be that Mr Samson said he (Mr Lewis) had no right to go behind the list, whether rightly pub- lished or not by the overseers whilst Mr George argued that every ownership voter was bound to claim before he could get on the ownership list. Mr George said a notice was sent out at the very time the list was published, calling upon owners to claim, and, seeing that they had not claimed, they had no right to be there. Only a copy of the register should be published on the 20th June. If the overseer entered Mr Samson's name on the list of claimants the latter's argu- ment might be of some avail. Mr Samson It is clearly a part of the register because there is in every borough a list of free- hold voters, who vote in the county. Mr George said a copy of the register was bound to be sent to one oi His Majesty's Secre- taries of State before the 1st February, and that was the register for the ensuing year. In this case the list now before them was not part of the register and was not sent. Mr Lewis thought Mr George was right. If he looked in the register he should not find a list of ownership and parochial electors for Prender- gast. Then came the question, in order to get on such, ought not Mr Samson to have claimed ? Mr Samson said that claims had not been sent in because the names appeared on the lists pub- lished by the overseer. The first point, however, was whether the Revising Barrister had or had not the power to entertain the objection against the inclusion of his name on the ground that he had made a claim to the overseer. Mr George: The overseer cannot put a person on the ownership list without a claim. Mr Samson That is different to the opinion of Mr Justice Williams in the decided case. Mr Lewis: I don't think so. Justice Williams says it the name is on the list of claimants you cannot require proof of claim having been mad a but my difliculty is that I don't think this is proper list of ownership electors- Mr Samson Then I say that does not arise for you on this objection. The overseers may have acted wrongfully in publishing this list, but they arc responsible for that. There can be no questian but that ownership electors in the borough vote in the county. Therefore, those names that appear there are ownership electors, who have got a vote in the county. Mr Lewis You mean they are transferred auto- | matically by the effects of my decision to the county. Mr Samson Yes. Mr Lewis: Do you flay the effect of my decis- ion was that everybody whose vote I disallowed in the borough, was automatically transferred to the county as a freehold-voter ? Mr Samson: I don't say "automatically as the Overseer put the :iiaiiies on as part of the county register Mr Lewis Apart from that point you agree these people must have claimed ? Mr Sarnson For the purpose of this case I say it is not competent to inquire whether they claimed or not. Mr Lewis If they were not transferred auto- matically they must have claimed to get on the ownership list. Mr Samson If the Overseers put them on there would be no power to remove them because they did not put in a claim in writing. You arc asked to remove names from a list of persons who are unquestionably entitled to vote in the county. Mr Lewis said he assumed for the sake of argument that this was an absolutely invalid list. Had lie not a right to entertain any objection or call upon Mr Samson to prove his claim to go up- on this invalid list ? Mr Samson No. Mr Lewis: Prima fecit an ownership voter is bound to claim before lie can be put on the list. Mr Samson Yes, but they have been put on the list. Mr Rogers The overseers did not prepare this list. They published it on the direction of the Clerk of the Peace. Mr Lewis Your duty is to publish the list which appears in the register. Then some- thing which is not the usual thing has been done. Mr Rogers That is so, sir. Mr Lewis The overseers are bound to publish what is sent them. They have departed trom the usual practice here owing to an extraordinary state of circumstances. Something llnmmallw been done, and a document is published as an ownership and parochial electors' list which is not in fact, such a list. I am inclined to think this list a nullity. Mr Samson: The objection calls upon me to prove a claim. I say the publication ot the name there by the overseer is conclusive proot of my having made a claim. Mr George reiterated that the list was one of electors and not of claimants. Mr Lewis You have, I think, agreed that apart from this list having been published, you would not be automatically transferred by the fact of your having been a freehold voter in the borough and being struck off by my decision. Would that make you ip.<o facto a voter in the county w ithout making a claim ? Mr Samson I should say not. Mr Lewis: Then it necessitates a claim. Can an ownership list be created without a claim from each Pei-Soil Mr Samson I should say so, sir. 'j Mr George No, sir. Mr W. 1). George, Clerk of the Peace, said lie sent out the precepts to the Overseers of the borough portion of the parishes with the tree- holders in them. The names on the list before the )tedsillg Barrister had at some time or other established their right by a proper claim in a different electoral district, hut in the parish pro- bably, when it was not. divided as now. Whether rightly or wrongly, he considered that the Re- vising Barrister's decision did not disfranchise the freeholders but simply transferred them to the County. After some further discussion the Revising Barrister said he would postpone his decision until lie had read up the previous decisions affecting the question. He would give his decision at the sit- | tin" in Old Milford on the Sth October. HAROLDS'i'ONE WEST. Mr George objected to Isaac Richards, Long L atic, and Thomas Richards, his soil, being retained on Division 2 on the ground that they did not separately occupy as owner or tenant the premises held by them ,during the 1'2 mouths preceding 12th July. Albert Richards had been on last yenr. Mr George asked the overseer did anybody tell him to put these two men oil besides his own knowledge, j Overseer l'cs, I might, as well tell you first as last. Mr George Who was it ? Overseer I'll say no more. (Laughter). Mr Lewis knocked off Thomas Richards. OTHER OBJECTIONS. Objection was also made by Mr John Geoige to the vote of Mr Wm. H. George, Sutton Lodge, on the ground of insufficient occupation of the premises in Market Street. The objector stated that the stables there were now used for the horses of the firm who had succeeded Mr George. Mr W. G. Eaton Evans said that Mr W. H. George still paid rent to his father (Mr E. Eaton Evans) for the stables and had not yet assigned them. The vote was allowed. Mr John George further objected to the votes of Elizabeth M. Jones and E. M. Reynolds, Hill Street, on the ground of insufficient occupation. He stated that these ladies lived with Mr Reynolds, the cabinet- maker, and the latter kept his horse in the stable in the Winch Lane. Mr R. T. P. Williams I am told these young ladies run a poultry farm on this particular spot. I daresay the poultry roost over the horse's head to keep him company at night. (Laughter). The votes were allowed. AN INDIA RUBBER STAMP. Mr Eaton Evans objected to the vote of George Davies, Ruther Lane, on the ground that the lodgings he occupied were of insufficient value. Mr G. Davies said he had a technical objection to make to the objection served on him. The objector, George Picton, had mads his impres-sion with a rubber stamp on the objection paper. Mr Lewis said he believed that that had bee, decided. Mr George Picton swore that he made the impres- sion on the paper with the stamp himself. Mr Davies Who impressed it for you ? Mr Picton For me! I did it myself. (Laughter).. Mr Davies further objected that the date and the year on the notice had not been properly filled in, and it might be as easily taken for 11,901 as for any- thing else. (Laughter). Mr Lewis: I don't think it would mislead anyone. What is the rateable value of the house ? Mr Baker, overseer: X4 10s. Mr Lewis It's too small. For the last seven years I have decided I won't allow a lodger vote in any house rated under X5, and my ruling so far has never been questioned. Mr Davies said his vote had never been questioned before. Mr Lewis I don't believe that in any house rated under X,,5 there will be rooms of sufficient value to support a lodger vote. I am going to strike this out. Mr Davies still protested. Mr Lewis You have your remedy. Get your rates put up. (Lautihter.) AN ANIMATED WARMING PAN. j Charles Morgans claimed a vote as a new lodger by virtue of his occupation of two rooms in the Carmar- then Arms, Cartlett-his mother's house. Mr John George objected on behalf of the Liberals, and questioned the claimant very closely as to whether he bad the exclusive use of a certain room downstairs, and whether it was not a fact that that room was used by parties going in to have a drink. Claimant: Not to my knowledge. He was next questioned as to his occupation of his bedroom, and he admitted that he occasionally slept in other rooms, and that a cattle dealer named Donovan had sometimes slept in his bed. Mr Lewis: Do you go about the house at nights as a sort of warming pan to keep the beds aired ? Morgan Yes. I go into other beds to keep them aired. (Laughter). Mr Lewis said that the vote seemed to be a doubt- j ful one as the claimant went around the house warm- ing the beds, but at the same time he would give him the benefit of the doubt and allow the vote.

Haverfordwest Board of j Guardians.I

Haverfordwest District Council.