Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

23 articles on this Page

HAVERFORDWEST REVISION COURTS.

Detailed Lists, Results and Guides
Cite
Share

HAVERFORDWEST REVISION COURTS. On Friday Mr Henry De La Beebe Dillwyn, the revision Barrister, held a court at the Shire Hall, for the revision of the lists of parliamentary voters for sundry County parishes, as well as the Borough par- liamentary and Municipal lists. In respect of the County, Mr W. V. James repre- isented the Conservatives, and Mr W. D. George the Liberals. Mr R. T. P. Williams was also present -with a watohing brief," as we understood, on behalf tof the Conservative party of the Borough. The County lists were taken first which was merely Yy-outing work, all oases in differerce between the 'parties being settled out of Court by the respective -agents. The Barrister however had something to say to some of the Overseers who were not up to the mark iin the performance of their duties, and expressed his sentiments pretty strongly to them on their deficiencies -demorits. The Overseer of Manorowen (Mr James of Tre- ;brethin) attended to give an explanation for his non- .attendance at Fishguard on the previous Tuesday. The Barrister said there were several cases of com- plaint against him. First he had not delivered his lists to the Clerk of the Peace in proper time-the 1st of September. It was impossible for him to arrange his ourcuit unless this duty was punctually attended to. lie had asked his Assistant the cause of it, and he attributed the omission to him (the Overseer) to whom tie said he had sent the lists. But whether Jlbal was so or not he was still responsible for the acta xttf hisassit,tant. When he examined the lists he found too that the register was missing that one person who was marked dead" was not dead. Secondly, he had not produced the rate books at the Revision Courts. It was the duty of Overseers to bring with them the rate books as frequently questions hinged upon them. And he must tell him and other Overseers, that if any man lost his vote through the iieglect of the Overseer, he would have a right of Action against him for such neglect. Thirdly, ho had entrusted the duties to an ineffi- cient substitute, who whether competent or not had neglected his duties. The question now was for him to consider whether he should not impose a fine as well as deprive him of the usual certificate. If he 2iad anything to day in extenuation he would hear him. Mr James (the Overseer) said he was very sorry that anything should have gone wrong, but it was really no fault of his own. He had entrusted the entire duties to bis assistant and expected he would have properly attended to them, otherwise he would have given them his personal attention. It was not the assistant's place to send the lists to him and he had not done so. The Barrister said he thought as much and en- quired who at the time of the revision had the rate books in possession. The Overseer He had them. Mr Thes. Rees informed the Court that the assistant haA aAantted to him in the presence of Mr W. V. .If ames, that he had misstated the fact. The Barrister: Under the circumstances he should 4imply deprive the Overseer of all allowances, as he was responsible and not the assistant, and if he em. jployed an iucompetent person he must take the con- sequences. The inconvenience be had been put to in attending that Court, wasjhe hopod a sufficient penalty for his omission, and that he would take oare that it should not occur again. The Overseer of Roch was also in "default;" he had not sent in the lists in time and had also omitted the register. He excused himself by saying he was a "new man" in office, and would eudeavonr to im- prove next year the Barrister accepted the excuse and granted him the usual allowance. He remarked that last year he had deprived the Overseer of this parish of his" expenses for negleot of duty, but it appeared he had notwithstanding charged the item in his parish account, but it was properly disallowed by the Auditor for want of a voucher, and the same Overseer had the impertinence to write to him for a certificate, which of course he had declined to give. He &,nlrel the Overseer to inform his predecessor tttat he might think himself fortunate in being let off 00 well. The Overseers of Languiu did not put in an appear- ance. Their names being called over several times, the Barrister said he should summon them to appear before him elsewhere BOBOUGH LISTS. These lists were handed in by Mr Jtienry JJavies, the Town Clork. The overseer of Saint Martins, Prendonrast. and Farzy Park, was represented by their asuistant Mr John R. Phillips, and the overseers, of St. Mary's, St. Thomas, and Uzmaston, were represented by Mr George Thomas, acting assistant of Mr T. A. M; rtin: The Barrister said he observed that the lists had not been handed in to the Town Clerk, in proper time. The Town Clerk said Mr J. R. Phillips was under the impression that the 1st September, was the time instead of the 29th of August. The Barrister said that was not of so much conae- quenoe, but Mr Martin's lists had not been delivered until the 8th September. Mr George Thomas said he understood they had been delivered in proper time, and so he had been informed. The Town Clerk said that was not so-it was hearsay information. The Barrister said there wai only one way to cure the neglect which was by depriving the overseers of their expenses. There were several new olaims and objections most of which were disposed of in camera. Notably aaongst the nnaiber was the name of Mr Wm. Bowen Rowlands, Q.C., of Broad Haven, who was objected to as non-reiid-nt as a freeman. The objection however, was withdrawn and the name retained. LODGER CLAIMS. Mr James A-. Stockholm, Inland Revenue otticer, claimed aa a lodger and was opposed by Mr W. D. George, on the ground that the rent of the whole House in which he lodged was only JE10 1 Oa He occupied two rooms, for which he paid at the rate of .£20 a year including furniture and firing and attendance, he therefore contended that such lodgings could not be of sufficient annual value to aupport the claim. The Barrister said the olaimant would hardly pay 920 a year, if the lodgings were not worth it, and that as to the value of the furniture in lodgings, of that description it was of not much consideration. Ho allowed the claim. The Barrister enquired how it was that several persons, Mr Reynolds, of Tierson, and others had been omitted from the overseers lists, when they had a perfoct right to be pla6ed there, thus giving them the trouble to, make claims. n must be tho fault of the oversefers. Mr George aid Mr Reynolds had been on the list for years as a freeholder, and it was a good vote. The Birrister romarked that such neglect should not occur. NOW-RESIDENCE QUESTION. Mr George Gordon Owen Phillips, of Honey borough claimed to be inserted in the freemens' list.. He was supported by Mr Williams, and objected to by Mr George, on the ground of non-residence, he being a medical student and walking the Hospital', in London, where he resided the principal part of the year, and quoted the case of Ford v. Drewe, which was tho case of an articled clerk serving his articles in London. It was for the Court to consider whether his profession necessitated his being resident in London. Mr T. P. Williams contended that it was not a parallel case. In the case quoted the articled clerk was bound to be resident in London but in the case of the claimant there was no such contract, he could go and come when he liked, and ho lived with his father for the best portion of the year within the distance. The Barrister said if it was shewn that the claimant comes home to his father's house and resides there three or four months in the year it was just like a man keeping his terms at Oxford, and he bad no doubt he was entitled to his vote. OVERSEERS EXPENSES. The Town Clerk said he wished to ask the Barrister for information upon a question affecting the Over- seers allowances, for making out the parish lists and for future guidance. The certificate of the revising Barrister under the 31 and 32 Vic., Ch. 58, Sec. 31, was to he given in open Court and was final and conclusive. A question had arisen in the Town Council as to what expenses were covered by the certificates given to the overseers of the Borough at the last Revision Court, the assistant overseers having sent in to the Council de- mands for JE4 4s and f,3 4s 6d respectively for making out the Burgess lists, and he was a-ked as Town Clerk, whether those sums could be paid out of the Borough fond, and he expressed an opinion that they could not in that form at all events, and that he understood they were included in the certiticates given. On the former occasion he had given certifi- cates for the following allowances, viz., St. Thomas £ 4 Os St. Martin £ 6 17s St. Mary £ 4 03 Prandergast £ 5 17s Uzmastou £ 3 53 Portfield £2 Os making together f25 19s and he the Town Clerk certainly understood Mr JJutwyn to state tnen tnati tho-te amounts included all expences for the County as well as the Borough parishes and so it was reported in a local paper. As the same question would no doubb again arise, he was desirous of asoertaining the Barristers views. It was quite right that the over- seers should be paid for the work dono, but the channel was the point. The Barrister said the question had not before been mooted before him and he should wish to be guided by what his predecessors had done. But, however, he must say that he certainly considered that in giving his certificates last time for the sums named by the Town Clerk, that all expenses for the County and Borough libts were included in the amounts. The Town Clerk said that was just what he thought and said. It was rather a difficult matter to apportion the expenses, Haverfordwest being co-extensively a Parliamentary and Municipal borough, the same per. tlonll possessed a double franchise, and they were combined in the same lists, except that there wan a separate women's Burgess list, whioh numbered 231 persons, and exactly the same expenso was incurred by the Overseers in respect of both lists. Mr J. R. Phillips (Assistant Overseer) said the same arrangement hai been carried out since the passing of the Representation of the People's Act. The late Town Clerk (Mr John), had consulted Mr Bonrke, the then revising Barrister, on the question, and they had acted upon his advice. The Barrister said he should not like to deviato from the practice of his predecessors, and should grant the same allowances as before, and leave the Town Council to settle the question. The Town Clerk asked if he was distinctly to understand that those certificates would cover all expenses connected with the "parliamentary lists, but not the burgess or women's lists." The Barrister said that was so. He then granted certificates to Mr J. R. Phillips, but wpth reference to thf. parishes represented by the assistant overseer, Mr Martin, he was by no means satisfied with the way his duties had been performed. It was an im- portant public offioe, and should be filled by an efficient person. On the last occasion he had to find great fault, and he was compelled to do so again. He had considerable hesitation in granting a certificate for expenses, but bad on consideration made up his mind to do so this time, with the understanding that if he found the same causes of com- plaint -to exist another time, he should hesitate very much about making any allowance. The court then broke up. PEMBROKE DOCK.—Mr Henry de la Beobe Dillwyn held his revision court in the council chamber, Pem- broke Dock, on Saturday last. Mr W. Vaughan James appeared for the Conservatives, and Mr W. D. George for the Liberals. The Conservatives were also represented by Messrs Gibby and W. Phillips, and the Liberals by Mr James Williams. This was the first occasion of a revision court being held at Pem- broke Dock, and it was arranged that the lists for Llanstadwell should also be gone through, and those were taken first when the court opened at eleven o'clock in the morning. Nothing of interest occurred, and the court was adjourned about half-past twelve, opening agam at two and conclading at live; an even- ing court was afterwards held for a short time. The following was the result for the Pater Ward -Objec. tions—Conservatives 34, sustained 6 Liberals 14, sustained 5. Claims-Conservatives 10, sustained 9 Liberals 12, sustained 11. Lodger claims- Conserva- tives 5, which were sustained; Liberals 5, sustained 4. Lodger objections—Conservatives 2, sustained nil the Liberals did not make any objection*. PEMBROKE —Mr llenry d" la Beche Dillwyn held his revision court in the Town-hall, Pembroke, on Monday. Mr W. Vaughan James appeared for the Conservatives, and Mr W. D. George for the Liberals. The Conservative* were also represented by Mr Jos. Gibby, and Mr James Phillips, and the Liberals by Mr James Williams. The county, borough (parlia- mentary And municipal), and the freemen's Hits were revised, but the proceedings were of the most nll- interestin g character. At the close of the court, the Liberal agen's were not in a position to say how they stand, but the Conservatives claimed to have gained 65 at the two courts. riOSBY.-On Tuesday Mr Henry do la Beche Dilwyn opened his conrt for the revision of the list of voters for the borough of Tenby and the several parishes included in the Tanby polling-district. The Liberal* were represented by Mr Thomas Rees (from the firm of Messrs Davies and George, Haverford- west), and the Conservatives by Mr Thomas Lewis, of Narbertt). Nothinf: of importance transpired.

-■ - - ", 1. , > ROOSE SPECIAL…

NARBERTH.

IHEUBRANDSTONE.I

! L'EMBROKU AND PEMBROKE DOCK.…

TKNBY. ! JÁ. :> . ¡

[No title]

Family Notices

ROYAL NATIONAL LIFEBOAT INSTITUTION.

I-.. | ___THE __SOUTH -V ALE…

Advertising

O'DONNELL'S DEFENCE. I

SHOCKING MURDER AT LIVERPOOL.…

A YARN ABOUT A ROPE'S END.…

Advertising

"BETWEEN YOU AND ME." __I

THE MILFORD DOCKS COMPANY.…

Advertising

LATEST TELEGRAMS

INFIRMARY COLLECTIONS..

GREAT WESTERN RAILWAY TRAINS…

Advertising

LOCAL AND OTHER NEWS.