Some Selected Reports from The Windsor and Eton Express
5th November 1836
Just Published - for 1837
The Following - Splendid Annuals
Flowers of Loveliness, Gems of Beauty, The Keepsake, The Book of Beauty, Book of Gems, Drawing Room Scrap Book, Oriental Annual, Landscape Annual, Forget Me Not, Friendship's Offering, Biblical Keepsake, Gallery of British Artists - 2nd Series, Christian Keepsake, Juvenile Forget Me Not, Ditto Scrap Book, &c., &c., &c.
Also, will be published early in November a great variety of Almanacks, Diaries, Pocket-Books, and other Annual Publications.
J.B. Brown, Bookseller, Windsor.
Birthday of Her Royal Highness The Princess Augusta
The Annual Dinner in honour of the above occasion will take place on Tuesday, the 8th of November, at Mr.W.Smith's the Adelaide Inn, Windsor.
Stewards: Mr.John Clode - Castle Inn, R.Blunt, W.Clarke, W.Wright, Mr.Charles Phillips, John Barton, ------ Goddard - Eton.
Tickets, including Dessert, 5s each; to be had at the Bar of the Inn, or of the Stewards.
, Milliner And Dress Maker, To Her Majesty, Her Royal Highness the Princess Augusta, &c. , &c.,.
Begs most respectfully to inform the Ladies of Windsor, Eton, and neighbourhood, that her Winter Millinery, Dresses, Cloaks, Mantles, and every other Article for the season will be selected by Monday, November 7th, which she hopes will be approved.
N.B. - A large Stock of Furs, Baby Linen, Corsets, Feathers, Flowers, &c.
Weston, Fashionable Tuscan and Straw Hat Manufacturer, and Milliner, To Her Majesty.
begs to announce to the Ladies of Windsor, Eton, and their vicinities, that on Tuesday the 8th of November, she will have ready A New And Elegant Selection Of Millinery, adapted to the approaching Season, when she respectfully solicits the favour of a call.
41, Thames-street, Windsor.
Tuscan, Straw, and Leghorns cleaned and altered to the present Fashion.
Passing Counterfeit Coin - On Monday a woman, of the name of Seagrove
, was brought before the Magistrates, charged with uttering a counterfeit half sovereign at the house of Mr.Pursey
, landlord of the Two-Brewers, in Park-street, during the fair time. After hearing the evidence,
she was remanded until Thursday, in order to allow time to communicate with the Solicitor of the Mint, and to have his opinion as to her being prosecuted. She was, however, told she might be admitted bail, and on Tuesday two respectable persons entered into the necessary sureties for her appearance on Thursday. On the
latter day an answer was received from the Solicitor of the Mint, stating that it was his intention to prosecute, as the prisoner had been in custody before on a charge of a similar nature. The prisoner had, however, in the meantime absconded, and on
Thursday she was non est inventus, to the great mortification of the sureties, who instantly set on foot the most rigid enquires after the fugitive.
On Thursday Thomas Bradshaw
was fully committed, for stealing a coat from the back room in the Sun public-house, the property of Henry Osborn
, a servant in the house.
and John Chuck
were also committed , the former for stealing a quantity of coals, the property of Messrs. George
, of Peascod-street, and the latter, for receiving the same, knowing them to be stolen.
Revision of the Burgess List
On Tuesday and Wednesday H.B.Churchill
and Charles Cooper
, Esqrs., sat at the Town-hall, to revise the Burgess lists for the Borough of New Windsor.
Mr.Barton and Mr.Darvill
, Solicitors attended on the part of the Liberal party; Mr.Long
, Solicitors, and Mr.Batcheldor
appeared for the Conservatives.
There were but few cases in which anything of interest occurred, or which raised any legal point. The following are the only ones worth of notice.
was objected to by Mr.Long
. He stated that he was the occupier of premises in Peascod-street, at £10 a year, that he was rated and paid the rates. In cross examination , however, it appears that he only occupied part of the house, and the rest was in the occupation of other parties. The Shop was entirely cut off, and there was but one common staircase.
The Court held that the objection was valid, and the
name was struck off.
was objected to by Mr.Long
, and supported by Mr.Barton
. It appeared Bartlett
rented a house at ten guineas per annum, in Clewer parish, and paid all his poor's Rates, for which he produced the receipts given in his own name. On referring to the rate books, it was found that the Overseers had omitted Bartletts
name on the rate made in December, and substituted the name Barnes
observed that this mistake of the Overseers was fatal to the vote.
admitted that, although, in strict law it was so, he contended that where it was manifest that the parish books and accounts have been carelessly kept by the Overseers, it was competent to the Barristers upon an equitable construction of the act to admit the vote,
in support of which, Mr.Barton
relied on the decision of the Barristers at the last revision , where it appeared that the Windsor books were in such a state as not to be relied on; he observed also that the extreme hardship of this case should be taken into consideration.
The Court said it was an exceedingly hard case, and regretted that they could not, consistently with their duty, admit the vote; it was accordingly struck off.
George Deodatus Warcus
was opposed by Mr.Long
, on the ground that he was not an occupier in Windsor.
proved the occupation by Mr.Warcus
of the house for four or five years past; it was of the value of 18 guineas a year.
In cross examination by Mr.Lowe
, the witness stated, that Mr.Warcus
was to pay a rent of 18 guineas, and that he paid that amount in services. If he did not occupy that house, his salary would be 18 guineas more than it is now. He slept there occasionally, and had his meals there, but his general residence was at Old Windsor. He had furniture in the house, and part of his family lived there. Could he swear that he slept there a dozen nights in the year.
The Court thought that this case should stand over for Mr.Warcus's
attendance, as Mr.Bedborough
did not appear to know enough.
The witness, in addition said he knew that Mr.Warcus
did take the house, and that he also paid the rates and taxes.
The Court observed, that what was done last year had nothing to do with them.
The case was ordered to stand over for Mr. Warcus's
On Wednesday the case was resumed, when Mr.Warcus
was examined. His evidence was similar to that given by Mr. John Bedborough
, after which the Court expressed their opinion in favour of the claimant. It appeared to them that Mr.Warcus
rented the house, and although he might find it convenient to occupy but one room, still he was the landlord of the house, for if a burglary were committed in it, the house would be laid as his dwelling house.
, of Brunswick Terrace, claimed to have his name inserted in the list. He was opposed by Mr.Darvill
. The case involved a very nice point of law. It appeared, from the statement of the claimant himself, that he had had a demand made upon him, by the Tax Collector, of £2 0s 7 1/2d , in which
was included 14s for a dog, which he objected to pay. He several times expressed his readiness to pay the £1 6s 7 1/2d , but the Collector refused to receive less than the whole demand. Although Mr.Loades
had offered to pay the amount he conceived was due, and although he did not produce that amount, he had the money in his pocket at the time of stating his readiness to pay it.
He did not appeal against the surcharge, being ill in bed at that time, but he applied to the Commissioners at Somerset House, who relieved him from the charge of 14s. In the meantime, however , the period had passed when it was necessary , by the Reform Act, that all rates and taxes should be paid, to entitle parties to be on the list of voters for this year.
It was contended by Mr.Long
that the claimant had the right to be on the list, because he had done all the Act required him to do. The tender of the money actually due was made in sufficient time, and to shew that only £1 6s 7 1/2d was due, the Commissioners had remitted that which he conceived he had no right to pay. If the vote should be destroyed in such a way, it would leave
an immense power in the hands of the Surveyor of Taxes, who, by making surcharges, might be the means of disfranchising one half of the voters.
On the other hand it was contended that the act was an imperative as to the payment of the rates and taxes, and that Mr.Loades
ought to have appealed against the surcharge which he could have done in sufficient time to have a vote.
As he had not done so he could not be allowed to take advantage of his own laches[?]. Besides the tender spoken of was not such a one as would be admitted in an action of debt.
The Court, after some consultation, gave judgement. They were of the opinion that Mr. Loades
was not entitled to a vote. Revising Barristers could discharge the item of 14s from their consideration when they spoke of the tender. It appeared that the 14s was afterwards discharged by
the Commissioners at Somerset-house, but the grounds on which that was done they were not aware of. Whether it was an act of grace and favour, or whether the item had been improperly charged, they were not aware of. When the demand was made the Collector, the charge was against Mr.Loades
, on the assessment, so that as far as between the Collector and Mr.Loades
, the whole amount was due.
A question might arise, whether the tender was or was not a good tender, for the Act of Parliament only required payment of taxes due to the house. But whatever amount might be due, the Collector had a right to insist on payment of the whole, and could not be required to separate his demand.
He could not be compelled to receive one amount at one time and another at another time, because in such a case, his accounts would be liable to get confused. It was very doubtful to them (the Revising Barristers), whether the tender was good in law. Supposing the whole was due, the whole should be tendered.
observed that the case was one of great hardship.
The Court said they were always sorry for any circumstances of hardship.
said he contended that the Collector was bound to receive the £1 6s 7 1/2d , and that the tender was sufficient. At his request the Court made an especial minute of the facts of the case, in order to be produced hereafter if necessary. Mr.B added that he should tender
the vote at the next election, so that in the case of scrutiny , it should be examined by a Committee of the House of Commons.
The Court said they were quite ready to give their decision as a doubtful one, and they would be glad to find they were wrong. It appeared to them that the Collector had a right to the whole of his demand, but whether the tender of a particular portion was sufficient to give the party
the vote, there might be some doubt. The Court believed the whole should be tendered, but it could hardly be said in this case there had been a sufficient tender. There was no question for supposing that Mr.Loades
had over rated his case, and neither would he underrate it.
If it had appeared that Mr.Loades
had said to the Collector "I have this amount ready to pay you," and the Collector had answered "Don't give yourself the trouble to take it out of your pocket," the case would be somewhat different. It was undoubtedly a hard case,
but they were not authorised to decide upon hardships, for if they were they should experience great difficulty. All persons should understand that if they (the Court) refused to allow votes the most prudent way would be to tender their votes at the poll.
The vote was then disallowed.
, of Datchet-lane, was objected to by Mr.Darvill
said the claimant did not pay £10 a year, but he would prove it to be of that value. He called Mr.Lane
, who stated that it was worth £8 and no more.
.- Then I have no farther question to ask you. That will dispose of two other cases viz. Griffin
All these names were then struck off.
was objected to by, Mr.Batcheldor
The claimant lived in Clewer-parish, where for many years he had paid poor rates. The ground of objection was, that he had not paid the Church-rate.
contended that parties were bound to pay all burdens of the parish.
submitted that the payment of poor rates was sufficient for a scot and lot voter. He referred to a case in Mr.Roger's book , where it was held that where there was no poor rate then a payment of a church rate had been resorted to, but here was the making and levying a poor rate.
The Court were of the opinion that the payment of a church-rate was not necessary to qualify the voter. The church-rate had only been resorted to, to show that a party contributed to the parish burdens, but the poor's rate was the real qualification.
The vote was, therefore admitted.
, was objected to by Mr.Batcheldor
, who said he admitted the payment of the poor rates. The occupier of the house was an elderly woman, named Smith, but the applicant paid the rates for her convenience, and added them to the rent. The house was his own freehold. He was not, however, a housekeeper himself. Mr.B said it was necessary for a scot and lot voter to be an inhabitant householder, which the claimant was not.
contended that he was a scot and lot voter.
On reference to the rate book, it was found that the house was rated in the name of Mrs.Smith
, the occupier, and not in that of the claimant, consequently the vote was disallowed.
The vote of John Francis
, of the Lower Ward, was objected to by Mr.Darvill
It appeared there were two persons named John Francis
on the list, one in Lower Ward, and the other in Prospect-place, but the notice of objection did not specify which party it referred to.
objected to the notice as being informal.
, said he would identify the party as being in the Lower Ward, and contended that both gentlemen had had notice.
The Court observed, supposing in any large town there were 20 persons of one name, would it be right to require the attendance of those 20 persons, when only one was wanted ? The Court must consider that John Francis
had no notice whatever.
, said, that the John Francis
, of Lower Ward, resided chiefly at Hampton.
The Court said that was an additional reason.
. The Mr.Francis
, in Lower Ward, was named William
, and not John
said he had to apply to have the name William
inserted instead of John
He called Mr.Alder
to prove Mr.Francis's
name was William
; but in cross examination it appeared they could not swear that there was not another person in the Lower Ward, whose name was John Francis
. The William Francis
they knew; he was a lay clerk, and resided also at Hampton.
The Court held that when a party claimed to have his name altered, he must show that it is right to do so. Now it was not proved that there was no other person living in the Lower Ward of the name John Francis
, and the Court were called on to presume there was not.
first came and objected that there
was not notice, and the Court thought that the notice was not good in law. He then applied to change the name, and the Court thought he was bound to prove his right to do so. Under the circumstances the Court would not be justified in altering the register. He had take the advantage of not admitting the notice of objection, but he had not taken the proper means to set his name right. He ought to have put in his claim.
The name was therefore retained as it was before.
James T. Clarke
was objected to by Mr.Barton
, and supported by Mr.Bacheldor
stated, that he rented a house at £10 per annum and paid all his rates.
put in the receipts for a years rent, at £10.
Upon cross examination it came out that the rent had lately been reduced to £8 per annum; - the vote was consequently expunged.
The claims of persons living at the White House, Datchet-lane, of the names of Eisart
, and Hardy
; were withdrawn by Mr.Bacheldor
. It will be recollected that these persons formed a portion of the "mushroom voters," which Mr.Batcheldor
some time ago placed upon the rate, in order to qualify them.