Revision of the County Voter’s Lists: The revision of the county voters’ lists for the parishes in the Polling District took place in the Town Hall Friday, before Charles Barrett Russell, Esq., barrister-at-law. Lionel Bencraft, Esq., of Barnstaple, and Rooker, Esq., of Bideford, appeared for the Liberals; and J. T. Bremridge, Esq., of Exeter, and George Turner, Esq., of Bideford, for the Conservatives. — A great deal of the time the Court was taken up with objections by the Conservatives which were not sustained; and the business of the Court ended in a net increase to the Liberals of 20 votes. Mr. Thompson, junr., was objected to, his qualification being house and stable in Buttgarden-street. — The name was struck out on the ground of his joint occupation with his father. Mr. John Dennis, of Hartland, was objected to by the Conservatives. — Mr. Dennis deposed that was the owner of about 28 acres of land in the parish, which came to him on the death of his father – Vote allowed: – Mr. James Burrow, of Bideford, objected to by the Conservatives. Mr. Burrow proved owning some houses Littleham, and the objection was over-ruled. -Mr. Crealock, Littleham, objected to by the Conservatives. — Mr. Burrow appeared for him; but the Revising Barrister objected to receive his evidence as he was not a professional gentleman. The fact of his being an accountant and collecting the rent was not deemed sufficient. —
Mr. Thomas Pynsent, of Westward Ho, objected to by the Conservatives. From the evidence of the rate collector, it appeared that Mr. Pynsent is rated for use and occupation of a certain house and fields. He is rated in £41 10s. From the evidence of his coachman it appeared that Mr. Pynsent let a portion his house at Lady-day last up to the end of the month; but he (the servant) was in occupation of a house distinct from the part let, and also the stable and lands, which were worth more than £12 per annum — Examined by Mr. Bremridge: I have now two masters. — Mr. Bremridge: Then I maintain that he is now the servant of the tenant. Mr. Bencraft: Certainly not — Mr. Bremridge: Then I must ask for the written agreement. — Mr. Bencraft then explained that Mr. Pynsent spent a few months every year in the south of Devon, and when he was away this witness was left in charge on behalf Mr. Pynsent; and that the coach-house and stable were still occupied by Mr. Pynsent’s carriage and pony, and Mr. Pynsent paid the man for looking after it — The Revising Barrister (to witness): Does the gentleman now occupying the house use the coach-house and stable? — Witness: No. Revising Barrister (to the overseer): Is the house occupied by the witness separate from the house occupied by the gentleman referred to? — Overseer: No, it is one and the same building — Mr. Bencraft: That must be a mistake, for the witness’s house is connected with the coach-house and stable — Revising Barrister (to witness): Did your master, before he left, occupy the premises now held by you? — Witness: Yes, sir. — Revising Barrister: Then it is a distinct occupation: his name must be struck off: — Mr. Bencraft: It matters little to us, Sir, as we have him on another list.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0835 Hennock: Thomas Pynsent: 1808 – 1887