Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated in this appeal:—“ At a Registration Court for the Burgh of Wick, held by me at Wick on the 7th day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 & 32 Vict., cap. 48, intituled ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868,’ and the other Statutes therein recited, George Grant, rope-maker, East Banks, claimed to be enrolled on the register of voters for the said burgh, as inhabitant occupier, as tenant of a dwelling-house at East Banks. The claimant produced in support of his claim a letter from Alexander Grant, his brother, of which the following is a copy:—‘ Rockhampton, Jang. 12, 1865.—I hereby authorise George Grant, ropemaker, Wick, to keep and remain in possession of that property near the South Toll, known as the deceased William Grant's property, I, the undersigned, being his lawful heir. (Signed) Alexr. Grant.’

The following facts were also proved:—In the burgh valuation-roll for the year 1867–1868 the claimant is entered as proprietor of houses in East Banks of the yearly rent or value of £9, and in the valuation-roll for the year 1868–1869 he is entered as proprietor of houses at East Banks of the yearly value of £10, and as tenant and occupant of one of these houses of the yearly rent or value of £2, 10s. Farther proved that claimant has occupied dwelling-house for eleven years—that he keeps it in repair and pays taxes—that the letter above copied is holograph of the proprietor, who is claimant's brother; that brother wrote claimant that if he paid taxes and kept house in repair that would be equivalent to rent. John Stewart, coach-clerk, Bridge Street, Wick, a voter on the roll, objected to the said claim on the ground that he is not tenant.

I admitted the claim. Whereupon the said John Stewart required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal; and in compliance therewith I have granted this case.

The question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal is,-Whether the document produced and facts proved establish tenancy in the claimant?”

The Court, after hearing counsel, unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Sheriff, holding that the claimant was really tenant, and could not be turned out of the house without the ordinary warning given to tenants.