Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.

Election of Wick

1747, June 11.
Case No. No. 24.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Anderson, &c. having by summary complaint quarrelled the election at Michaelmas 1745, they raised reduction of the election 1746, as made by the Magistrates chosen in 1745. Against this last sundry objections were made, particularly that the whole Burgesses should have been called, because, by the set, the election is made by them out of a leet made by tile Magistrates of the preceding year; but we repelled it, since by calling the Magistrates and Council the Burgh itself was called. But we sustained oilier two objections, viz. that the executions did not express the names of the whole defenders in terms of the act 6th 1672, which was material here, because if any one was not called he could not insist against the rest; 2dly, That after it was executed against one of them, the summons was altered and cut; and in respect of this judgment in the reduction of the election 1746, we found no use for deciding in the complaint of the election 1715, because it could now have no effect, since the election 1746 was now by the acts 7th and 16th Geo. II. become unquarrellable. (11th February.)—But upon reclaiming bill and answers we thought that the reduction did not fall under either of these acts, and might yet be brought, though the two months are elapsed; and that therefore the complainers might yet insist in their complaint of the election 1715. (28th February.)—The same day we gave the like judgment as to the complaint of the election of St Andrews in 1745, and found that we must yet decide on it, though there has yet been no complaint or reduction of the election 1746.

When the Lords proceeded to advise the complaint itself I was in the Outer-House, and at my return heard the President giving his opinion that the faculty or privilege given the Earl of Caithness, would not go to singular successors, and that it was still in the family of Caithness; but as there was here no declarator, and Ulbster and his authors had been long in possession, therefore they repelled that objection, and for the same reason of long usage repelled the objection, of the Provost and one of the Bailies not being indwellors in the Burgh, and assoilzied from the complaint —(11th June.)