Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.

Muirhead
v.
Magistrates of Haddington

Date: 12 July 1748
Case No. No. 28.

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

An agent being employed by the Convenery, (that is the Deacons of Crafts) at Haddington in 1719, 20, 21, and 1722, in reductions of several consecutive elections of Magistrates, in which the pursuers at last prevailed; the Lords found the Burgh not liable for his account of expenses, because he was not employed by the Town Council; 2do, Found also the account prescribed, notwithstanding an act of Council in 1730 acknowledging that it was not paid; 3tio, Found the several incorporations of Crafts not liable because not employed by them, but by the Deacons;—and being employed by the succeeding Magistrates and Council to defend their election in 1723, found the town liable for the account, and found it not prescribed in respect of the said act. Arniston thought such accounts fell not under the act of prescription, because there is no party by whose oath they can be proved. And as to the accounts of expenses in defending the election 1730, remitted to the Ordinary to enquire whether that agent's employers were or were not in possession; and their possession being proven, we found the town liable, though his clients were in the issue turned out.