Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.

Election of Culross

Date: 11 January 1754
Case No. No. 39.

Complaint for bribery and corruption.

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

Colonel Cochran complained of the last election in the Burgh of Culross as brought about by bribery and corruption, and charged 12 persons with having been so corrupted by Colonel Haldane and his friends; though he could not before the proof condescend on the particular bribes given, or the time and place; but in general that they were given before the election, to vote for such persons as would support Colonel Haldane; only he condescended on a bond for L.400 to the town, deposited in the hands of John Erskine, Balgounie; though he did not know whether that bond was not afterwards given up, and the Colonel's word of honour relied on. The complaint was laid on the acts of the 2d and 16th of Geo. II. and concluded for L.500 sterling fine against each, and for voiding their election. And the complaint being by our warrant served on 30 days; the respondents objected that it did not lye on the act 2d Geo. II. for that it was not charged to be committed at their election to Parliament; 2do, That act gives no authority for summary complaints, the words being, “summary action or complaint;” 3tio, No action for the penalty on the act 16th Geo. II., because, though it extends the act 2d Geo. II. to election of delegates, yet it cannot yet appear whether any of the respondents shall ever be electors of delegates; 4to, Still the trial must be by ordinary action in terms of the 2d Geo. II.; 5to, No process on the act 16th Geo. II. because not done at the election; 6to, Bribery not relevant to reduce the election, but only to punish the electors; and 7mo, Not relevant without condescending on the particular act of bribery. We repelled all these noprocesses, and pronounced an act before answer; because, though it does not yet appear whether the respondents shall be electors of delegates, yet that may be cleared before advising the proof; and though the acts of bribery were laid in general, yet as one particular was charged, that must go to proof, and we thought we could not well refuse a proof at same time of the rest.