Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Whether the Court of Session may admit Evidence not laid before the Freeholders.
Mr John Callender of Craigforth, Advocate, v. Mr Robert Bruce of Kennet, Advocate
Date: 17 January 1755 Case No. No 256.
A freeholder having been enrolled on an erroneous division of the valuation of his lands, produced, with his answers, to a petition and complaint, an after division, which was unexceptionable. The Lords, however, ordered him to be expunged from the roll, reserving to him to lo lge a new claim, on the last division.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The defender was enrolled in the roll of freeholders of the county of Stirling, at their Michaelmas meeting 1753.
The pursuer, one of the freeholders, complained, and made sundry objections against the decreet of the Commissioners of Supply, dividing the valuation of the defender's lands from the valuation of the barony of Kerse, of which they were a part.
The defender admitted, that the Commissioners had not proceeded so regularly in the division of his valuation; but represented that, since giving in of the complaint, a General Meeting of the Commissioners of Supply had made a new division of the valuation of the whole barony, and offered to produce an extract thereof, by which it would appear, that none of the pursuer's objections, nor any other objection, lay against this new division, according to which the valuation of the defender's lands exceeded L. 400 Scots; that the defender had been enrolled without any objections offered to the Meeting against his enrolment, and that he was, at the time of the enrolment, as well as now, the Crown's vassal in lands of the valuation required by law; so that the Meeting did right, both formally and materially, when they enrolled him, and therefore he ought to continue on the roll.
Answered for the pursuer, That none are entitled to be enrolled, unless they produce to the Meeting legal evidence that their lands are valued at or above L.400 Scots; and, as the defender did not produce to the Meeting legal evidence of the valuation of his lands, he was not entitled to be enrolled, and cannot continue upon the roll in virtue of that enrolement, although he may be entitled to be enrolled by an after meeting, upon producing proper titles.
“The Lords sustained the objection, and found, That it was not now competent to supply the errors or defects in the d&n of the valuation of the valuation made before the enrolment, so as to validate the enrolment thereon & and therefore ordained the defender to be expunged from the roll, reserving to him to apply for being enrolled upon any new regular division of the valuation.”
Act. Lockhart & And. Pringle.Alt. Ja. Dundas.Clerk, Forbes.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 434. Fac. Col. No 130. p. 194.
