The Duke of Gordon and Others v. The Commissioners of Supply for the Shire of Banff
Date: 18 December 1772 Case No. No 379.
Interposition of the Court upon a complaint against Commissioners of Supply for dilatory procedure in the division of a valuation.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Duke of Gordon and others complained, by a bill of advocation, of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Supply of the shire of Banff, upon an application made to them for a division of a cumulo valuation, as dilatory and frustraneous; in so far as that, after a proof led, and when matters were fully prepared, in place of proceeding to the division upon the 7th current, they had pronounced the following interlocutor:
“The meeting having considered the proof, with the rentals thereof, made out by Mr Ross, (agent for the Duke of Gordon), and whole former procedure in the cause, they make avizandum therewith until the 23d February next, to which day the meeting was adjourned.”
Judgment was given upon the bill of advocation as follows:
“The Lord Ordinary, after advising with the Lords, refuses this bill at the instance of the Duke of Gordon and others; but remits the cause to the Commissioners of Supply, with this instruction, that the Commissioners of Supply, for the shire of Banff, or any five of their number, do meet at the town of Banff in the place where their meetings are commonly held, upon Thursday the 7th day of January next, by 10 o'clock in the forenoon, and not sooner, and do proceed directly to expedite the division of the valuation of the several lands contained in the petition to them at the instance of the complainers; and, in order that the same may not be disappointed or postponed improperly, that the said Commissioners, or their quorum foresaid, at the said meeting, do forthwith take under their consideration the proof that has been already adduced of the real rents of their several lands, with any objections that may be stated thereto, and to proceed and determine upon the same, unless the complainers shall insist to adduce any additional proof, by laying further evidence before the said commissioners, either by writ or witnesses; in which case, that the said Commissioners do proceed to receive such evidence in writ, or examine such witnesses as shall be adduced, reserving the consideration of any objections till the proof be concluded, and then to proceed immediately and determine upon the said objections and import of the proof, and in the division accordingly; and, if the Commissioners shall find it necessary to adjourn their meetings, by reason that a quorum of five of their number cannot be got to continue together till the affair be concluded, in that case the adjournment shall be made to the first day thereafter, that any five of the said Commissioners shall declare their willingness to attend at the same place and hour, in order to proceed in the said matter with dispatch; and, if any further adjournment or adjournments shall be found necessary for the want of a quorum willing to sit longer, that the same shall be made according to the rule above mentioned; and that no other business be taken up by the Commissioners at the said meetings till the division of the complainers' lands be concluded; and that no adjournment made by the majority of any of the said meetings do hinder or prevent any five Commissioners who are willing to proceed in the division, in terms of the instructions aforesaid. And, lastly, that the clerk, by himself, or a deputy for whom he shall be answerable, do attend the meetings regularly, while a quorum of five Commissioners continue together in said affairs; and the Lord Ordinary appoints the complainers to give public intimation of the appointment of said meeting by advertising the same.” See Member of Parliament.
Reporter, Alva.Clerk of the bills.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 359. Fac. Col, No 42. p. 112.
