You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
John Sinclair of Ulbster, and his Curators, and Others, v John Sutherland of Wester, and Others. [1773] Mor 10610 (12 February 1773)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1773/Mor2510610-028.html Cite as:
[1773] Mor 10610
[New search]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
[1773] Mor 10610
Subject_1 POSSESSION.
John Sinclair of Ulbster, and his Curators, and Others, v. John Sutherland of Wester, and Others
Date: 12 February 1773 Case No. No 28.
Possession of a privilege cannot be summarily inverted; and the minority of the person exercising the privilege, which was that of approving the leets of Provost and Bailies for a royal burgh, is no good objection.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A complaint was presented by Mr Sinclair of Ulbster, and his Curators, on a recital of Ulbster's privilege of superintendency, (No 18. 163.) and setting forth, that a leet for the election of Provost and Bailies for the burgh of Wick, was, previously to the last Michaelmas, in due time presented to, and approved of, by Mr Sinclair of Ulbster, and his curators; that, upon the foresaid leets being presented, the minutes of election bear, ‘Compeared John Sutherland of Wester, in name of himself, and the other burgesses in the town; and represented, that, for some considerable time past, the family of Ulbster had, without any authority or just title, assumed a negative on the election of Magistrates of the said burgh, by over persuading the Magistrates to present a leet to Ulbster for his approbation, pretending, that, without such approbation, no Magistrate could be chosen; which was disconform to the charter of erection in 1589, and inconsistent with the liberties of a royal burgh.’ And, as Ulbster's privilege had been infringed on this occasion, praying, to reduce and make void the election that ensued, and to declare Mr Sinclair of Harpsdale to be the Provost duly elected, who was in Ulbster's leet for that office; and although he had fewer votes than Wester, who was not in said leet, was alone validly elected.
Upon advising the complaint, with answers, &c. “the Lords find, in respect the family of Ulbster have been in possession of approving the leets of Provost and Bailies for the burgh of Wick, that the election of the respondent John Sutherland as Provost of, Wick is void and null; and find, that James Sinclair of Harpsdale was duly elected Provost of the said burgh; and decern accordingly.” And, upon a reclaiming petition and answers, “adhered.”
Act. Sol. General, J. Boswell.Alt. Ilay Campbell, M'Laurin, Crosbie.Clerk, Pringle.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 86. Fac. Col. No 57. p. 142.
