Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
The Qualification of Freeholders possessing Lands liable in Public Burden for L. 400 Scots.
Subject_3 SECT. VI.
Who may act as Commissioners of Supply. - Time of their meeting. - Consequences of their refusing to meet or divide.
John M'Adam and Others, v. James Logan
Date: 25 July 1775 Case No. No 94.
A person acting as a commissioner of Supply, without a legal qualification in two instances at one meeting, liable only in one penalty. Where penalties are awarded, costs of suit not exigible.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Under the authority of the land-tax act of Parliament for the year 1775, M'Adam and others, heritors in the county of Ayr, preferred a complaint, stating, that James Logan, who has not a sufficient qualification, did assume the character of a Commissioner of Supply for the county of Ayr, at a meeting held in the month of April last; and did, upon that occasion, act in two different instances; first, in voting who should be clerk to the Commissioners of Supply; and next, in voting whether the salary of that office should be diminished; and concluding to find the complainers entitled to recover from him the penalty of L. 20 Sterling for each of the two several times that he illegally acted as a Commissioner of Supply, with costs of suit.
Answered; The respondent, who is possessed of a small property in the foresaid county, having been solicited by some of his friends for his vote in the election of a clerk to the Commissioners of Supply for this current year, he yielded to that solicitation, having been told, that if he had L. 20 of real rent he was equally well entitled as if he had L. 100 Scots of valued rent: And it is acknowledged, that he did unwarily attend the foresaid meeting upon the 29th of April last, and did vote in the two instances condeseended upon in the complaint, although he is only possessed of L. 83: 13: 4 of valued rent: But this will not found the complainers in a claim for no less than L. 40 Sterling. It is submitted to the Court, if he might not maintain, that no more than one penalty can be exacted upon one conviction; at any rate, he can never be made liable for more than one penalty of L. 20 for his having acted at one meeting; and, indeed, the voting for the clerk, and the ascertaining the extent for the salary, cannot be considered in any other light than partes ejusdem negotii.
As to the demand for costs of suits, there is no foundation for it; the complainers must pay their expenses out of the penalty they recover.
“The Court found the respondent liable only in one penalty, and no expenses due.”
Act. J. Boswell.Alt. M'Queen.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 410. Fac. Col. No 184. p. 107.
*** A different decision had been pronounced in 1766, Sir John Gordon against Forbes, also in Gordon against Forsyth, See Appendix.
