Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Ormidale observed that the fact of the claimant's name being already on the register of voters rendered it incumbent upon the objector to prove either that he never had the requisite qualification to justify his being placed thereon, or that he had lost it. The question of the sufficiency of the title came to be one of evidence. It was impossible not to see from Emslie's case that in a question directly between landlord and tenant a very slender written title would be enough. He was of opinion that the identification of the ground in right of which the claimant was on the register was sufficient, and also that it was let in 1792 on a long lease, with other adjoining portions of ground. The plan he considered to be a landlord's plan; but he could give no effect to the document said to be a formal lease, and dated the very day on which the Registration Court was held. But he thought there was sufficient writ without it, and therefore was for reversing the judgment of the Sheriff.

Lord Kinloch concurred, but did not entirely reject the formal lease. Although clearly it would not be sufficient of itself, still, read in connection with the other documents referred to, it was not entirely to be laid out of sight.