Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this appeal the Sheriff stated the following special case:—“At a Registration Court for the burgh of Cromarty, held by me at Cromarty on the 5th day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 and 32 Vict. cap. 48, intituled ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868,’ and the other statutes therein recited, George Gordon Smith, surgeon in Cromarty, a voter on the roll, objected to Alexander Mackay, innkeeper in Cromarty, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said Alexander Mackay stood enrolled as a voter in Cromarty, as owner of inn, garden, and dwelling-house, Church Street, Cromarty.

“It was objected by the said George Gordon Smith that the said Alexander Mackay was not owner of the premises on which he stood enrolled.

“The said Alexander Mackay produced in support of his right to be continued as a voter on the roll, the writs, of which copies so far as material are appended hereto, and which are to be held as embodied in this case, and to constitute part thereof, viz.:-Disposition of the premises in question by Innes Colin Munro of Poyntzfield, in favour of the claimant's wife, Christina Maclean or Mackay, dated 4th February 1867.

“The following facts were also proved:—That the premises on which the voter was enrolled were of the yearly value of £13.

“I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said Alexander Mackay upon the roll, adding to the word owner, in the description of his qualification, the words ‘ in right of his wife.’ Whereupon the said George Gordon Smith required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal; and in compliance therewith I have granted this case.

“The questions of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal are—(1) Whether it was competent to the Sheriff to correct the description of the voter's qualification as appearing on the register by the addition thereto of the words ‘in right of his wife?’ (2) whether, assuming that it was not competent to the Sheriff so to correct the description, the disposition in favour of the claimant's wife was a title sufficient to warrant the enrolment of the voter as owner of the subjects conveyed by the title under

Page: 30↓

the 11th section of the Reform Act, 2d and 3d Will. IV. c. 65?”

SHAND submitted, upon the case as it stood, that under the Reform Act of 1832 ownership was a necessary qualification. Ownership there was not here, and there was no claim for enrolment on a different title, and therefore this appeal could not be supported. Clark v. Hector, 5 Macph.66; Robertson v. Rutherfurd, 3 Macph.417.

The Court, without hearing respondent's counsel, adhered to the Sheriff's judgment, and dismissed the appeal.