Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated in this appeal:—“At a Registration Court for the burgh of Tain, held by me at Tain on the 2d 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, James Webster, station-master, Tain, claimed to be enrolled on the register of voters for the said burgh, as tenant and occupant of dwelling-house and land attached, situated at the railway station, Tain.

“The following facts were proved:—(1) That the claimant occupied, under the railway company, a dwelling-house at the station, with a garden and certain land attached, and had done so for the requisite period; (2) that the claimant paid no money rent for the house and garden, but occupies the same as part of the consideration stipulated for his services as station-master, but paid a rent of £2 for the ground other than the garden; (3) that the yearly value of the house, together with the land, was upwards of £10; (4) that the claimant had been for several years in the service of the company, and was paid by yearly salary, but was liable to be dismissed, and, on the other hand, entitled to leave the service of the company on fourteen days' notice; (5) that the company are rated to the relief of the poor, both as owners and occupants

Page: 42↓

of the subjects occupied by the claimant, who is not rated in respect of the same.

Alexander Forbes, a voter on the roll, objected to the said claim, on the ground that the claimant was not tenant of the subjects in respect of which he claimed.

I admitted the claim, whereupon the said Alexander Forbes required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal; and, in compliance therewith, I have granted this case.

The question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal is—Whether, in the circumstances above set forth, the claimant is to be considered as tenant of the subjects in respect of which he claims, in the sense of sect. 3 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868?”

Mackintosh, for the appellant, maintained that this case fell to be regulated by the case of the farm-servant decided upon the previous day. The features which distinguished the case of the farm-servant from that of ordinary tenancy were these:—(1) The relation of master and servant subsisted between the claimant and the party from whom he held the house; (2) the house was held under the contract of service, at least under no separate contract from that of service; and (3) the claimant paid no rent for the house in money, but received it for his services. From these three a fourth feature was deduced, viz.:—(4) that the claimant's right, depending on the contract of service, it was defeasible at pleasure. Upon a complex view of these whole circumstances, the Court held that the case in question was one where the occupancy was not the claimant's occupancy, but the occupancy of his master. He contended that all the above features equally concurred here, and that therefore the case fell to be ruled by that of the farm-servant.

Shand, for the respondent, maintained that the station-master was actually tenant of the house which he occupied, because he had an indefeasible right to the house so long as he held his situation. He could not be turned away without fourteen days' notice, and as he had occupied the house for the statutory period, and his right was indefeasible so long as he did not get fourteen days' notice, he was entitled to be enrolled. He submitted that the right to fourteen days' notice distinguished this case from that of the farm-servant.

The Court unanimously sustained the appeal, reversed the judgment of the Sheriff, and ordered the name of the claimant to be expunged from the roll.