Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated in this appeal:—“At a Registration Court for the burgh of Wick, held by me at Wick on the 3d 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, John Stewart, coach clerk, Bridge Street, Wick, a voter on the roll, objected to George Bruce, fisheurer, Bread-albane Terrace, Pulteneytown, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said George Bruce stood enrolled as a voter foresaid as joint-tenant and occupant of cooperage and stores in Burn Street, Pulteneytown.

It was objected by the said John Stewart that the said George Bruce was not joint-tenant of cooperage and stores in Burn Street, Pulteneytown, John Bruce and the voter are entered in the burgh valuation roll for the year 1867–1868, as joint-tenants and occupiers of cooperage and stores in Telford Street, Pulteneytown, of the yearly rent or value of £40, and in the valuation roll for the year 1868–1869 as joint-tenants and occupiers of cooperage and stores at ‘Breast of Old Harbour,’ of the yearly rent or value of £40.

The following facts were proved:—The premises of which the party was admittedly joint-tenant are situated in an adjacent parallel street called ‘Telford Street,’ and the assessor explained that ‘Burn’ Street was inserted in this and previous years' lists per incuriam.

The list of voters was altered by the Sheriff by deletion of the word ‘Burn’ and the insertion of the word ‘Telford’ in the description of the subjects.

I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said George Bruce on the roll. Whereupon the said John Stewart 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 the Sheriff had power so to correct the list?”

Shand, for the appellant, maintained that the Sheriff had no power to make a material alteration upon the description of the subjects claimed upon.

The Court unanimously sustained the judgment of the Sheriff.