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 6th 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 William Doull, cooper, Argyle Square, Pulteneytown, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said William Doull stood enrolled as a voter foresaid, as tenant and occupant of house in Argyle Square, Pulteneytown.

It was objected by the said John Stewart that the said William Doull was non-resident. The said William Doull is entered in the burgh valuation roll for each of the years 1867–1868, and 1868–1869, as tenant and occupant of a house in Argyle Square, of the yearly rent or value of £7, 10s.

The following facts were proved:—The said William Doull is a married man, with a family. He occupied the dwelling-house referred to in the list and valuation rolls during the year preceding Whitsunday 1868, and took it as his dwelling-place for the current year. He found himself in bad health about Whitsunday 1868, and then went to Dunbeath, where his son is in business as a fishcurer, and he remained there till now. His wife and family were chiefly with him at Dunbeath, but he left his furniture in the house, and held the keys, and from time to time his daughter went there to look to the furniture, and for other purposes. The state of his health was the sole cause of his going to Dunbeath (which is in the county, 20 miles off), and of his stay there. He intends to return, as soon as his health improves, during the month of August; helped his son a little by looking after the women employed in curing the herrings. He still holds the dwelling-house, and stays and sleeps there on this his present visit to town.

I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said William Doull 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—Does the voter's absence from his dwelling-house in town disfranchise him?”

Black, for the appellant, contended that the circumstances of this case amounted to the nonresidence of the party, and that he was not entitled to the franchise.

Lord Benholme said that the Court must affirm the judgment of the Sheriff in this case. The man held the house, still retained the keys, and was merely absent temporarily on account of ill-health.

The judgment of the Sheriff was affirmed.