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 5th day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 & 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 Harper, shoemaker, Louisburgh, Wick, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said William Harper stood enrolled as a voter foresaid, as owner and occupant of house in Louisburgh, Wick.

It was objected by the said John Stewart that the said William Harper was not owner. The said William Harper is entered in the burgh valuation-rolls for the year 1867–1868, and also for the, year 1868–1869, as proprietor of houses in Louisburgh of the yearly rent or value of £13, 10s., and is occupant of one of said houses of the yearly rent or value of £4, 10s.

“The following facts were proved:—That John Harper, the voter's father, now dead, was assignee to a sub-tack for ninety years from 1794 of the subjects claimed on; that the voter is his eldest son, and father left no settlement; and that voter since 1842, prior to which year his father died, has possessed and has paid the sub-tack duties and other burdens.

I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said William Harper 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,—Is it necessary to produce a title vesting the subject in the party to enable him to be entered in the list as owner?”

The Court unanimously affirmed the judgment of the Sheriff, holding that, though under the old Act this party was not really owner, the new Act provided that a long lease constituted ownership.