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., c. 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 Alexander Johnston, photographer, Willow Bank, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said Alexander Johnston stood enrolled as a voter foresaid as tenant and occupant of photographic rooms, Bridge Street, Wick.

Page: 49↓

It was objected by the said John Stewart that the said Alexander Johnston is not tenant and occupant for full statutory period. The said Alexander Johnston is entered in the burgh valuation roll for the year 1867–1868 as tenant and occupant of photographic rooms in Bridge Street, Wick, of the yearly rent or value of £10, and in. the valuation roll for the year 1868–1869 as tenant and occupier of photographic rooms in the same street, at a yearly rent of £20.

The following facts were proved:—That the premises on which voter is entered were taken in April 1867, on the understanding that the premises then in course of fitting up as a photographic studio should be finished as soon as possible; that they were so far completed prior to Whitsunday 1867 that he took a photograph in them, and went in and out to them superintending the progress of the fittings, and he began to use them permanently as his place of business in September 1867. He paid £11 of rent.

I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said Alexander Johnston 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—Do the facts proved establish tenancy and occupancy for the statutory period?”

Shand and Clark, for the appellant, contended that the occupancy of the premises did not commence till September 1867.

Mackintosh and Gifford pointed out that the new premises were merely an extension of the old premises, and they maintained that the tenant's occupancy had commenced when the internal fitting-up commenced, and not when it was finished.

Lord Ardmillan was of opinion that the tenant was really occupant of the house from the time that the internal fittings commenced.

Lords Manor and Benholme concurred.

The Court affirmed the judgment of the Sheriff, with expenses.