Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated in this appeal:—“At a Registration Court for the burgh of Wick, held at Wick on the 5th 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 Peter Macbeath, blacksmith, Louisburgh, Wick, being continued on the roll as a voter for the said burgh. The said Peter Macbeath 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 Peter Macbeath is not owner. The said Peter Macbeath is entered in the burgh valuation-rolls for the year 1867–68, and for the year 1868–69, as proprietor and occupant of a house of the yearly rent or value of £3.

The following facts were proved:—That he has no written title; that he has possessed as owner, and paid all public and parochial burdens as owner, and expended money on property since 1845; and his possession has not been disturbed by any one.

I repelled the objection, and continued the name of the said Peter Macbeath 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 instruct ownership under ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868’ by production of a written title? or, Is the voter entitled to be registered on the facts proved, without such title?”

Lord Ardmillan said that he was very sorry to come to the conclusion that this was a bad vote, because he entertained strongly the opinion that it was not necessary to produce a conclusive and complete written title to make a man owner in the sense of the Statute. He thought that if a man, upon the facts stated to them, had clearly the means of establishing by action that he had a good title, and of enforcing the giving him of a good title as owner, they might sustain his title, although he could not produce now a good written title. In this case, however, there was nothing of this kind; and it was not the law of Scotland that possession without any scrap of title made a man owner. He thought they must reverse the judgment of the Sheriff in this case.

Lord Manor concurred with Lord Ardmillan. A title of ownership was absolutely indispensable. It might not be completed, but there must be a regular formal written title.

Lord Benholme concurred.

The Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Sheriff, and ordered the names of Peter Macbeath and other five voters, whose qualification depended upon the same question of law, to be expunged from the roll.