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 7th 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, George Manson, fisherman, Bank Row. Pulteneytown, claimed to be enrolled on the Register of Voters for the said burgh, as inhabitant occupier, as tenant of a dwelling-house, Bank Row, Pulteneytown.

The following facts were proved:—That the voter has been for some years tenant of the premises claimed on; the furniture in the house belongs

Page: 50↓

to him; he occupied the premises personally until September 1866, when he went to Glasgow, and wrought on a canal boat there, which he continued to do until September 1867, when he returned to the premises claimed on to reside there, as throughout his absence he had intended to do. During the whole period of his tenancy of the premises, and during his absence, his mother and brother resided in them, and without paying rent, but his brother supports himself. Robert Sinclair, messenger-at-arms, Louisburgh Street, Wick, a voter on the roll, objected to the said claim, on the ground that the claimant has not resided for the statutory period.

I rejected the claim of the said George Manson. Whereupon the said George Manson required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal, and in compliance therewith I have granted this case.”

Shand, for the appellant, maintained that the absence of the claimant being merely temporary, and it having been all along his intention to return to the premises of which he was all along the tenant, he was really an inhabitant occupier in the sense of the Act.

The Court, without hearing opposite counsel, approved the judgment of the Sheriff, Lord Benholme remarking that the absence of a twelvemonth must be held as fatal to the claim.