Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated by the Sheriff:—“At a Registration Court for the county of Wigtown, held by me at Stranraer on the 1st 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 Maitland, gentleman, Balgreggan, Stoneykirk, a voter on the roll, objected to Robert Cauchie, Auchneel, parish of Leswalt, being entered or retained on the roll as a voter for the said county. The said Robert Cauchie is this year, for the first time, entered in the assessor's list of persons entitled to be registered as a voter, as sub-tenant and occupant of land, Auchneel, parish of Leswalt, and county of Wigtown. It was objected by the said John Maitland that the said Robert Cauchie's name did not appear on the valuation roll for the said county for last year, and only appeared on said valuation roll for the current year—that is, from 15th May 1868—for the first time.

The following facts were proved:—The said Robert Cauchie is and has been sub-tenant in the actual personal occupancy of the land above specified, for the period, and of the annual value, required by section 6 of the Representation of the People Act, 1868. The said land does not appear separately in the valuation roll of the county in the name of the said Robert Cauchie for last year, 1867–68, but appears in said valuation roll for the current year, 1868–69, in his name. The farm of Auchneel, in the parish of Leswalt, of which the subject above specified forms part, appears in the valuation roll of said county for the year ending Whitsunday 1868 solely in name of the principal tenant of said farm.

I sustained the objection, and expunged the name of the said Robert Cauchie from the roll. Whereupon the said Robert Cauchie 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—Whether the said Robert Cauchie is not entitled to be registered as a voter for the said county, in respect of it not appearing from the valuation roll for the year ending Whitsunday last 1868 that he was tenant in the actual personal occupancy of the subject, at a rent of £14 or upwards?”

Lord Ardmillan said that his opinion was that the objection ought not to have been sustained, and that Cauchie should have been placed on the roll. It had been proved that there was no objection to the qualification of this voter apart from the Valuation Act; and secondly, that the valuation roll contained this tenant's name, so as to enable them to check his claim by reference to it in the year 1868–69. But it was said that the valuation roll did not contain a similar entry for the previous year. He maintained that although the name did not appear on the valuation roll-for the previous year, if it could be proved that the claimant had been tenant for six months previous to Whitsunday 1868, the claim was valid. The valuation roll for 1867 was made up several months before the end of the year—consequently it was actually made up before the possession of the farm might be entered into for the year, and it could not be evidence exclusive of the claimant from the roll if contrary evidence was led. The distinction was between a thing that was nonconform to the valuation roll and a thing that was contrary to the valuation roll. If it did not conform to the valuation roll simply because it did not appear in it, that was one thing; but if it was contrary to the valuation roll, that was another. Now, if a man was alive when the valuation roll was made up in 1867, and died in January, when they

Page: 106↓

inquired into the case, certainly the valuation roll could not prove him alive against the fact that he was dead; and it was not within this Act at all that they could find any declaration that the valuation roll was conclusive proof as to when a man might enter into possession of a subject. He therefore thought that they could not fall hack to the valuation roll of the year 1867 to the exclusion of other evidence. He thought in this case the objection ought to be repelled.

Lords Benholme and Manor concurred, and Mr Cauchie was ordered to be placed on the roll.