Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Rob. Robb, William Miller, Senior, and George Robb, Burgesses of the Burgh of Anstruther Wester v. William Thompson and Others, the Magistrates and Councillors of the said Burgh [1785] UKHL 3_Paton_21 (26 April 1785)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1785/3_Paton_21.html
Cite as: [1785] UKHL 3_Paton_21
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT
Page: 21↓
(1785) 3 Paton 21
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 6
v.
House of Lords,
Subject_Burgh Election — Competency of Suit. —
Held that burgesses, not being also councillors of the burgh, were not entitled to carry on a suit to set aside the election of the magistrates and town councillors of the burgh.
Feb. 17, 1785.
Mar. 4, 1785.
This was an action brought to set aside the election of the Magistrates and Councillors of the burgh of Anstruther Wester. The appellants appeared as the only pursuers in the action; and they being burgesses merely and not councillors of the burgh, the following objections were stated to the competency of the suit at their instance. 1. That the appellants were not constituent members of council, and therefore could bring no action to reduce any election, not having any interest in the same; and, 2. That supposing it competent to them to bring the action, yet as the same was not brought within two months of the election complained of, they were barred by the statutes of the 7 and 16 Geo. II. The Lord Ordinary (17th Feb. 1785) pronounced this interlocutor, “Finds, that the action of reduction was incompetent to the pursuers (appellants). That they had no right to carry on the same; and therefore assoilzies the defenders (respondents) so far as regarded the reasons of reduction, reserving to the pursuers (appellants) to insist in their declarator, and to amend their libel, if they shall be so advised.” On representation the Lord Ordinary adhered. From these two interlocutors of the Lord Ordinary the present appeal was brought; but the House of Lords dismissed the appeal, and affirmed with costs.
Counsel: For the Appellants,
Ilay Campbell,
W. Grant.
For the Respondents,
Alex. Wight,
W. Adams.
Note.—Another appeal, involving the same point, came on from the burgh of Kilrenny, but counsel appeared and asked to withdraw it; parties having compromised the suit. It was withdrawn accordingly.