Page: 237↓
(1792) 3 Paton 237
CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.
No. 54
House of Lords,
Subject_Election of Member of Parliament — Qualification. —
Held, where objection is stated to the title to be enrolled and to vote for a member of Parliament, the complaint must be followed up within four months, in terms of the act 16 Geo. II. c. 11.
The respondent was enrolled as a freeholder of the county of Roxburgh, in virtue of a conveyance to him for life of the lands of Bankhead, disponed to him by John Pringle of Clifton. The property was a part of the estate held by John Pringle under strict entail, and with strict prohibitions, &c. against alienation.
When he applied to be enrolled, it was well known, from Pringle having no power to alienate, that this qualification was fictitious, but no objection was taken at the time.
Thereafter, at a meeting of freeholders, for the purpose of electing a commissioner to serve in parliament, the appellant objected to the respondent's title as nominal and fictitious, and moved that he should take the oath, but previously that he should answer certain interrogatories, the tendency of which was to prove, by the respondent's own confession, that the qualification was fictitious.
The respondent expressed his willingness to take the oath, but declined to answer the interrogatories, because he considered the freeholders had no right to put them. It was answered, as by the case of the Aberdeenshire freeholders and Macpherson, it was determined in the House of Lords that the freeholders had a right to investigate the reality of the qualification by other means than putting the oath, he was not entitled to refuse. Reply. He was entitled to refuse, because the four months within which, by the act 16 Geo. II. c. 11, the
Page: 238↓
Dec. 8, 1790.
— 23, —
The Lords found that the freeholders did wrong in striking the complainer off the roll; and, on reclaiming petition, they adhered.
Against these interlocutors the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.
After hearing counsel, it was
Ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors be affirmed.
Counsel: For Appellant,
S. Douglas,
J. Anstruther.
For Respondent,
W. Grant,
Wm. Dundas.