United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Alexander Masterton, Robert Bald, William Fulton, Bailies of the Burgh of Culross; James Bennet, Merchant-Councillor and Dean of Guild, elected at the Meeting at Michaelmas 1803; George Rolland, Sir Robert Preston, and Others, Councillors of the said Burgh v. David Meiklejohn, elected Second Merchant-Bailie at Michaelmas 1802, and Others, Councillors and Office-Bearers of the said Burgh of Culross [1810] UKHL 5_Paton_298 (22 March 1810)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1810/5_Paton_298.html
Cite as: [1810] UKHL 5_Paton_298

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 298↓

(1810) 5 Paton 298

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, FROM 1753 TO 1813.

No. 40

Alexander Masterton, Robert Bald, William Fulton, Bailies of the Burgh of Culross; James Bennet, Merchant-Councillor and Dean of Guild, elected at the Meeting at Michaelmas 1803; George Rolland, Sir Robert Preston, and Others, Councillors of the said Burgh, Appellants

v.

David Meiklejohn, elected Second Merchant-Bailie at Michaelmas 1802, and Others, Councillors and Office-Bearers of the said Burgh of Culross, Respondents

House of Lords, 22d March 1810.

Subject_Burgh Election of Magistrates and Councillors. —

Circumstances in which it was held, that as there was not a majority of councillors present to constitute a legal meeting of council, an objection stated to the legality of the meeting, on that ground, was sustained. Affirmed in the House of Lords.

This was a dispute about the election of the Magistrates and Councillors of the burgh, under the old system of election, wherein the respondents complained of that election, and prayed the Court to declare the election void, on the following grounds:—1. That due premonition was not given, and no premonition regularly served. 2. That there was not a quorum of council present. 3. That the election was the act of a minority of councillors, in opposition to the act of the majority. 4. That it was only the act of a certain

Page: 299↓

number of magistrates or councillors, taking upon them to separate from the majority, who had been such for the year preceding, and also taking upon them to make a distinct and separate election. 5. That, in terms of the statute, 16 Geo. II. c. 11, it was in certain essential respects the act of the minority of magistrates, councillors, and deacons, respectively, separating from the majority of those having right to act by the constitution of the burgh, and making a separate election of magistrates and councillors.

Mar. 5, 1805.

After proof and much discussion, the Court pronounced this interlocutor, “Repel the objections stated in the complaint, with regard to the summoning the council for the meeting of 28th September 1803; but find that there was not a majority of councillors present to constitute a legal meeting of council upon the said 28th September; and, therefore, sustain the objection stated on that head, and, before answer as to the other points in the cause, appoint the counsel for the said parties to give in memorials to see and interchange the same betwixt and the second box day in the ensuing vacation.”

May 28, 1805.

On reclaiming petition, the Court 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 complained of be, and the same are hereby affirmed.

Counsel: For the Appellants, Thos. Plumer, David Boyle.
For the Respondents, Henry Erskine, John Clerk, Wm. Adam, Thos. Thomson.

Note.—Unreported in the Court of Session.

1810

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010