BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Election of Berwickshire. - Hugh Campbell v Home, &C. [1741] 1 Elchies 260 (00 January 1741) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1741/Elchies010260-013-014.html |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.
Election of Berwickshire - Hugh Campbell
v.
Home, &C
Case No.No. 13 and 14.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lords found, as in the case of Peebles, 15th July last, (No. 9.) that no action lies upon the act 7th, Geo. against the Sheriff, who returned both the petitioner and Sir John Sinclair. Kilkerran was absent with the gout; but Royston, who was then absent, was present now, and voted for the interlocutor; all the rest voted as marked (No. 9.) The next question was, Whether the clerk had incurred the penalty? and it carried by a majority, not. I was of opinion, that if he returned Sir John Sinclair to the Sheriff as duly elected by the freeholders of the county, that he had incurred it; but observing, that he affirmed in his answers, that he returned to the Sheriff the res vere gesta, as recited in these answers, wherein the fact was stated indeed pretty much as it came out, I called
for the return he had made to the Sheriff, because if it truly narrated the whole proceedings, that Sir John Hume as preses, and he as clerk, were objected to only by 31, and the other preses and clerk by 35, and the separation, and that Sir John Sinclair was elected by those who separated and had chosen him as clerk, then I thought he would not have been in the terms of the statute, because he had not truly returned Sir John Sinclair as elected by a majority of the freeholders, therefore I say I called for his return, but was told it was not there, only there was a certificate by the proper officer in Chancery, that Sir John Sinclair was returned to Parliament, and the return signed by the Sheriff and his clerk; but that did not seem to me to be the return mentioned in the act, i. e. the return by the clerk to the Sheriff; however, they told me, that de praxi the clerk made no other than the indenture signed by him and the Sheriff, which to me seemed odd, considering the words of the act, and therefore I did not vote (See the text of the next case, as to returns.)
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
