Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

Sir James Stewart
v.
Lord Arniston, &c

1744, Feb. 9.
Case No. No. 21.

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

The President gave his opinion in strong terms that this was no roll in terms of the act 1681, nor such as was intended by the late act 16th Geo. II.; and 2dly, that the complainer was not on that roll; and 3dly, that the defence was good that the point was determined before the freeholders. Dun was of the same opinion. Royston thought that this was the roll to be called; 2dly, he thought the complainer was upon the roll. He thought also the third defence not good, because they did not find that the complainer was not to be called but that the roll was not to be called, and therefore was for the complaint. Justice-Clerk thought this was the roll. To the second, that the dubiety was sufficient to excuse them from the penalty, and he thought the third defence good. Minto thought the second defence good. Balmerino thought this was the roll referred to in the act. To the second, he thought the complainer was on the roll, but thought the third defence good. Monzie thought this the roll referred in the last act. To the second, thought it doubtful and therefore was for the defence. To the third was also for sustaining it. Harning thought this was the roll, and I think was for repelling all. Strichen thought this was the roll referred to in the act 16th Geo. II. To the second he thought the defence good, and also the third. I thought this was the roll to be called, but that he was not bound to call dead men, but I thought the other defence good. Murkle thought this not the roll, and also thought the other two defences good,—and with him agreed Leven.