Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 BURGH ROYAL.

Muirhead
v.
Magistrates of Haddington

1748, July 12.
Case No. No. 28.

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

An agent was employed by the Convenery at Haddington, that is the Deacon-Convener and other Deacons, in a reduction of the election of Magistrates, in which the pursuer prevailed. The Lords found the Town not liable to that agent for his account of expenses, because not employed by the Town-Council. 2do, Found it also prescribed, notwithstanding an act of the Town-Council in 1730 acknowledging that it was not paid. 3tio, Found the several corporation of Crafts not liable for that account because not employed by them, but only their Deacons. This was as to the accounts 1719, 1720, 1721, and 1722. 4to, Found the Town liable for the agent's expenses in defending an election wherein he was employed by the Magistrates and Council after 1723, and repelled the prescription. (Arniston thought that prescription did not take place in such accounts of Corporations where there can be no oath of party,—but others thought the act of Council 1730 sufficient interruption.) 5to, As to expenses of defending elections in 1730 and afterwards, most of the Lords thought, that if Muirhead's employers were the Magistrates in possession, the Town was liable; but as it was said that both parties were contending for possession, they remitted to the Ordinary to enquire into that fact.—November 4th Adhered as to the 3d.—Vide 12th July 1748.

In respect Mr Muirhead's employers were in possession in 1731, therefore find the Town liable for his account, though his employers were in the event turned out of the magistracy.—(12th July.)