Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.

M'Kenzie, &c
v.
Sir John Gordon, &c

1753, Dec. 20.
Case No. No. 60.

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

In this county of Cromarty there are but five persons standing on the roll, Sir John Gordon, and his brother Mr Charles, and his brother-in-law Leonard Urquhart, and his cousin Gordon of Ardoch, and Cadboll, and this last never qualified; and as there is an election only every second Parliament, there has it seems been no meeting of freeholders there since the act 16th Geo. II. anno 1743, nor no particular day appointed in terms of that act by the Sheriff for such meeting. Last autumn a claim was regularly entered by M'Kenzie of Highfield to be enrolled, and his titles produced, and at the same time objections lodged in both his name and Cadboll's against the other four upon the roll. The Sheriff had it seems in 1743 appointed the third Tuesday of October to be the day, but had not published it as that act directs. On that day the four on the roll were in the town of Cromarty, but thought not proper to go to the place of meeting, and Cadboll came not at all to the town, and there was no Sheriff-clerk then acting, but an interim one appointed by the Sheriff; and the clerk appointed by the Keeper of the Signet had not officiated or accepted of the commission. Highfield required these clerks to go to the court, and constitute a meeting of freeholders, Which they could not do, and I suppose were not inclined, for Leonard Urquhart, one of the freeholders, was the person that got the commission to be clerk; and no meeting of freeholders being held, Highfield lodged a summary complaint in terms of the act 16th Geo. which being served on 30 days in common form, and answers put in, and this day heard; we all agreed that it was a great abuse; but the question was, Whether we could give any relief? We all agreed that it was not within the act 16th Geo. II. and therefore not competent in this summary way. 2dly, Supposing it competent, we could neither fine or otherwise punish the freeholders for not meeting, nor order the petitioner to be put on the roll, nor expunge any of the other four, till the freeholders in a meeting first gave their judgment, or refused to give it, which was agreeable to our judgment 6th and 21st January 1742, Cunningham of Comrie against Freeholders of Perthshire, (No. 16.); but in this last Drummore seemed to differ. However, we all agreed to dismiss the complaint as incompetent.