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 £5, 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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Colonel Abercromby v Lesly of Melross. [1753] Mor 8659 (21 February 1753)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1753/Mor218659-072.html
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION III.
The Qualification of Freeholders possessing Lands liable in Public Burden for L. 400 Scots.
Subject_3 SECT. V.
How a division of Valuation may be set aside. - Every Party interested in a division ought to be made a Party to it. - Erroneous division.
Colonel Abercromby v. Lesly of Melross
Date: 21 February 1753 Case No. No 72.
There can be no regular meeting of the commissioners of the land-tax, but by appointment of the convener, or of a former meeting. A freeholder whose valuation had been divided at a meeting not regularly called, was expunged from the roll.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At a meeting of freeholders of the county of Banff, anno 1752, William Lesly of Melross, was inrolled for certain lands, valued at L. 400, by a decree of the Commissioners of Supply produced to the meeting.
A petition was presented to the Court of Session by Colonel Abercromby, complaining of this enrolment, for the following reason, That there was no legal evidence of the valuation, the meeting of the Commissioners who divided the valuation being irregular, neither appointed by a former meeting, nor called by the convener.
The Lords were clear, that by all the statutes for the land-tax there can be no regular meeting of the Commissioners but by appointment of a former meeting or of the convener; and therefore ordained Lesly of Melross to be struck out of the roll.
My single difficulty was, That admitting the objection against the decree of the Commissioners, does it follow that the respondent must be struch out of the roll, when, after all, his lands may bear a valuation to entitle him to a vote. It appears more agreeable to the rules of justice, that this Court, thought but a Court of appeal in matters of this nature, might take evidence, before answer, to clear the fact whether the respondent had, or had not a qualification. But the act 1681 affords an answer. It is declared, “That none shall have a vote, but who at the time shall be publicly infeft, and in possession of a forty-shilling land of old extent, or shall be infeft in lands liable in the King's supply for L. 400 of valued rent.” This points out lands actually enrolled in the cessbooks for L. 400, which indeed is the only rule for the freeholders, who have no power to value or to split a valuation; and therefore, though a man should be in possession of the major part of a barony, valued, if you please, at L. 1000, yet this gives him no qualification. His lands must be separately valued by a regular meeting of the Commissioners. The barons did wrong to admit the respondent upon the roll when he had no qualification. It was right therefore to expunge him; reserving to him a second application, when he obtains a proper qualification.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 412. Sel. Dec. No 41. p. 46.
*** This case from the Faculty Collection, is No 6. p. 2437. Voce Commissioners of Supply.
