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!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Colonel Charles Campbell of Barbreck v James M'Neil of Kilmory, and James M'Conochie of Ambriesbeg, two of the Freeholders of the Shire of Bute. [1773] Mor 8849 (24 June 1773)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1773/mor218849-227.html
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION V.
Procedure in the Court of Freeholders.
Subject_3 SECT. III.
Powers of the Court of Freeholders.
Colonel Charles Campbell of Barbreck v. James M'Neil of Kilmory, and James M'Conochie of Ambriesbeg, two of the Freeholders of the Shire of Bute
Date: 24 June 1773 Case No. No 227.
The only two freeholders who attended a Michaelmas meeting evaded taking cognizance of a claim for enrolment, which was duly lodged, and moved to them by the clerk, on the pretence, that neither the claimant, nor any person for him, appeared to support his claim. A motion made to them by another freeholder, while they were still in the courtroom, to take the claim under consideration, was held by them to be too late. Found to have done wrong, and the claimant ordered to be added to the roll.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Colonel Campbell of Barbreck lodged a claim for being enrolled as a freeholder in the county of Bute at Michaelmas 1772. It happened that no more than two of the freeholders attended at the hour of meeting, viz. Messrs M'Neil and M'Conochie, who proceeded to business; and, although Colonel Campbell's claim was moved to them by the clerk to the meeting, they shifted off its cognizance, and proceeded to make up their minutes, as if no such claim had existed. But, while the preses was signing these minutes, the claimant's brother-in-law, who was himself a freeholder, came to the meeting, and insisted, that they should take the claim under their consideration. This, however, they refused, upon the ground, that their business was concluded, and the meeting dissolved.
Colonel Campbell presented a complaint, charging, that the pretences on which his claim was not taken notice of, at the Michaelmas meeting, were entirely frivolous; and that no solid objection was so much as pretended to lie against his titles, which were also then produced. And the minutes of the meeting having been produced, as to this particular, they run thus :
“Then the clerk informed the meeting, that a claim had been lodged with him, in his capacity of sheriff-clerk, in name of Colonel Charles Campbell of Barbreck, for his being admitted upon the roll of freeholders; and intimation having been made at the door of the court-house for Colonel Campbell, or any person authorised by him, to appear and insist in his said claim, no appearance was made; and none other compearing to desire to be put upon the roll, as apparent heirs or otherwise, the meeting found, and hereby find, that the roll stands as before.”
The Lords found, that the respondents did wrong in refusing to enrol the complainer, and ordered his name to be added to the roll; and found the respondents liable in costs.
Act. Ilay Campbell.Alt. Walter Campbell.Clerk, Tait.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 430. Fac. Col. No 75. p. 183.
