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!
Subject_1 MEMBER of PARLIAMENT. Subject_2 DIVISION VI.
Summary Complaint to the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. IV.
Whether the Court of Session may admit Evidence not laid before the Freeholders.
Bruce v. Davidson
Date: 1 February 1791 Case No. No 263.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At the meeting of election for the county of Stirling, 3d July 1790, Colonel Andrew Bruce claimed enrolment, as having right to the lands of Balquhatston, Above-the-Hill or Bunie hill of Balquhatston, Wester Balmitchel, and Bulliondale, part of the lands of Slamannan. It having been objected, That no entry corresponding to these lands appeared in the valuation or cess-books, it was answered, “The claimant's lands stand distinctly rated at L. 400 in the valuation and cess-books, under the names of the vassals; and the claimant is ready to show, by the charters of the vassals, that these names in the cess and valuation-books, do apply to the lands upon which he claims to be enrolled, and to no other.” It was replied, That this ought to have been shown to the Commissioners of Supply; and, in fact, there had been an application made to them for that purpose, and a report made up by a Committee; but, as that report had not been approved of by a general meeting, the freeholders rejected the claim. Upon a complaint, however, the Court allowed a proof of the correspondence of the lands claimed on, with the entries in the cess-books; and, on advising it, they ordered Colonel Bruce to be enrolled.—See Appendix.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 436. Supplement to Wight, p. 5.
