Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following special case was stated by the Sheriff:—“At a Registration Court for the county of Wigtown, held by me at Stranraer on the 1st day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 and 32 Vict., cap. 48, intituled ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868,’ and the other Statutes therein recited, William Shaw, solicitor, Stranraer, as agent and mandatory of James Kinna, residing at Machermore Castle, Minnigaff, near Newton-Stewart, a voter on the roll, objected, for the said James Kinna, to the name of the Reverend Bryce Frood, manse of Old Luce, being entered or retained on the roll as a voter for the said county. The said Reverend Bryce Frood has this year, for the first time, been by the assessor enrolled as a voter, as tenant and occupant of land, Auchenmanister, and manse and glebe of Old Luce.

It was objected for the said James Kinna that the said Reverend Bryce Frood was not tenant and occupant of said manse and glebe, and that the land of Auchenmanister, of which he was tenant, was not of sufficient value. Mr Scott, for Mr Frood, objected to the notice of objection that it was ineffectual, as not being signed by the party Kinna himself, and also in respect that Mr Shaw's mandate was not a mandate to object to Mr Frood specially, but to object to all and sundry persons whom he might consider objectionable being entered or retained in the register for the county. I found that the said notice of objection, dated 4th September 1868, bears to be signed ‘William Shaw, solicitor, Stranraer, mandatory of James Kinna, residing at Machermore Castle, Minnigaff, a registered voter for the county of Wigtown.’ Mr Shaw is a procurator in this Sheriff-court, and is also holder of a mandate signed by Mr Kinna, and duly tested and dated 2d September 1868, authorising him to object this year in his (Kinna's) name ‘to all and sundry persons whom you may consider objectionable being entered and retained on the register of voters for the county of Wigtown, to sign and lodge said objections as my agent, and to do everything thereanent that you may consider right and proper in following forth and maintaining said objections, and to refer to the oaths of all and sundry the persons objected to, as you may see necessary, the verity of their respective claims, or such other matters as you may think fit.’ I repelled the objection to the notice of objection, and Mr Scott craved a special case for appeal.

It was proved that the said Bryce Frood, who is assistant and successor to the minister of Old Luce parish, has been tenant and occupant of the land of Auchenmanister, at a rent of £12, for the requisite period, but it was not proved that Mr Frood has been tenant of the manse and glebe. His name, however, appeared as tenant and occupant of the manse and glebe on the valuation rolls for the years 1867–8 and 1868–9, at the requisite value, and I therefore repelled the objection to the name of Mr Frood being retained on the roll of voters. Whereupon Mr Guthrie, for the objector, required a special case to be prepared, and both parties declared their intentions to appeal against the said decisions so far as adverse to them respectively.

The questions of law for the decision of the Court are-(1) Is the notice of objection sufficient? and (2) Was the party entitled to be registered as a voter, in respect of it appearing on the valuation rolls of the county that he is, and has been for the necessary period, tenant of subjects of the requisite annual value.”

The Court, without hearing opposite counsel, unanimously affirmed the decision of the Sheriff, and dismissed the appeal, holding that the valuation roll was conclusive proof of the value of the subjects.