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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Cowan v. Martin [1869] ScotLR 6_107 (14 November 1869) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1869/06SLR0107.html Cite as: [1869] ScotLR 6_107, [1869] SLR 6_107 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 107↓
Act. Campbell. Alt. Guthrie.
Circumstances in which (altering judgment of the Sheriff) a party was admitted to the roll, notwithstanding that for the year 1867–68 his name appeared in the valuation roll as tenant and occupant of subjects of insufficient value, and did not appear in the current valuation roll at all.
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 2d day of October 1868, under and in virtue of the Act of Parliament 31 and 32 Vict., c. 48, intituled ‘The Representation of the People (Scotland) Act 1868,’ and the other Statutes therein recited, John Cowan, innkeeper, Kirkinner village, claimed to be enrolled on the register of voters for the said county as tenant and occupant of inn or dwelling-house, garden, and stables, Kirkinner village.
The following facts were proved:—That the claimant has been tenant and occupant of the subjects claimed on for the requisite period, and at the requisite value; but on the valuation roll for the year ending at Whitsunday last, 1868, the subjects were entered as of the value of only £13, 13s, and in the valuation roll for the current year ensuing Whitsunday last, as of the annual value of £15. In the return to the assessor by the landlord's factor for the year ending Whitsunday 1868 the subjects were returned as of the annual value of £15, with a note bearing—‘The above £15 is rather high; the tenant, J. Cowan, having the half of the garden from R. Vans Agnew without paying him any rent.’ The assessor stated to me that this not having appeared to him intelligible, he continued the valuation of the previous year, £13,13s., in the roll for 1867–68. For the current year no return was made. David Martin, notary-public, Newton-Stewart, a voter on the roll, objected to the said claim, on the ground that the subjects were entered in the valuation roll of 1867–68 as of the annual value of £13, 13s.
I rejected the claim. Whereupon Mr Charles Scott, as counsel for claimant, required from me a special case for the Court of Appeal; and in compliance therewith I have granted this case. .
The question of law for the decision of the Court of Appeal is—Whether the claimant is not entitled to be enrolled in respect that the subjects do not appear on the valuation roll for the year ending Whitsunday 1868 as of sufficient value?”
The Court unanimously reversed the decision of the Sheriff, and directed the name of the claimant to be added to the roll.
Agents for Appellant— Maitland & Lyon, W.S.
Agents for Respondent— J. M. & J. Balfour, W.S.
