Anderson v Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1876 |
| Date | 06 November 1876 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Ormidale, Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill.
Burgh Franchise—Alteration of Register—Burgh Voters Act, 1856, 19 and 20 Vict. c. 58, sec. 23—Qualification.—
Held that the power given to the Sheriff by section 23 of the Burgh Voters Act, 1856, to correct mistakes in the list of voters, did not authorise him to alter the qualification of a voter from ‘tenant and occupant’ to ‘joint proprietor and occupant.’
Observed (per Lord Ormidale) that a person claiming to be enrolled as a voter is not entitled to found upon an alternative qualification.
Observations (per Lord Ormidale) as to the framing of special cases for appeal to the Registration Appeal Court.
Prior to making up the roll of voters for the year 1876–77 the respondent, James Ireland, had stood enrolled as a voter for the burgh of A Brechin, as tenant and occupant of a house belonging to the East Mill Company, Brechin.
It was objected by the appellant, Charles Anderson, solicitor, Brechin, that the respondent's tenure was defeasible, in respect of his occupying his dwelling-house as manager of the East Mill Company.
The special case set forth—‘The said James Ireland produced in support of his right to be continued as a voter on the roll the writs, of which copies, so far as material, are appended hereto, and which are to be held as embodied in this case, and to constitute part thereof, viz.,* maintained that he was tenant and occupant under the East Mill Company as proprietors, and also that he was joint proprietor in respect of being a partner of the said East Mill Company, and that, in respect of one or other or both, he was entitled to be retained on the roll.
‘The following facts were proved:—That the said James Ireland was joint proprietor of the said East Mill Company's property, and that
he has occupied the dwelling-house in connection therewith for many years.
The Sheriff repelled the objection, and continued the name of James Ireland on the roll, and altered his qualification to that of occupant as joint proprietor.
The questions of law for the decision of the Court of appeal were, Whether the Sheriff had power to alter the qualification as above specified?* or, Whether the qualification of tenant and occupant, as entered by the assessor on the roll, was not in the circumstances correct?
The argument was directed first to the question whether the Sheriff had power to make the alteration which he did on the register;1...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grovit v Jan Jansen
... ... The correction notice ordered by Kearns P. was in the following terms:- 'Take notice that on 9th July, 2015, the High Court of Ireland, in proceedings entitled Felix Grovit (plaintiff) v. Hendrik Jan Jensen (defendant) Record No. 2014/6748 P. made a correction order pursuant to s ... in O'Connor v. Commercial General and Marine Ltd. [1996] 1 I.R. 68 , from the case of Cookney v. Anderson (1863) 1 De G.J. & S. at p.365 as follows:- 'The right of administering justice is the attribute of sovereignty, and all persons within ... ...
-
Smyth v SAS Sogimalp Tarentaise
...him in legal costs in the said proceedings” and “damages”, together with interest and costs. 3 In accordance with the requirement under O. 4, r. 1A(1) of the RSC, as that rule then stood, to specify the particular provision or provisions of the Brussels I Regulation under which the Court ha......
-
Colclough v The Association of Chartered Certified Accountants
...Order… “summons” includes, where the context so admits or requires, any further originating document.’ 30 Notable too in this regard is O. 4, r.1A, which provides as follows: ‘1A. Where an indorsement of claim on an originating summons concerns a claim which by virtue of Regulation No. 1215......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...the twin concepts of primary pooling event and secondary pooling event. A PPE occurs not only on the failure of the firm (see paragraph 7.9. 4R(1)) but also on the happening of various forms of regulatory intervention (see paragraphs 7.9. 4R(2) to (4) and 7.9.5R) which may, in theory, affec......
-
No Duty To Obtain Best Price Reasonable In A Forced Sale Upheld By Court Of Appeal
...reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This must be read alongside the FCA's Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook (DISP). DISP 3.6.4R (1)(b) states that the Ombudsman must take into account any relevant regulator's rules, guidance and standards when reaching a FOS upheld Mrs King......
-
Judgments
...reasonable in the circumstances of the case. This must be read alongside the FCA’s Dispute Resolution: Complaints sourcebook (DISP). DISP 3.6.4R (1)(b) states that the Ombudsman must take into account any relevant regulator’s rules, guidance and standards when reaching a FOS upheld Mrs King......
-
Rio Tinto Plc Fined £27 Million For DTR Breaches
...impairment would have been required to be reported to the market in its 2012 half year report. These failures amounted to a breach of DTR 4.2.4R(1) (failure to comply with IAS 34 (Interim Financial Reporting)). Rio Tinto was required to carry out an impairment test and to record the resulta......