Anderson v Ireland

Judgment Date06 November 1876
Date06 November 1876
Docket NumberNo. 1.
CourtCourt of Session
Court of Session
Registration Appeal Court

Ld. Ormidale, Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill.

No. 1.

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
34 cases
  • Grovit v Jan Jansen
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 17 January 2018
    ... ... 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
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 25 July 2019
    ...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
    • Ireland
    • High Court
    • 21 February 2018
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Chancery Division
    • 20 January 2010
    ...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......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 firm's commentaries
  • No Duty To Obtain Best Price Reasonable In A Forced Sale – Upheld By Court Of Appeal
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 11 July 2018
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • JD Supra United Kingdom
    • 6 July 2017
    ...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
    • United Kingdom
    • Mondaq UK
    • 31 January 2018
    ...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......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT