Baird v Ballantyne
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 22 October 1869 |
| Docket Number | No. 14 |
| Date | 22 October 1869 |
| Court | Court of Session |
B.
County Franchise—Superiority—Feu-duty.—
BAIRD stood on the assessor's list for the county of Peebles as ‘proprietor of that part of the lands of Damdale or Damcroft, the dominium utile of which belongs to George Wilkie, builder, Hayfield Villa, Peebles, excepting the dominium utile thereof.’
Baird's name appeared on the valuation-roll as the person in right of a £6 feu-duty payable by Wilkie.
Ballantyne objected that Baird was not proprietor, in respect (1) he was only a superior, and superiorities were not ‘lands and heritages’ in terms of the Acts; and (2) neither the subjects nor their value appeared in the valuation-roll. It was proved that the feu-duty payable by Baird to the Crown was one penny Scots, if demanded.
The Sheriff (G. Napier) sustained the objections, holding (1) that the word ‘proprietor’ in section 5 of the Reform Act of 1868 did not include ‘superior;’ (2) that the words ‘lands and heritages’ must be construed according to the meaning of the words in the interpretation-clause of the Lands Valuation Act, 17 and 18 Vict, c. 91, sec. 42, and did not include feu-duties; (3) that the’ yearly value’ required to appear from the valuation-roll was the value entered under the column headed ‘yearly rent or value,’ and not that headed ‘feu-duties or ground-annuals,’ which was only intended to shew the deductions to be made from the value; (4) that the value here entered under ‘yearly rent or value’ was applicable solely to the subject described as belonging to George Wilkie; and (5) that the true value of the feu-duties could not be ascertained from the valuation-roll, as it contained no information in regard to the feu-duty which Mr Baird was bound to pay to his superior.
Baird appealed, and argued;—The question was, whether a superior whose feu-duty, after deduction of what he might have to pay to his over-superior, amounted in annual value to £5, was a proprietor of lands and heritages so as to be entitled to the franchise. In the Act of 1832 the subjects on which a vote was to be given were ‘lands, houses, feu-duties, or other heritable subjects.’ In the Act of 1868 the words were ‘lands and heritages.’ No doubt the interpretation clause of the Valuation Act did not include ‘feu-duties,’ but that clause only referred to the Valuation Act, and was not intended to give a definition of ‘lands and heritages’ in the Reform Act. If the superiority...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ratcliff v McConnell
...'Diving should not be allowed in pools where there is a forward clearance of less than 7.6m'. 12 9. A diver from the deep-end would have 5. 8m (18') of water deeper than 1. 7m (51/2') until he came to the sloping part of the pool. But if the dive was made from the long side at the deep end ......