Hannah v Dodds
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 01 November 1875 |
| Docket Number | No. 3. |
| Date | 01 November 1875 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Ardmillan, Lord Ormidale, Lord Craighill.
Burgh Franchise—Reform Act, 1868, secs. 3 and 13.—
Held that occupancy, as tenant, of one house in a burgh, combined with occupancy, in immediate succession, as owner, of another house in the same burgh, gave a qualification for the burgh franchise when the combined occupancy extended over the requisite period.
Thomas Dodds was entered in the roll of voters as ‘inhabitant occupier as owner of dwelling-house, Main Street,’ Whithorn.
Dodds had been for several years previous to the term of Whitsunday 1875 tenant of a dwelling-house in Main Street, Whithorn, and during those years was enrolled as ‘inhabitant occupier as tenant of dwelling-house, Main Street,’ Whithorn. At Whitsunday 1875 he became owner of a different house, also in Main Street, Whithorn, which he occupied from that date as owner.
Alexander Hannah objected to Dodds being continued on the roll of voters, on the ground that it was not competent to combine occupancy as tenant with occupancy in immediate succession as owner to give a qualification in burghs.
The Sheriff (M. Napier) repelled the objection.
The objector appealed, and argued;—The use of the words ‘different’ must be contrasted with the use of the word ‘same ‘in the 13th section of the Reform Act of 1868.* Continued occupancy of the same premises as tenant gave a qualification, and so successive occupancy of different premises as tenant was to give a qualification. Similarly, continued occupancy of the same premises as owner gave a qualification, and so successive occupancy of different premises as owner was to give a qualification. But occupancy of different premises as tenant and as owner successively could not give a vote, because it was not provided that occupancy of the same premises as tenant and owner successively should give a vote. This had already been held with regard to the county franchise.1
Argued for the respondent;—The bases of the county and burgh franchise were essentially different. What it was not competent to combine in the one case it was competent to combine in the other. The case of Scott Moncrieff v. Dalgleish had, therefore, no bearing on the present.
Lord Ardmillan.—The basis of the qualification of a burgh voter, as defined in section 3 of the Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, is occupancy.* Whether that occupancy be as owner or tenant matters not.
Now, in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
FG Hawkes Ltd v Eli Shipping Company Ltd
...those authorities, the propositions which follow may be derived. 23 First, there is a striking contrast between CPR rules 7.6(2) and 7.6( 3). R. 7.6(2) governs applications for extensions of time made within the period of validity of the claim form; r.7.6(3) deals with applications for exte......
-
Outar v The State
...6 In the present appeal while a copy of the indictment and plea together with the verdict and sentence are before us as required by 0. 3 r. 7(3)(a) and (b), above, para. (c) is missing; there are no “notes of any particular part of the evidence or cross-examination relied on as a ground of ......
-
The Companies Law (2012 Revision) (as Amended) Aramid Entertainment Fund Ltd
...claim to set-off determined in winding up proceedings. 17 On 1st August 2013 I duly gave KBC leave to withdraw its petition pursuant to O. 3, r.7 of the Companies Winding Up Rules (2008) (as amended). The application was not opposed by the Company except costs which were clearly in dispute.......
-
Williams & Anor v The House Company (whangarei) Limited & ORS HC
...Wing v Leeder [1961] NZLR 30 Chief Justice Barrowclough at 32-33 said: In the English Rules the phrase is "debt or liquidated demand": see O. 3 r. 7 relating to the endorsement of claim on the writ itself and O. 27 r. 2 which roughly the equivalent of our R. 226. The Annual Practice gives n......