Harkness v Scott
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 07 December 1899 |
| Docket Number | No. 58. |
| Date | 07 December 1899 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Lord Kinnear, Lord Trayner, Lord Kincairney.
Election Law—Occupancy Franchise—Yearly Value — Proof — Conclusiveness of Valuation-roll—Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 and 49 Vict. cap. 3), secs. 5 and 11.—
Where the clear yearly value of the qualifying subjects, as appearing on the Valuation-roll, is of the amount required for a qualification under section 5 of the Representation of the People Act, 1884, it is incompetent, under section 11 of the Act, to lead evidence to prove that the true yearly value is less than the statutory amount.
At a Registration Court for the county of Roxburgh, held at Hawick on 27th September 1899, James Harkness, a voter on the roll objected to the name of James Scott, seedsman, High Street, Hawick, being retained on the roll of voters for the county as subtenant of house Teindside, on the ground that the subjects were not of sufficient value.
The facts, as stated by the Sheriff (Campbell) in a case for appeal, were ‘that the voter stood upon the occupancy franchise (more particularly under section 5 of the Act 48 and 49 Victoria, chapter 3 *), and that in the Valuation-rolls for the whole qualifying period the clear yearly value of the subjects was entered as £10. It was proposed to give proof that this was more than the true yearly value. I rejected this evidence, no appeal having been taken in the Valuation Courts, and retained the voter's name on the roll, holding the Valuation-rolls as conclusive, more particularly under section 11 of the said statute.’ Whereupon the objector obtained this case.
The question of law was,—‘Whether, when the clear yearly value appears on the Valuation-rolls to be of the requisite amount for the occupancy qualification, the objector is entitled to go behind the Valuation-rolls?’
The appellant cited the undernoted authorities.1
The respondent did not appear.
Lord Kinnear.—I cannot say that I have any doubt that the Sheriff is right. The qualification is clearly set out in section 5 of the statute, and its meaning is equally clearly set out in the interpretation clause. I am therefore for answering the question in the negative.
Lord Trayner and Lord Kincairney concurred.
The Court pronounced the following interlocutor:—‘Dismiss the appeal, and affirm the judgment appealed against, and decern,’ &c.
* The Representation of the People Act, 1884 (48 and 49 Vict. cap. 3), sec. 5, enacts,—‘Every man...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stewart v M'Aulay
...1895 (58 and 59 Vict, cap. 41), sec. 4. 2 Ferguson v. KerrSC, 1879, 7 R. 7. 1 7 R. 7. 1 8 R., at p. 11. 2 7 R. 49. 3 8 R. 8. 4 11 R. 167. 5 2 F. 268. ...
-
Companies using independent contractors score big following NLRB ruling
...limiting” the significance of workers’ “entrepreneurial Background and return to the traditional test The National Labor Relations Act (N...