Hilson v Laidlaw
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 24 October 1870 |
| Docket Number | No. 11 |
| Date | 24 October 1870 |
| Court | Court of Session |
B.
Tenancy, Joint and Sole, Combination of—Qualification—County Franchise—Representation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, sec. 14.
JOHN LAIDLAW, mason, Jedburgh, claimed to be enrolled as a voter for the county of Roxburgh as tenant and occupant of ‘quarry at Langton Hill,’ and as ‘one of two joint tenants and occupants of quarry at Fernieherst, both in the parish of Jedburgh.’ The value of the quarry at Langton Hill was, according to the valuation-roll, £12. This the claimant had possessed since Whitsunday 1870. The quarry at Fernieherst the claimant had possessed along with another as joint tenant for a year prior to Whitsunday 1870, and still possessed it. For the year ending Whitsunday 1870 the annual value thereof in the valuation-roll was £30, 19s. 5d. The annual value of it since Whitsunday was £23, 6s. 9d. The claimant's qualifications to be registered consisted of the possession of the Fernieherst quarry up to Whitsunday as one of two joint tenants, combined with the like possession thereof since Whitsunday, adding to it the possession as sole tenant of Langton Hill quarry. The value for the whole period of possession was sufficient if the possessions were combined.
Hilson objected to the claim, on the grounds (1) that the claim did not specially set forth the possession of Fernieherst quarry as joint tenant prior to Whitsunday; (2) that the combination was not permissible under the statute, and that a statutory qualification could not be so constituted.
The Sheriff (Pattison) repelled the objections, and admitted the claim.
The objector appealed, and argued;—A joint and a sole tenancy could be combined in succession, for there the claimant had always one good qualification at any moment. The contemporaneous combination of a joint and a sole tenancy was in a different position, because, quoad the franchise, joint and sole tenancy were essentially different qualifications, depending on different clauses of the Act. The condition upon which, under sec. 14, a man could claim as joint tenant was, that when the subject was divided by the number of tenants it should yield the full qualification to each, which was not the case here.
Held that to constitute a valid qualification for the franchise it was competent to combine contemporaneous occupancy of different subjects as joint and sole tenant, though neither subject was itself...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paul Glen Dew (Plaintiff/Appellant) v Slocombe & Butcher Ltd and Another
...of time upon him. 6 The relevant load which he was carrying consisted of four pieces of 3" x 2" timber, each of which was as long as 3. 9m (12`8"). He carried them as one. Therefore, the total length of the load was 12`8". It had a substantial weight which the learned judge calculated (and ......