Kennard v Allan
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 04 November 1879 |
| Date | 04 November 1879 |
| Docket Number | No. 1. |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Ormidale, Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill.
Burgh Franchise—Joint Proprietor—Constructive Residence.—
A partner in a manufacturing company was joint proprietor of a house adjoining the works, in which he resided occasionally when he came to the burgh on the business of the company. He had a house in London where he resided with his family, but on several occasions during the six months necessary for qualification he had occupied the house in question for short periods. On his application to be placed on the roll for the burgh, held that his claim fell to be refused, in respect that he had not satisfied the conditions of residence within the burgh.
Arthur Challis Kennard claimed to have his name entered on the roll of voters for the burgh of Falkirk, as joint proprietor of subjects in the burgh. Andrew Allan, writer, Falkirk, objected to this claim, on the ground that the claimant had not resided in the burgh, or within seven miles thereof, for six months prior to 31st July 1879.
The Sheriff (Gloag) rejected the claim, and the claimant took a case.1
In the case the facts were stated as follows:—‘The facts are, that the claimant and his brother, Howard John Kennard, are the sole partners of the firm of Kennard & Sons, proprietors of the Falkirk Iron Works. They are also proprietors of a house in the burgh adjoining the works, which is occupied by a female servant of the company, who resides in the house.
‘The claimant has a house in London, where he and his family reside during the greater part of the year, but he has been in the habit for several years back of coming occasionally to Falkirk, and, when there, of residing in the foresaid house, which is used for no other purpose than as a residence for himself or his brother when they are in Falkirk; it is entered in the valuation-roll as occupied by the company.
‘The claimant requires to come to Falkirk at intervals, for purposes connected with his business; and he has visited Falkirk in January, February,
March,May, July, and September of the year 1879. On these occasions he resided in the said house, and he remained for periods varying from two days to a fortnight.
‘He has in like manner been in the habit, in previous years, of coming to Falkirk at similar intervals, and of residing when there in said house; and he has been in the habit, for several years back, of coining with his wife and family to said house, and of residing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Allanfield Property Insurance Services Ltd ((in Administration)) ("APIS") (as trustee of a trust of client money under Chapter 5 of the Client Asset Sourcebook within the FCA Handbook) and Others v Aviva Insurance Ltd and Another
...in particular to the general definition of "client money", to the trust provision in CASS 5.3.2 R, to the pooling provision in CASS 5.6. 7 R (1), and to CASS 5.1. 5 R (1)(a), CASS 5.5.9 R and CASS 5.5.16 R. • As to Issue 1(b), CASS 5.5. 16 R (2) envisages that client bank accounts may from ......
-
Senior v Holdsworth, ex parte Independent Television News Ltd
...Court office a precise (i.e. a request for a summons against the defendant) and two copies of his particulars of claim: Order 6, r 3, Order 7, r, 1(1), and Form 7. Thus however early in the action the application for a witness summons is made the Court knows the nature of the claim being ma......
-
Lehman Brothers; CRC Credit Fund Ltd and Others v GLG Investments Plc (Sub-Fund: European Equity Fund) and Others
...7.7.2R, so that each client receives a sum which is rateable to the client money entitlement calculated in accordance with CASS 7.9.7R. 7.9. 7R (1) When, in respect of a client, there is a positive individual client balance and a negative client equity balance, the credit must be offset aga......
-
Yashwant Dahyabhai Patel v Girish Dahyabhai Patel and Others
...[R1] had a strong motive to forge the 2005 Will (i.e. control of US$50m interest in Aumkar and tactical advantage in other proceedings). 16. 7. [R1] exercised influence over [R3] and [R2], enabling him to persuade them falsely to witness the 2005 Will. 16. 8. [R1] had available to him blank......