M'Queen v Dunn

JurisdictionScotland
Judgment Date02 November 1874
Date02 November 1874
Docket NumberNo. 2.
CourtCourt of Session
Court of Session
Registration Appeal Court B.
No. 2.
M'Queen
and
Dunn.

Franchise—Tenant and Occupant.—

Held that a husband's occupation of a house of which his wife was tenant could not give him a qualification as tenant for the franchise.

Ralph Dunn, writer in Melrose, objected to a claim for Captain George Bliss M'Queen to have his name entered in the register of voters for the county of Roxburgh as ‘tenant and occupant of Old Melrose mansion-house, offices, and policy, Old Melrose, in the parish of Melrose,’ on the ground that Captain M'Queen had not occupied the premises claimed on as tenant for twelve months immediately preceding the 31st July 1874.

The facts as stated in the special case were that the subjects in question had been taken on a verbal lease for the year from Whitsunday 1873 to Whitsunday 1874 by Mrs Eliza Russell, widow of the late Mr Russell; that she had occupied the subjects in the same way as yearly tenant for some years previously; that Captain M'Queen was married to Mrs Russell in the month of July 1873, and had since occupied the house along with her; that he took the subjects in question as tenant in his own name on a verbal lease from Whitsunday 1874, and that he and Mrs Russell, now M'Queen, had occupied the premises since under that lease.

The Sheriff (Pattison) rejected the claim, holding that right to the lease entered into by Mrs Russell did not pass to Captain M'Queen by his marriage to that lady, and that his occupancy prior to Whitsunday 1874 was not such as to give him the statutory qualification.

Captain M'Queen appealed, and the question submitted to the Court was—‘Whether, by virtue of his marriage with Mrs Russell, the claimant acquired right to her then current lease of the subjects so as to entitle him to found upon his occupation between that date and Whitsunday 1874 as part of the statutory qualification requisite for his registration as a voter?’

Argued for appellant;—It was settled by the case of Gillon v. Muirhead1 that an agricultural lease was not carried by the legal assignation of marriage to the effect of creating an irritancy where assignees were excluded. But this was not conclusive in a question of the right to vote. A man might not be a tenant in strict law and yet be tenant for the purposes of the franchise,2 just as the husband of an owner was not owner and yet was allowed to be styled in the register ‘owner in right of his wife.’3 Section 9 of the Act of 1832 and section 14 of the Act of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
57 cases
2 firm's commentaries
1 books & journal articles

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT