Nelson v M'Gowan
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 06 November 1876 |
| Docket Number | No. 2. |
| Date | 06 November 1876 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Ld. Ormidale, Lord Mure, Ld. Craighill.
County Franchise—Alteration of Register—County Voters Act, 1861, 24 and 25 Vict. c. 83, sec. 44.—
Held (distinguishing from Veitch v. Young, Oct. 24, 1870, 9 Macph. 28) that the Sheriff was entitled, under the 44th section of the County Voters Act, 1861, to alter an entry in the register of voters by substituting ‘tenant’ for ‘joint tenant’ as the qualification of a voter, the mistake having occurred casually through the assessor mistranscribing from the valuation-roll to the register of voters.
William Nelson was entered on the roll of voters for the county of Dumfries for 1876–77 as joint tenant of the farm of Branetrigg. He had been enrolled on that qualification for the previous year, but at Whitsunday 1876 had obtained a new lease in his own name as sole tenant of the farm of Branetrigg. He was entered as sole tenant of the farm in the valuation-roll for the year 1876–7, but the assessor (who was assessor both under the Valuation of Lands Act, 17 and 18 Vict., cap. 91, and under the County Voters Act, 24 and 25 Vict., cap. 83) did not make a corresponding alteration on the roll of voters by substituting ‘tenant’ for ‘joint tenant.’
At his Registration Court the Sheriff was moved by the appellant to alter the register,* by striking out the word ‘joint.’ The motion was opposed by the respondent, William H. M'Gowan, as incompetent.
The Sheriff held in law, and also in respect of the case of Veitch v. Young, decided in the Registration Appeal Court, October 24, 1870, 9 Macph. 28, that it was not competent for the Sheriff so to alter the qualification of a voter on the register, and that the proper remedy was a new claim to that effect. He therefore sustained the objection, and expunged the name from the register.
A case was stated by the Sheriff on behalf of William Nelson for the Registration Appeal Court.
Lord Mure.—This is rather a delicate question, and on the first blush it would appear to be regulated by the decision in the case of Veitch v. Young, Oct. 24, 1870. It was there decided that the Sheriff was not entitled, under the 44th section of the County Voters Act, 1861, to alter an entry in the register of voters, by substituting the word ‘joint proprietor’ for ‘proprietor.’
Now, I am not prepared to differ from that judgment, and would carry it out in any similar case. But there is an element in this case which did not occur in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Matz v Matz
...Division or the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice should always be transferred pursuant to the rules of court under 0. 4 r.3 to the Family Division, so that all the issues, the subject of litigation between the parties, may be dealt with in one court, being a court in the ......
-
Charlotte Mezvinsky v Associated Newspapers Ltd
...within another division should deal with the case, it would not be a wrongful exercise of discretion to transfer it. The wording of RSC Ord 4, r 3 undoubtedly gave the court a discretion and it would be difficult to say that that was a wrongful exercise of discretion. 24. When one comes to ......
-
Lawfin Ltd (Plaintiffs v Alfred Meisels and Another (Defendants
...of the County Court Rules, because without some understanding of these the subsequent procedural history would be unintelligible. 5 0. 4 r.3 of the County Court Rules 1981 provide as follows: "3. Proceedings— (a) for the recovery of land, or (b) for the foreclosure or redemption of any mort......
-
Appleby (Cayman) Ltd Plaintiff v Kazuko Takada Defendant
...be made sufficiently to appear to the Court that the case is a proper one for service out of the jurisdiction under this Order.’ (GCR 0. 4, r.3) 15 This provision is in similar terms to the English RSC Ord.11, r.4(2) and it is directed: ‘…not to the existence of the cause of action but to t......