I3Z9 EST Registration Cases 1912 X V . V -S THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES Srottis^ (lilitxanist g^ssoriattoii DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES 1891-1912 FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION C N T E N T S. ^ A. Ownership Franchise oe S B. Occupation Franchise C. Inhabitant-Occupier Franchisk $ D. Lodger Franchise to E. Registration Procedure i^ F. Miscellaneous OS 438386 Nos, OF Oases. 1 to 8 9 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 65 66 to 86 87 N.B. — ThJB Print Bup ersedeB all previous isBues during the period 1891-1912. DIGEST OF SCOTTISH ItEOISTItATION CASKS, 1801-11)12. A. OWNERSHIP FRANCHISE. County. Sale of SubjectH prior to Registration Court, 1. M'Kmzia v. Corarir., Nov. 24, 1891 ; 10 \i. 292; 20 8.L.U. 143. — Hfdd, that it 18 necewHary that a pcrwori clai/nin;^ to })H njgiHtorr;'! in a county under Hection 7 of the Ilefonn Act, 1832, Hhall not have ceased to be proprietor at the date, at which tlie .Sheriff fjroeee'lH to consifler the claim in the Itegiatration Court. Note. — The Reform Act, 1832, «ect. 7, cnacfcH : " Kvcry jii^mn . . . Hliall hfi entitled t** be reserio'l of not le»» than six calendar monthn next firevious to tlic lant day of July . . . the owner ... of any land«, houHen, , . . provided the f.uhjwt (jt «uh- jecta on which he daima Hhall be of the yearly value of t«jn pounds, and shall wjtually yield, or he capable of yielding, that value Ui the claimant, . , . provided he \x: V^y him>telf, his tenants, vassals, or others in if/mtftmuni of the said subjects, and \j^ cither himself in the actual wx-upatiOTi or in receipt '/f the profits and iMues iher&ft to the extent above mentioned." County. Ab.Holute DiHposition in Security. 2. M'Kenzte v. [VaU, \ )<:<:. 10, \H'.)\ ; 19 ii. 297; 29 .S.L.Jl. 239.— A person who became cautioner for a composition which certain hank- rupts had agreed to pay to their ererlitors, received from the bankrupts an aV;fKjlute dijiposition of certain heritable subjectH in the usual Umnn. The deed a,\m declare^l the conveyance to be in real security of pay- ments under the aforesaid cautionary oblij^ation. It contained a power of sale, and the disponee was taken bound to ac<';ount for his intromissions. Held that the disponee was not entitled U> be enrolled 6 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. as a " proprietor " under section 5 of the Eepresentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868. No Limitation of Number of Owners under 1832 Act. 3. Fox V. M'Kenzie, Nov. 18, 1892; 20 R 87; 30 S.L.E. 78.— Decided, in the case of one of five joint proprietors in a county, on the roll prior to the Eeform Act of 1884, and whose interest was of the annual value of ,£10, and therefore sufficient to qualify under the Re- form Act of 1832, that the proviso limiting the number of joint owners to two, contained in the Reform Act of 1868, section 14, and appended to the enactment providing for the qualification of joint owners whose individual interests were of the annual value of £5, did not apply, in respect that the new ownership franchise conferred by the Act of 1868 was in addition to, and not in substitution for, the ownership franchise conferred by the Act of 1832. Burgh. Sufficiency of Residence. 4. Sim v. Gait, Nov. 18, 1892; 20 R. 84; 30 S.L.R. 75.— In this case the claimant was on the roll of voters in Glasgow as an inhabit- ant-occupier of a house there, and sought also to obtain a vote in the burgh of Ayr in respect of the ownership of a villa there. He was in the habit of residing in the Glasgow house from October till April, and in the Ayr villa from April till October. During the months of his residence in Glasgow he was in the habit of going to reside in his Ayr villa for a few days in each month. He never let his Ayr villa, and during the year prior to his claim he had resided in his Ayr residence for five days in each of the months of February and March, and during the whole of April, May, June, and July. The Court held that in the special circumstances of the case the claimant had satisfied the con- dition contained in sect. 11 of the Reform Act of 1832, that owners in burghs must reside for six calendar months next previous to the last day of July within such burgh, or within seven statute miles of some part thereof. True Owner under 1832 Act. 5. Irons \. Wauchope, Nov. 22, 1892; 20 R. 91; 30 8.L.R. 80.— Decided that a proprietor who had granted a ninety-nine years' lease of OWNERSHIP FRANCHISE. 7 certain subjects at an annual rent of £10, the lease containing certain restrictions on the use of the ground, and a power to the landlord to resume possession for a special purpose on giving six months' notice, was the true owner, and entitled to be registered under section 1 1 of .the Reform Act of 1832. Burgh Qualifying Period. 6. Davidson y. Johnston, Dec. 16, 1903; 6 F. 239; 41 S.L.R 171; 11 S.L.T. p. 503.— The Reform Act, 1832, sect. 11, provides, inter riind facie evidence of his qualifica- tion. The Sheriff-Substitute held that the claimant was bound to obey the citation, but adjourned th-e case for three days, intimating that re-citation was not necessary, intimating also the time and place of the adjourned diet, and stating that the claimant's failure to appear at the adjourned diet without some very special reason would lead to the claim being rejected. The claimant was not re-cited and did not appear at the adjourned diet, and no reason was assigned for his non- appearance. The Sheriff-Substitute accordingly rejected the claim. The Appeal Court, holding that there was no real distinction between this case and that of StirUng v. Fletcher (tit supra No. 49), affirmed the decision of the Sheriff-Substitute, holding that the intimation which was made at the first diet must be held to be equivalent to re-citation, and that a claimant lawfully cited, who failed to appear without a reasonable excuse, must be held as confessed. See No. 82. Prima facie evidence of Declaration. Bedroom and use of other Room. 51. Green v. Donaldson, Nov. 29, 1901 ; 4 F. 245; 39 S.L.R. 186. — A lodger claimed in respect of exclusive occupation of bedroom and sitting-room. Objection was taken, and it was proved that he had the sole occupation of the bedroom but not of the sitting-room. The Sheriff, looking to the rent of the farm and the wages paid to the claimant, sustained the claim. The Court of Appeal reversed on the ground that the declaration was not p7'imd facie evidence of the value of the bedroom alone, and that there was no other evidence of the value of the bedroom alone. See No. 56. Valuation of Lodgings. Weekly Payment. Question of Fact. 52. Kellie v. Little, Jan. 18, 1897; 24 E. 379; 34 S.L.R 329; 4 S.L.T., No. 362. — A person claimed to be registered as a lodger in respect of the occupation of two rooms and a surgery in a house the annual value of which, as appearing in the valuation roll, was £5. The furnished rent paid by the claimant was 8s. per week, amounting to £20, 16s. per annum. An objection was taken that the yearly rent of the house was less than £10, and that the value of the lodgings, which formed only part of the house, could not therefore be of the clear yearly value, if let unfurnished, of £10 or upwards. LODGER FRANCHISE. 25 Sheriff-Substitute Dundas, proceeding upon the rent actually paid foi the lodgings, held that as a matter of fact the lodgings were of the statutory value, and the Court, on the ground that the declaration annexed to the claim was prima facie evidence of its contents, and also that the Sheritf-Substitute had held as a matter of fact that the lodg- ings were of the statutory value, refused the appeal. See I^o. 55. Valuation of Lodgings. Weekly Payment. Question of Fact. 53. Cochrane v. Stevenson, Jan. 18, 1897 ; 4 S.L.T., Xo. 363.— The facts in this case were similar to those in Kellie v. Little {ut supra No. 52), with this difference, that the rent of the house was £13, 10s. Sheriff-Substitute Erskine Murray held, as matter of fact, that as the sum of 8s. a week was paid for the lodgings, and that as one-half thereof is fairly applicable to the unfurnished value of the lodgings, amounting to £10, 8s. per annum, the lodgings were of the statutory value. He accordingly sustained the claim. The Court •dismissed the appeal. Valuation of Lodgings. Weekly Payment. Question of Fact. Sheriff Final. 54. Hamilton v. Ferguson, Nov. 18, 1897; 25 E. 94; 35 S.L.R. 107; 5 S.L.T., No. 287. — Hamilton claimed to be enrolled as a lodger. The claim was objected to by Ferguson, a voter, on the ground that the room occupied by the claimant was not of the statu- tory value. It was admitted or proved that the claimant had the exclusive use of one room in a house of two rooms and kitchen, that the rent of the whole house was £12, 10s., and that he paid 8s. per week for the room. He declared the annual value of the room, if let unfurnished, to be £10, 8s., this being half of the annual sum paid by him. The Sheriff-Substitute held as matter of fact that the value of the room, if let unfurnished, was less than £10 yearlj', and rejected the claim. Tlie Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that it raised no question of law, because the Sheriff had found, as matter of fact, that the value of the room was less than the statute required, and that that was quite conclusive as to that fact, and it was not for the Court of Appeal to inquire into the ground in fact upon which he came to that conclusion, though it might interfere if the Sheriff- Substitute had erred on a question of law. 2 6 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. Valuation of Lodgings. 55. Daniel Flijnn, Dec. 7, 1899 ; 2 F. 269 ; 37 S.L.E. 187. Kellie V. Little {ut supra l^o. 52), followed. Declaration. Bedroom and use of Public Room. Evidence of Letting Value. 56. Ireland v. Barr, Nov. 25, 1904; 7 F. 153; 42 S.L.R. 128. G^^een v. Donaldson (ut suj^ra No. 51) followed. Claim, Omission to design Landlord. Amendment. 57. Broivn v. Kinnaird, December 18, 1905; 8 F. 340; 43 S.L.R 340; 13 S.L.T. p. 935. — -A claim to be registered as a lodger voter, in the column headed " Name, description, and residence of persons or person to whom rent paid," set forth only the name of a person without any designation or residence. Held that the Sheriff had rightly rejected the claim, and opinion that he had rightly refused to allow amendment. See No. 41, also Nos. 73 and 78. Presumption from Declaration rebutted by Evidence of Valuation Roll. 58. M'Kee v. Orr, December 18, 1905 ; 8 F. 320; 43 S.L.E. 292 ; 13 S.L.T. p. 630. — A person claiming to be entered in the roll under the lodger franchise, though cited to attend the Registration Court, failed to appear. The Sheriff found, in fact, that the p>rimd facie evidence in favour of the claim, which is given to the declaration by the Registration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885 (48 & 49 Vict, cap. 16), sect. 14, was rebutted by the facts that the house consisted of only two apartments, that it was entered in the valuation roll as of the yearly value of £8, and that the claimant had not appeared in support of his claim. Held that the Sheriff was entitled upon these grounds to find the statutory presumption rebutted. See No. 60. Declaration. Rebutting Evidence. Failure to Appear. 59. Forrest v. Maclnt>jre, Dec. 5, 1910; 1911 S.C. 496; 48 S.L.R. 126; 1911, 1 S.L.T. p. 74.— The Registration Amendment (Scotland) LODGER FRANCHISE. 27 Act, 1885, sect. 14, enacts — "In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the dechxration annexed to his notice of chxim shall for the purposes of revision ho, prima facie evidence of his qualification." A claimant for the lodger franchise, cited by an objector to appear at the Registration Court, failed to appear. Counsel for the objector did not lead any evidence, or ask for letters of second diligence, but moved that the claim be rejected. Xo explanation for non-appearance was offered, and no promise was given that the claimant would appear at a future diet, but his agent moved that the claim be admitted, or otherwise, that the case be adjourned to give the claimant a second opportunity of attending. The Sheriff refused this motion, and rejected the claim. Held (1) that the non-appearance of the claimant did not displace the prima facie evidence of the statutory declaration, and did not entitle the Sheriff to hold the claimant as confessed ; and (2) that the declaration being the only evidence before the Sheriff, the claimant was entitled to be admitted to the roll. Observations, per Lord Ardwall, on the practice of agents, represent- ing political parties, citing lodgers to appear at the Eegistration Court, when the objection to their claims is frivolous or unsubstantial, and as to expediency of awarding expenses against such agents or frivolous objectors. 60. Clark v. Chalmers, Dec. 5, 1910; 1911 S.C. 505; 48 S.L.R. 131; 1911, 1 S.L.T. p. 80.— The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, sect. 14, enacts — "In the case of a person claiming to vote as a lodger, the declaration annexed to his notice of claim shall for the purposes of revision he j^rimd facie evidence of his qualification." A lodger-claimant, cited by an objector to appear at the Eegistration Court, did not appear. The objector moved the Court for an ad- journment that he might lead evidence to rebut the lyrimd facie evidence set up by the claimant's declaration. The Sheriff" granted an adjournment, and stated that the claimant ought either to be cited to the adjourned diet or else ought to receive formal written notice of the adjournment. The claimant did not attend the adjourned diet. He had neither been cited to that diet nor given notice of the adjourn- ment. The liouse in which the lodgings were situated was entered in the valuation roll as being of the annual value of £7, 10s. No evidence was led, but the Sheriff" rejected the claim, holding that the entry in the valuation roll, coupled with the failure of the claimant 2 8 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. to appear at tlie first diet, Avas sufficient to rebut the prima facie evidence of the declaration annexed to the notice of claim. Held that the claim should have been admitted in respect (a) that an adjournment having been granted, the Sheriff was not entitled to proceed upon the claimant's failure to appear at the first diet ; (&) that as the claimant had not been cited to the second diet, and had not received written notice of the adjournment, he was not bound to appear at the second diet, and could not be held as confessed ; and (c) that the entry in the valuation roll was not jjev se sufficient to rebut the prima facie evidence of the declaration. M'Kee v. Orr, No. 58, (list inyui shed. Joint Occupation, Failure to state number of Occupants. Presumption, 61, Niven v. Ahercromhie, Nov, 28, 1910; 1911 S.C. 487; 48 S.L.R, 122; 1911, 1 S.L.T. p. 73.— The Eegistration Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1885, sect, 13, enacts that where lodgings are jointly occupied, each lodger, up to two in number, is entitled to the lodger vote if the yearly value of the lodgings divided by the number of lodgers gives a sum of £10 for each. Where a person claiming as joint tenant of a bedroom worth £20 a year did not state the number of persons with whom he shared it, held that in absence of proof to the contrary it must be assumed that he shared it with only one other person. Ohserved, " In case of ambiguity the construction which favoured the validity of the claim should be adopted." Part Remuneration for Services, 62, Do>/le v. Crair/, Dec. 5, 1910; 1911 S.C. 493; 48 S.L.R 109; 1911, 1 S.L.T. p. 82. — An assistant priest, who boarded and lodged in the rectory of the priest to whom he was assistant, and whose salary was fixed on the basis that he was so provided, held entitled to the lodger franchise, the rooms occupied exclusively by him being of the requisite value. See Nos. 42 and 64, Brother Sleeping with Lodger, 63, Mihie V, Dour/las, Dec. 11, 1911; 1912 S.C. 635; 49 S.L.R. 178 ; 1911, 2 S.L.T, p. 480. — It is no bar to the lodger franchise that REGISTRATION PROCEDURE. 29 the claimant, during the (]ualifying period, occasionally, ex rjraiia, allowed a young brother (who could have had a bed of his own), to sleep with him in the room on which the claim was founded. Member of Brotherhood. Contract. 64. O'Connell v. BlacMocl; March 4, 1911; 1912 S.C. 640; 49 S.L.E. 515; 1912, 1 S.L.T. p. 285.— A. was a member of a brotherhood devoted to teaching, and occupied a bedroom in the college of the brotherhood. He was provided with board, lodging, &c., but received no pay for his services. In respect there was no contract of location, express or implied, between A. and the brotherhood, conferring a right of occupancy, lield that A. was not entitled to enrolment as a "lodger." Doyle v. Craig, No. 62, distinguished. Old Claim. Citation. Failure to appear. Adjournment. Discretion of Sheriff. No specific Objection. 65. Melville v. Adamson, Dec. 2, 1912; 1913 S.C. 282; 50 S.L.E. 171. — A lodger claimant, previously on roll, was objected to, cited, and failed to appear. The objector moved for adjournment and for second diligence, but when asked if he could state any change of circumstances since claimant admitted, or new facts, replied in the negative. Sheriff refused adjournment and admitted claim. Held that this was within discretion of Sheriff, and claim admitted. Practice of objecting without any specific grounds condemned. E. REGISTRATION PROCEDURE. Signing Claim for another. No Mandate. 66. Burns v. Cassells, Nov. 23, 1891 ; 19 E. 287 ; 29 S.L.E. 141. — A claim to be registered was signed " jNIatthew Cassells, per J. Jack Eobertson." Eobertson had no written mandate to sign, and it was not proved that he had oral authority to sign ; but reliance was placed on the fact that Eobertson was the authorised and recognised agent of 30 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. a political party, and mandate was therefore to be presumed. Held that the claim was bad. Time for giving Notice of Objection. Posting. 67. Neilson v. Rohertson, Dec. 18, 1891 ; 19 E. 301 ; 29 S.L.R 242. — A notice of objection, addressed to the person objected to at his residence at Shotts, was posted at Motherwell on the evening of 21st September — the last day for giving such notice of objection — after the last despatch for that day. Held not to be a timeous notice. Objection to Registered Owner. Onus of Proof. 68. Stevenson\. Sutlierland, Dec. 6, 1898 ; 6 S.L.T., I^^o. 302.— Held that the onus of proof of objection to person already registered as an owner lay upon tlie objector. Objection to Lodger. 69. WatsoJi V. Wafson, Dec. 2, 1902; 5 F. 177; 40 S.L.E. 270: 10 S.L.T. p. 272. — An objection to a lodger claim need not be inti- mated either to the claimant or the Sheriff prior to the meeting of the Registration Court. Notice of Objection to Assessor. Omission to state Qualification. 70. Neihoji v. Rohertsnv, Dec. 10, 1891 ; 19 E. 301; 29 S.L.E. 242. — Held that a notice of objection sent to the assessor which did not state the qualification of the person objected to, as appearing in the assessor's list, was not disconform to the statute. See Nos. 76, 81, and 83. Objections to Persons on Roll. Special Case. Appendix. 71. Neilson v. Rohertson, Dec. 10, 1891; 19 E. 301; 29 S.L.E. 242. — Held that the provisions of section 22 of the Eepresentation of the People (Scotland) Act, 1868, as to appending to a special case the names of persons whose cases depend on the same point of law, do not REGISTRATION PROCEDURE. 31 apply to cases arising out of objections to persons already on the roll, a separate special case being necessary for each objection. Time for giving Notice of Objection. 72. WJiyte v. Beattie and others, JS'ov. 14, 1892, unreported. — In this case the decision in Neilson v. Robertson, Dec. 10, 1891 ; 19 R 301, No. 70, was followed, to the effect that a notice of objection posted to the person objected to on 21st September— the last day for giving such notice of objection — after the last despatch of letters for that day, was not timeously given. It ivas sought to distinguish this case from the case of Neilson, in so far as the 'posting of the notice ivas in the post-office of the district of de- livery, ivhereas in Neilso7i's ease the 2'>osting ivas in one postal district for transmission to another 2:)ostal district for deliver g there. The Court refused to draw the distinction, and held that the notice of objection, to be timeously given, must be p)osted in time to be delivered to the person objected to not later than 21st September. SheriflTs Power to amend Lodger Claim, "Joint." 73. Gray v. Craig, Nov. 14, 1892 ; 20 E. 81 ; 30 S.L.E. 63.— The Sheriff is entitled to amend a lodger claim by inserting the word "joint," and substituting "£20" for "£10" as the annual value of the lodgings occupied jointly by the claimant and another, it being admitted that the occupancy was joint, and the value sufficient to ■qualify for both. Cf. Nos. 41, 57, and 78. Notice of Objection. Validity of Signature. Cyclostyle. 74. Whyte v. Watt, Nov. 27, 1893; 21 E. 165 ; 31 S.L.E. 127; 1 S.L.T., No. 365.— Section 4 of the Act, 19 & 20 Vict. c. 58, provides that notices of objection must be signed. An objection was taken to 83 notices that they were not validly signed. The objector himself formed his signature on a prepared wax skin, and the signature was by means of a cyclostyle, which he himself used, transferred to the notices. Held, following the decision in the English case of Bennett V. Brumfiit, 1867, L.E., 3 C.P. 28, that the notices had been validly signed. 32 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. Amendment of Claim. 75. Malcolm y. Eccles, Nov. 26, 1894; 2 S.L.T., N'o. 329.— Eccles claimed to be registered as a county voter in respect of occupation of a house at 8 Colquhoun Square, Helensburgh. By a casual error the claim stated the number of the Square to be 7 in place of 8. Held that the Sheriff was entitled to amend the claim. Amendment of Claim. Column left blank. 76. Oshorne v. Melville, Dec. 7, 1899 ; 2 F. 266 ; 37 S.L.E. 186.— Melville claimed in a county, but left blank the column headed "street, lane, or other place where the property is situated." Held that the Sheriff was not entitled to amend the claim. See Nos. 70, 81, and 83. Municipal Franchise — Competency of Appeal. 77. Wood and others v. Laing, Jan. 18, 1897; 24 R. 382 ; 34 S.L.E. 330 ; 4 S.L.T., No. 364. — An appeal was dismissed as incompetent, on the ground that the Eegistration Appeal Court Avas a Court for hearing appeals, under the 22nd section of 31 & 32 Vict. cap. 48, from the decisions of Sheriffs in Courts for the registration of parlia- mentary voters in counties and burghs, and that the only decision which was brought before them in the case Avas a decision by which the Sheriff had rejected claims to be put upon the list of municipal voters in a parliamentary burgh. See No. 85. Amendment of Lodger Claim. Successive Occupancy. Casual Error. Questions of Fact. 78. Ross V. Carhenj and Sdanders, Nov. 18, 1897 ; 25 E. 98; 35 S.L.E. 109; 5 S.L.T., No. 286. — Carbery claimed as a lodger. Objection was taken on the ground that he had not occupied the lodgings for the statutory period. The Sheriff-Substitute found (1) that the rooms occupied by the claimant were of the requisite value ;. (2) that he had not occupied these rooms for the time required by the statute ; and (3) that he had occupied these rooms in succession to similar rooms previously occupied by him, and that during the year REGISTRATION PROCEDURE. 33 ending 31st July last he had occupied rooms of the requisite value. He also found that the claimant had in fact the requisite qualification, and would be entitled to be registered but for the fact that in his claim the rooms occupied by him for the year ending 31st July last had not all been set forth. He accordingly amended the claim by adding to the description of his present lodgings the words, "and having previously occupied similar apartments in 1 Ardconnel Street and 12 Ardross Street," admitted the claim, and the question was wliether the Sheriff had power to allow the amendment under section 46 of the Registration of Voters (Scotland) Act, 1856. Precisely the same point arose in regard to the claim of ^^ . W. Sclanders. The Court on appeal held the amendment competent, holding that as the Sheriff- Substitute had found as a matter of fact, upon which he was con- clusive, that the failure on the part of the claimant to set forth all that was necessary to enable his claim to be sustained arose from a casual error, and that the claim was stated in perfectly good faith, and was only defective inasmuch as, although the claim set forth the qualification upon which the respondent was entitled to vote, it failed to set out a matter of fact which was necessary to bring the quali- fication to full operation. See Xo. 83. Also Nos. 41, 57, and 73. Honorary Sheriff-Substitute. Disqualification. 79. Wriglit v. KeUie, Dec. 6, 1898; 1 F. 209; 36 S.L.R. 186; 6 S.L.T., No. 299. — Held, in view of the provisions of the boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act, 1857, section 8, and the Ballot Act, 1872, section 2, that an honorary Sheriff-Substitute is not disqualified by the Reform Act, 1832, section 36, from being put upon the register. Objection to Lodger. Attendance of Objector. Mandate. Terms of Citation. 80. V^atson v. Livingstone, Dec. 2, 1902 ; 5 F. 171 ; 40 S.L.R. 267; 10 S.L.T. p. 271. — Held that an objector to a lodger claim need not attend personally in the Registration Court, but may be represented by a mandatory, and that it is a suflRcient mandate to authorise an agent " to take objection in my name to any parties appearing in the assessor's list, and who have not a valid claim to be enrolled." Held further that where objector obtained a warrant to cite witnesses in support of c 438386 34 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. his objection, it was a good citation to cite the claimant to attend, "so that you may be examined on oath as to the validity of the claim made by you." Note. — The Court of Appeal having held that the Sheriff had wrongly refused to hear the evidence of the objector, remitted to the Sheriff to hear him and to amend the case on appeal should the evidence proven or admitted affect the claim. Notice of Objection. Essential Facts Omitted. 81. Johnston v. Hoole, Dec. 16, 1903; 6 F. 231 ; 41 S.L.E. 99; 11 S.L.T. p. 476. — A notice of objection to the name of a person being retained on the roll sent to the assessor omitted to state the nature of the qualification of the person objected to, and the place where the qualifying property was situated. Held, that there being nothing in the notice to connect the voter objected to with the constituency in which the vote was claimed, the facts omitted were essential, and the notice of objection was bad. See IS'o. 70. Objection to Lodger Claims. Evidence of Qualification. 82. Connolly v. Kyle, Dec. 16, 1903; 6 F. 236; 41 S.L.E. 102; 11 S.L.T. p. 478. — A claimant to be enrolled under the lodger franchise, who had made the statutory declaration, was cited to appear as a witness by an objector to his claim, but failed to attend the Registra- tion Court. There being no other evidence, the Sheriff-Substitute asked the objector if he moved for an adjourned diet and second diligence, but the objector declined to do so, and moved that the claim should be forthwith dismissed. The Sheriff-Substitute admitted the claim, upon the ground that the declaration was prima facie evidence of the qualification, and that there was no other evidence to rebut the presumption before the Court. Held that the claim was rightly admitted. Stirling v. Fletcher, No, 49, and Andrews v. Armstrong, No. 50, commented on and explained. Amendment of Claim. Omission to State Houses Successively Occupied. ^^83. Somerville v. Kinnaird, December 18, 1905; 8 F. 335; 43 S.L.E. 337; 13 S.L.T. p. 936.— A claim to be registered as a voter REGISTRATION PROCEDURE. 35 in respect of occupancy set forth as the qualification the occupancy of a house which it appeared the claimant had only occupied for three months. Leave to amend the claim by the insertion of a statement setting forth the successive occupation of other houses for the qualify- ing period was refused. The Sheriff did not find in fact that the omission was due to a casual error. Held that the Sheriff had rightly refused to allow the amendment. Osborne v. Melville, No. 76, approved. Boss V. Carbery, No. 78, distinguished. Adjournment. Discretion of Sheriff. 84. M'Kee v. On; December 18, 1905 ; 8 F. 320; 43 S.L.E. 292; 13 S.L.T. p. 630. — A person, whose claim to be enrolled under the lodger franchise was objected to, had been cited to attend the Kegistra- tion Court, but failed to appear. His agent moved for an adjournment to enable him to appear. The Sheriff refused the motion. Held that as the Sheriff was not bound by law to grant an adjournment, the granting or refusing of it was within his discretion, and as there was nothing in the stated facts to show that he had acted unreasonably in refusing the motion, the appeal must be refused. See Nos. 58, 59, and 60. Municipal Franchise. Appeal. Competency. Failure to pay Burgh Rates. 85. M'Lellany. M'Nish, Dec. 23, 1910; 1911 S.C. 510; 48 S.L.R. 253 ; 1911, 1 S.L.T. p. 68. — Held competent to appeal Sheriff's decision re enrolment of Parish Council elector, and that appeal re enrolment of municipal elector would also be competent in virtue of Town Coiancils Act, 1900. Further held that failure to pay burgh rates, although the claimant had paid poor rates, disqualified claimant from voting as Parish Council elector. See No. 77. Appeal. Objection not stated before Sheriff. Error in Claim. Power to Correct. 86. M'Kergoio v. White, Dec. 15, 1909; 1910 S.C. 215; 47 S.L.E. 168; 1910, 1 S.L.T. p. 34. — In an appeal by special case against the decision of the Sheriff enrolling A.'s name on the roll of voters, the Court declined to consider an objection which had not been taken 36 DIGEST OF SCOTTISH REGISTRATION CASES. before the Sheriff, notwithstanding that the case as stated incorporated the objection. Maitland v. M'Credie, Dec. 19, 1868; 7 Macph. 288. Adamson v. Smith, N'ov. 1879; 17 S.L.R. 158 followed. — Potoer to Sheriff to correct Error in claim. Opinion as to power of Sheriff to amend erroneously stated claim so as to agree with facts reserved. F. MISCELLANEOUS. University Franchise. Right of Women Graduates to Vote. 87. Nairn v. Universities of St Andrews and Edinburgh, Dec. 10, 1908; 1909 S.C. (H.L.) 10; 46 S.L.R. 132; 16 S.L.T. Ql^.—Held that by unwritten constitutional law men only are entitled to vote at parliamentary elections, and, accordingly, that women graduates are not entitled to vote at University parliamentary elections, and that the registrar is not bound to issue voting papers to them. Prepared on behalf of the Scottish Unionist Association by M. P. FRASER, Advocate. 2 Frederick Street, Edinburgh, May 1913. PRINTED BY WILLIAM BLACKWOOD AND SONS UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY Los Angeles This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. X U«tVBR«TYot^CAl.n— *- 1529 S43d 11 1 1 Ml I IN] 11 1 1 '|ll| 11 L 009 595 857 5 yp qriliTMtPM RFniOMAl 1 IPRAHY FACILITY AA 001 353 073 8 it'*'..