| Abercromby v. Speirs and others |
9 Mar 1802
|
Peerage of Scotland, Freeholder |
George Abercromby brought a case to be found and maintain as the freeholder (an estate in land, inherited or held for life) of Scotland, on his being the oldest son of a Peeress created by the Sovereign of United Kingdom. Defendants, some freeholders of the County of Stirling questioned that Pursuer did not have such a privilege, because he did not have connection at all with with the old Scots Peerage. |
| Davidson v. Elphinstone |
6 Jul 1802
|
Mandate, Freeholder, Property rights, Title (detour), Landlord |
Robert Hill, as the agent of the Honourable Charles Elphinstone, Captain of the Royal Navy, claimed property rights of Eastern Glenboig, otherwise known as Endboig, with the mill, mill-lands, and other land (County of Stirling). The Title-deeds (Detour) and other records related to the case were submitted in order to support the enrollment of C. Elphinstone. Harry Davidson objected, first that the titles were not legal evidence of the old extend, and second, that Hill was not entitled to act in name and on behalf of H. Charles Elphinstone, because he was out of the Kingdom and there was no special mandate granted to Hill for such purposes. Taking into consideration the objections, the Lords sustained that H. Charles Elphinstone could not be enrolled as a freeholder (landlord) of the Glenboig. |
| Fraser v. Fraser |
1803
|
Retour, Freeholder, Estate |
Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser of Lower Grosvenor's Street, London, petitions to be enrolled as a freeholder of the lands and barony of Durris for the county of Inverness, and to serve in Parliament on behalf of Inverness. Simon Fraser protests approval of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's enrollment as a freeholder on the grounds that the source Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser uses to prove his title and the value of the land is inaccurate. The others overrule him and approve the enrollment. Simon Fraser subsequently files a complaint with the Lords of Council and Session to dispute the sufficiency of Dr. William Mackinnon Fraser's claim to the lands, and thus his claim to a position on the roll of freeholders. In the course of the proceedings, Simon Fraser dies, and his case is taken up on his behalf by his uncle, William Fraser, Esq. of Queen's Square, Bloomsbury, London. |
| M'Whinnie v. Goldie |
1802
|
Estate, Freeholder, Property |
William M'Whinnie had claimed to be enrolled in the roll of freeholders of Kirkcudbright, and had presented documents to support his ownership of the estate of Dunjarg in the stewartry of Kirkcudbright. At the meeting of the Kirkcudbright freeholders, Major-General thomas Goldie objected to M'Whinnie's enrollment, arguing that there was no evidence that the lands of Dunjarg were a five-merk land of old extent, and also that the title Mr. M'Whinnie claimed was nominal and fictitious due to the fact that the name of the estate was spelled differently in the older documents. Due to an indisposition, Mr. M'Whinnie was not at the meeting, and could not answer the accusations. Major-General Goldie believed that Mr. M'Whinnie was not in ill health, but had missed the meeting intentionally to avoid interrogation. The freeholders decided against enrolling him due to his absence, and Mr. M'Whinnie then took the case to the Lords of Council and Session, including written answers to the freeholders' questions. In his reply to the petition, Major-General Goldie requested that the Court ordain Mr. M'Whinnie to undergo oral examination and answer the interrogatory accusations in person as to the integrity of his claim upon the Dunjarg estate, because he believed that Mr. M'Whinnie had commissioned others to draft his responses for him. |
| Penrose-Cumming v. Lawson |
1785
|
Freeholder, Perjury, Oath, Libel |
This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament, alleged that his opponent, James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was John Lawson, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Lawson argued that his oath was not false, because he was, in fact, entitled to vote. Lawson further argued that whether or not he was lawfully entitled to vote, he had reasonably believed that his oath was true. |
| Penrose-Cumming v. Rev. Leslie |
1787
|
Libel, Title to Pursue, Oath, Perjury, Freeholder |
This case was about the enforcement of qualifications to vote in a parliamentary election. Alexander Penrose-Cumming, a candidate for Parliament and a freeholder in Moray, alleged that James, Earl Fife, had distributed fictitious freehold interests in order to skew the vote. Before voting, the holders of these allegedly fictitious interests were required to swear an oath attesting to their qualifications. Based on this oath, Penrose-Cumming charged the voters with perjury. One of the accused voters was Rev. William Leslie, the pannel (i.e., the defendant) in this case. Leslie’s qualification to vote rested on a wadset (similar to a mortgage) of a superiority over part of the lands of Kinneddar. During the proceeding against him, Leslie raised a number of arguments against the charges. These included that Penrose-Cumming lacked the kind of specific injury that would give him title to pursue the case, that Penrose-Cumming had failed to allege sufficiently detailed facts, and that Leslie's rights were not, in fact, fictitious. |
