1796
FreeholderElection contestAlimentSequestrationDispositionFreehold QualificationCarnegie complained of his removal from the roll of freeholders, arguing that he had departed the meeting before being called to take the trust oath and that no formal intimation had been given. Turnbull answered that Carnegie had been struck off for evading the oath after warning, and further asserted that Carnegie had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote, thereby denying his qualification.AI-generated
Documents in this case (4)
- Petition and Complaint — & Comp.—Major Turnbull against Sir David Carnegie, BaronetJanuary 12, 1796 Information of the complainer, arguing that he was not personally intimated to take the oath of trust and possession, and thus could not be lawfully expunged from the roll.
- Carnegie — Answers, 5 Feb 1796February 5, 1796 Information of the respondents, arguing that Major Turnbull was struck off the roll for evading the truſt-oath after being warned not to leave the meeting
- Major Alexander Turnbull v. Sir David Carnegy, the Honourable William Ramsay Maule, and others — Replies, 11 Feb 1796February 11, 1796 Memorial of the complainer, arguing that he was not improperly expelled from the roll of freeholders because he left the meeting before being called to take the trust oath, and that no formal intimatio…
- Major Alexander Turnbull v. Sir David Carnegie — Duplies, 24 Feb 1796February 24, 1796 Answers by the respondents to the argument made by the complainer, asserting that the complainer had divested himself of all land in the county prior to appearing at Forfar to assert a vote.
People & places in this case
People involved
- John Ure — Party
- Sir David Carnegie, of Southesk, 4th Baronet — Party
- James Urquhart, of Meldrum — Party
- Charles Hay, of Newton, Lord Newton — Advocate for Party
