Legal Subject: Voting rights

Case Date Legal Subject Abstract
High v. Main 1788 Election contest, Election, Oath, Corporation, Adjudication, Voting rights Thomas High and Robert Main contested the deaconship of the Kinghorn Weavers' Incorporation, Main having petitioned to alter the council's decision admitting High to the office in his place. The central question was whether town-servants under the magistrates held voting rights in such elections, with the complainers citing precedents from Inverkeithing, Cupar, Perth, and Haddington to support their position. James Donaldson and others raised parallel challenges to the election of the deacon of the bakers, and the parties submitted answers and petitions seeking alteration of the Court's interlocutors.
Robert Fall v. Robert Louthean and Others 1791 Aliment, Jurisdiction, Election contest, Inhibition, Reduction, Voting rights Robert Fall pursued Robert Louthean and others, complaining that the Town Council of Kilrenny had illegally deprived him of his office as councillor and elected others in his absence. Sir John Anstruther argued that the competency of the action was the sole point before the Court, as directed by Lord Eskgrove.
Shaw v. Fleming 1775 Elections, Burgh, Election contest, Election, Voting rights, Aliment This case concerns a disputed election in the burgh of Rutherglen. Different trades (including deacons, masons, and weavers) would meet with members of their industry and submit lists of candidates for the elections, a common election practice of the period. Pursuers George Shaw et al. lodged a complaint against the town council of the burgh of Rutherglen. Apparently the town council adopted a practice of restricting voting to resident masons and wrights, and disallowed non-resident masons and wrights from voting. Shaw et al. alleged that this attempt to disenfranchise the non-resident masons and wrights was unlawful.
William Toshack v. Alexander Smart 1771 Voting rights, Valuation, Feu, Election, Election contest, Teinds The office of the schoolmaster in the parish of St. Cuthbert's became vacant. In the election of an assistant schoolmaster for the parish, two questions occurred as to the right of voting. The pursuer, Mr. Toshach who participated in the election, maintained that all the heritors whatsoever, who were liable in payment of cess and parish burdens, had a right. The defender, on the other hand, maintained that the right was reserved only to such heritors as were separately valued on the cess-roll. To decide this issue the Lords looked at the terms and meaning of the Act of 1696, c. 26. for the settling of schools. The pursuer also argued that the liferenter, whilst the defender affirmed that the fiar, had the preferable right of voting. The Lord Ordinary found the liferenter "has a right to vote, and not the fiar.”

Documents discussing this subject (54)