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 in this case (1)
- Alexander Smart v. William Toshach — Answers, 11 Jul 1771July 11, 1771 Information of the respondents, arguing that heritors bound by title-deeds to pay cess are entitled to vote, regardless of separate valuation in cess-books.
People & places in this case
People involved
- William Toshach — Pursuer
- Alexander Smart — Defender
- Lord Francis Napier — Pursuer
- James Stewart, Esq. — Pursuer
- Thomas Trotter, of Mortonhall — Pursuer
- George Warrander, of Bruntsfield — Pursuer
- Thomas Brown, of Braid — Pursuer
- Thomas Carnegy, of Craigo — Pursuer
- Gideon Schaw, of Laurieston — Pursuer
- William Chalmer, Easter Dalry — Pursuer
- Robert Angus, of Balgonie — Pursuer
- John Nisbet, of Eastbank — Pursuer
- Alexander Belsches, of Greenyards — Advocate for Defender
- Alexander Ferguson, of Damhead
Where this case took place
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.”
