Latham and Others v. Glasgow Corporation [1921] ScotLR 501 (25 May 1921)

Latham and Others v. Glasgow Corporation [1921] ScotLR 501 (25 May 1921)

Section 5(1) of the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 does not forbid the issue of requisition papers to a non-elector; the provision is enabling, not restrictive. The statutory requirements were substantially fulfilled, and the technical irregularity alleged did not affect the validity of the requisition or the poll. The pursuers' averments disclosed no relevant case in fact or law.

Citation
[1921] ScotLR 501
Parties
Pursuers: Harry Latham and Others; Defenders: Glasgow Corporation, Sir James Watson Stewart, Sir John Lindsay
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
25 May 1921
Procedural Posture
Civil Action for Reduction/declarator / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House
Outcome
Action dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Statutory Poll Requisition, Construction of Temperance (scotland) Act 1913 S.5(1), Issuance of Requisition Forms to Non Electors, Procedural Irregularity and Statutory Compliance

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Harry Latham and Others

Pursuers

Glasgow Corporation, Sir James Watson Stewart, Sir John Lindsay

Defenders

Procedural Posture

Civil Action for Reduction/declarator / Appeal (reclaiming Motion) From Lord Ordinary to Inner House

  1. 1 Whether requisition papers for a statutory poll must be issued only to electors under s.5(1) of the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913
  2. 2 Whether issuing requisition forms to a non-elector invalidates the poll and subsequent proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

Section 5(1) of the Temperance (Scotland) Act 1913 does not forbid the issue of requisition papers to a non-elector; the provision is enabling, not restrictive. The statutory requirements were substantially fulfilled, and the technical irregularity alleged did not affect the validity of the requisition or the poll. The pursuers' averments disclosed no relevant case in fact or law.

Court Disposition

Action dismissed; judgment for defenders affirmed.

Orders

  • Sustain first plea-in-law for defenders; action dismissed as irrelevant.
  • Defenders entitled to expenses as between agent and client.