M'Lennan for £28 9s.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The affidavit produced is blank in the name of the Justice of the Peace before whom it is pretended to have been emitted. 2, The bill founded on stands especially assigned to the Caledonian Bank, with whom the same was discounted, mad the claimant, at the date of the affidavit, was not the true creditor therein, or in titulo thereof, having ly borrowed the same for the purpose of voting. 3, The second branch of the claim is made up to the extent of £6 of money alleged to have been given in loan to the bankrupt, but for which no voucher is produced referred to as in existence. 4, The account founded was not produced to the Justice of the Peace at the mitting of the oath before him, if such oath was emitted, at least it is not sufficiently identified with the affidavit. The signature of the bankrupt on the back of the account was adhibited after, or at least on the eve of, the sequestration, for the purpose of rearing up a claim, and is not, in the circumstances, a sufficient voucher of the debt.

II-Claim and Vote of Adam Davidson, solicitor, airn, as Mandatory of the British Linen Company, for 69 10s 6d.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, No mandate produced at the meeting entitling Mr Davidson to pear and vote for the bank. 2, The bill produced ad founded on in support of Branch V. of the state debt annexed to the affidavit is null and void under he Stamp Acts, having been altered in a material part the deletion of a signature after being issued. III-Claim and Vote of the said Alexander Mann for 1987d.

This vote is objected to in respect the claimant was st the date of the affidavit, the real and onerous Bler of, or entitled to, the bill of £23 178 6d founded , but had merely borrowed the same for the purpose voting, from the Caledonian Bank, with which it was scounted, and to whom it still stands specially endorsed the claimant.

IV-Claim and Vote of the said Alexander Mann for

37.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The bill founded on in the affidavit was not produced at the meeting. 2, The claimant gave no value for the bill, at least if he did so, he acquired the same to the extent of one-half, at or immediately after the date of the sequestration, for the mere purpose of voting and controlling the election of a trustee. 3, The affidavit bears that the claimant holds no other person than the bankrupt bound for the debt or any part thereof, whereas it appears ex facie of the affidavit and bill, that Mr C. B. M'Intosh, who is joint drawer of the bill, is liable in relief to the claimant to the extent of one-half of the sum contained in it. 4, Separatim, The affidavit bears ex facie that the claimant is himself the proper debtor in the bill.

V.-Claim and Vote of Hugh Grant, shoemaker, Nairn, for £101 17s 3d.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The claimant is conjunct and confident with the bankrupt. 2, The

first two items of the account founded on for lime and

oats, and the subsequent item for meal, amounting together to £23 7s, are prescribed. 3, The remainder of the account, to the extent of £69 13s 6d is made up of alleged cash advances to the bankrupt, and interest thereon, for which no vouchers are produced or referred to as in existence. 4, The docquet on said account being without date, the presumption in law is that it was written and signed after the date of the sequestration, and in point of fact appears ex facie of the account itself to have been written and signed since 29th January last, long after the insolvency of the bankrupt, and on the eve of the sequestration, for the purpose of raising up a claim, and is not, in these circumstances, a sufficient voucher of such a claim.

VI.-Claim and Vote of William Arres, farmer, Delnies, for £51 11s 8d.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The item of £2 mentioned in the affidavit is unvouched. 2, The claimant has failed to give credit for, or deduct from his claim the value of a field of turnips belonging to the bankrupt, consumed by the claimant's sheep, and for the price of which the bill produced was granted.

VII.-Claim and Vote of the said Adam Davidson, as Mandatory for Charles Bain M'Intosh, draper in Nairn, for £40 Os 7 d.

The account produced is made up to the extent of £27 8s 3d of cash, said to have been lent or advanced to the bankrupt, and interest thereon, but for which no voucher is produced or referred to as in existence.

VIII.-Claim and Vote of the said Adam Davidson, as Mandatory for Robert Thomson, merchant in Nairn,

for £4 10s 6d.

This claim is objected to in respect that to the extent of £4 68 8d, it is liable to the same objection as that last above stated, which is here held as repeated.

IX.-Claim and Vote of Alexander Jeans, boot and shoemaker in Nairn, for £11 13s 6d.

To the extent of £5 2s 6d this vote is liable to the objection last above stated, which is here held as repeated.

X.-Claim and Vote of the said Adam Davidson, as Mandatory for William Falconer, teacher, Nairn, for

£5 1s 8d.

This vote is liable to the objection last above stated, which is here held as repeated.

XI.-Claim and Vote of the said Adam Davidson, as Mandatory for William Whyte, draper in Nairn, for £3 178 4d.

1, To the extent of 10s this vote is liable to the objection last above stated, which is here held as repeated. 2, The rest of the claim is prescribed.

XII.-Claim and Vote of the said Adam Davidson, as Mandatory for Alexander Davidson, grocer, Nairn, for £3 7s 8d.

This vote is liable to the same objection as in No. VII. supra, which, mutatis mutandis, is here held as repeated. XIII.-Claim and Vote of Gilbert Watson, residing at Broadley, for £211 78 3d.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The claimant does not appear in the sederunt of the meeting, and consequently has no persona standi or right to interfere so long as that sederunt remained unaltered, and he was represented therein by a properly authorised Mandatory whose mandate stood unrecalled, and who gave a valid vote for the objector before the claimant interfered.

But alternatively, and in the event of the claimant's right, in the above circumstances, to vote as he did being established, the vote is objected to on the additional ground-2, That he is the bankrupt's father-in-law, and conjunct and confident with him. 3, The promissory notes produced and founded on were not written or granted of the dates they bear, but were concocted after the date, or at least on the eve of the sequestration, for the purpose of raising up a claim, and controlling the election of a trustee, and are not, under any circumstances, sufficient vouchers of debt between persons so nearly related as the claimant and the bankrupt. 4, The two other documents produced are liable to the objection last mentioned, and, separatim, refer to totally different transactions, besides being null and void under the Stamp Acts.

XIV.—Claim and Vote of the said Alexander Mann, as Mandatory for George Morrison, sole partner of the firm of George Morrison & Son, seedsmen in Elgin, for £8 18 6d.

This vote is objected to in respect-1, The claimant was not, at the date of the affidavit, the real and onerous holder thereof, but merely borrowed it from the bank, to which it stands indorsed, who are the true creditors therein, and accordingly the affidavit does not bear that the debt "is now" resting owing to the claimant, as required by the statute. 2, The bill now produced was not exhibited to the Justice of the Peace at the emission of the oath, and is not the bill referred to in the state of debt annexed to the affidavit, at least there is a want of specification and identification of the grounds of debt in the affidavit, which is fatal to its validity.

XV.-Claim and Vote of the said Alexander Mann, as Mandatory for John White, farmer at Broombank, for £12.

1, This vote is liable to the same objection as in No. VII. supra, which is here held as repeated, mutatis mutandis. 2, Separatim, the affidavit is altered and vitiated by ex post facto, or at least unauthenticated, deletions and interlineations in initialibus,

For Mr Mann

I.-Oath of the said Alexander Allan Gregory, claiming to vote and to be ranked for the sum of £30 6s. Objected that this claim and the vote given thereon an null for the following reasons, viz.,-First, Because th oath or affidavit produced has not been sworn before Justice of the Peace, Alexander Shaw, the Justice name not being a Justice of the Peace for Inverness-shire, any other shire in his individual name or capacity, at the affidavit not bearing that he is one ex officio. Secon Because the affidavit has been vitiated and annulled the alteration therein of the word "thirty," referri to the amount of the bill therein specified. Thi Because there has thus been no oath or affidavit p duced in support of the claim.

The above sum of £30 6s should therefore be str off from the amount ranked as voting for Mr Gregory

II.-Oath by John Robertson, farmer, Drynie, claim to vote and be ranked for the sum of £125 11s Objected, that this claim and the vote given thereon for the following reasons null to the extent after-m tioned, viz.,-First, The claim and vote are null so as regards the bill for £25, with 2s 6d of interest then together, £25 2s 6d, secondly referred to in the aff in respect the bill and amount thereby due have i been validly acquired by the claimant, Mr Robe and were not acquired at all by him till after the da the sequestration.-19 and 20 Vict., cap. 79, sect. The bill was held by the British Linen Compan indorsees and holders at and prior to the sequestra As appears from the markings on it, it was only on 11th of February current, four days after the seque tion, that Mr Robertson paid part of it to the ind and holders, viz., £12 13s 6d. Mr C. B. Mackin draper, Nairn, advanced to the indorsees and h £12 11s due on the bill only on the day following, 12th February current, and the claimant, Mr Robe paid this sum only on the 17th current to Mr Ma tosh, and the bill was not assigned or indorsed in or in part to the claimant by either the British 1 Company or Mr Mackintosh. Second, The clai vote are null so far as regards the bill for £50 fs referred to in the affidavit, in respect the bill has vitiated and annulled by alterations of the sum of sterling" at the outset, and the word "four" ap to the term of payment thereof.

The sum of (1,) £25 2s 6d claimed in respect o bill for £25, and (2,) £49 9s 10d claimed in resp the said bill for £50, should therefore be struck off the amount ranked under this claim as voting fo Gregory.

III.-Oath by Mrs Janet Watson or Matheson, cla to vote and to be ranked for the sum of £45 11 Objected, that this claim and the vote given there null-First, Because the bill was not produced a meeting, and is not authenticated as being so pro by the initials of the Preses. Second, Because th and affidavit per se do not instruct the claim Third, Because the memorandum or letter of 11th 1862, has no bearing on the claim, and is moreov specified in the affidavit or minutes of meeting cannot therefore be made available.

The sum of £45 11s 2d should therefore be stru

om the amount ranked under this claim as voting for Mr Gregory. V-Oath by the said John Robertson, claiming to rete and to be ranked for the sum of £149 10s 2d. Obcted-First, This claim and the vote given thereon are holly null, for the following reasons: (1,) Because the at the outset of the bill for £150 founded upon has altered, viz., altered from £50 to £150, and the has been thereby vitiated and annulled. (2,) Bethe bill and debt were held by the British Linen any as indorsees and holders at and prior to the stration on the 7th of February current, and were required by the claimant, at least were acquired after the date of the sequestration, viz., on the of February current,-see marking on bill, and 19 0 Vict., cap. 79, sect. 64. (3,) Because no valid affidavit has been produced, the only one lodged inept, in respect it does not bear that the oath was d in the presence of any named Justice of the Second, Without prejudice to the foregoing tions, this claim and the vote given upon it are the extent of £74 15s 1d, being one-half of its in respect the bill founded on is the joint accepthe claimant, Mr Robertson and the bankrupt, claimant, Mr Robertson is, ex facie, and in point the proper debtor to the extent of the said half, not more than the other half due by the bank

of £149 10s 2d under objection first, if susif it be repelled, the sum of £74 15s 1d under second should be struck off from the amount voting for Mr Gregory under this claim.

by the said John Robertson, claiming to vote ranked for the sum of £206 6s 1d. Objected, claim and the vote given in respect of it are respect the claimant never acquired any legal the debt founded on, amounting to £206 6s ld, never did so till after the date of the sequestrait is incompetent to claim or vote in respect acquired subsequent to that date.-19 and cap. 79, sect. 64. As appears by the bond and receipt endorsed, it was only on the February current that Mr Robertson paid at of that claim to the British Linen Comin the most favourable view for him, it was if at all, that he acquired right to the debt in respect of it. But further, he never right to the debt, the payment and receipt no such right, and he could not have acexcept by a formal assignation. above sum of £206 6s 1d should therefore be from the amount ranked as voting for Mr under this claim.

Oath by " Alexander Hay," claiming to vote as for Gilbert Watson, for the sum of £211 Objected, this claim and the vote given under it for the following reasons, viz.,-First, The ar that "the said Alexander Hay" appeared ad the papers, and claimed to vote, but no as Alexander Hay is previously entered in and there is no mandate produced in favour Alexander Hay." The Alexander Hay who d and claimed had therefore no authority to act.

Second, Mr Alexander Penrose Hay, solicitor, Inverness, who afterwards claimed right to vote as Mandatory for Mr Watson, had no right so to act, (1,) because he was not named in the sederunt as the holder of the mandate; (2,) because Mr Watson himself, as appears from the minutes, was personally present and voted personally for the objector, Mr Alexander Mann, as trustee, and the objector, Mr Alexander Finlay M'Lennan, as trustee in succession before Mr Alexander Penrose Hay tendered the vote for Mr Gregory as Mr Watson's Mandatory, and Mr Watson's personal vote was not only preferable to the vote subsequently tendered for him, in respect it was first given, but his giving it was a legal recall of the alleged mandate, if it had existed in favour of the person claiming to use it.

The above sum of £211 7s 3d should therefore be struck off from the amount ranked as voting for Mr Gregory under this claim.

VII.-Oath by William Fraser, Dock Cottage, Avoch, claiming to vote and to be ranked for the sum of £25 8s 9d. Objected, First, This is not a debt due by the bankrupt—he knows nothing about it or the alleged creditor. Mr John Robertson, Drynie, the alleged coobligant, is the proper debtor. Second, The document founded on in the affidavit is an obligation," and the one produced was, according to the minutes, a "promissory note," but the one actually produced and initialed is a "receipt," and it is null, (1,) because it is not the paper founded on in either the affidavit or minutes; (2) because, although a receipt, it is not written on a receipt stamp. If these objections be not sustained on the showing of the documents, the objector refers objection first to Mr Robertson's oath.

The above sum of £25 8s 9d should therefore be struck off from the amount ranked as voting for Mr Gregory under this claim.

VIII.-The sheet containing pages 21st and 22d of the minutes of the meeting for electing a trustee must be held pro non scripto, in respect the same are not signed by the Chairman, at least were not signed by him till the 20th day of February current.

Parties' procurators having been heard in support of their respective objections, the Sheriff pronounced the the following judgment:

The Sheriff-Substitute having heard parties' procurators on the Notes of Objections for Alexander Allan Gregory, corn merchant, Inverness, and Alexander Mann, coal and lime merchant, Nairn, as trustee, and Alexander Finlay M'Lennan, farmer at Urchany, as trustee in succession, competitors for the office of trustee on the sequestrated estates of John Pearson, farmer at Broadley, Finds and declares, for the reasons stated in the annexed note, the said Alexander Allan Gregory to have been duly elected as trustee on the said sequestrated estates: Finds modified expenses due by the unsuccessful parties to the successful party, Alexander Allan Gregory, for the competition, and allows an account to be given in and taxed, and decerns.

NOTE. As the result of the Sheriff-Substitute's judgment on the Objections to the election in question, there falls to be Mann, as trustee, and Alexander Finlay M'Lennan, as trustee deducted from the amount of the votes given for Alexander in succession, the amount of four hundred and nineteen pounds fifteen shillings and twopence, and from the amount of the votes in favour of Alexander Allan Gregory, the shillings and sixpence, leaving a balance of two hundred and amount of three hundred and thirty one pounds thirteen forty-nine pounds and sixpence in favour of Alexander Allan

Gregory, thus entitling him to be confirmed as having a majority of legal votes. The following are the grounds of judgment:

On the State of Objections for Alexander Allan Gregory to votes tendered for Alexander Mann, and Alexander Finlay M'Lennan.

Objected 1. Vote for Alexander Finlay M'Lennan. Objection 1st to this vote is departed from, and besides is invalid. 2d. As acceptor, the bankrupt is debtor in the bill to the claimant, who being in possession of it is entitled to claim for it, and no proof is offered of its having been borrowed for the purpose of voting. 3, 4, 5. The account is sufficiently identified with the affidavit. So far as regards borrowed money, the claim is not sufficiently vouched in writing, and looking at the only date in the account, the signature of the bankrupt must have been adhibited on the eve of, if not after, sequestration.

2. Vote for the British Linen Company.

Although it appears from the minutes that a mandate was produced at the meeting, there is no mandate in process marked by the preses as required by statute to instruct that a valid one was produced. Objection sustained.

3. Vote for Alexander Mann for claim of £26 19s 7d. The claimant is drawer, and in possession of the bill referred to in the objection, and must be held as a lawful creditor of the Bankrupt as acceptor. No proof is adduced or offered that the bill was borrowed merely for the purpose of voting. 4. Vote for Alexander Mann for £37.

According to the minutes of the meeting of creditors, the bill on which this claim is founded was borrowed up and retained by the agent for the claimant, as concurring creditor in the sequestration. Its production in the process of which it formed a part at the time of the meeting, is, in the circumstances, considered equivalent to its production at the meeting. Any claim Mann may have against the joint drawer does not prevent him from voting in respect of the full amount paid by him and due by the bankrupt. To that effect the bill held and produced by the claimant is a good document of debt. What is objected to in the affidavit as bearing that the claimant is himself the proper debtor in the bill, has been corrected at the Bar, of consent.

5. Vote for Hugh Grant.

The objection of conjunct and confident (which is not pressed) is rejected. The docquet signed by the bankrupt bears no date, and proves nothing. The advances, with interest, are not instructed by legal vouchers, and are therefore disallowed in voting. Quoad ultra, the claim is not prescribed, and the vote is good.

6. Vote of William Arres.

The statement in the affidavit of £2 as a balance, instead of specifying how that balance arose, is too general, and the objection on that point is sustained. The second objection is not insisted in.

7 to 12, inclusive, and 15. Votes for Charles Bain Mackintosh, Robert Thomson, Alexander Jeans, William Falconer, William Whyte, Alexander Davidson, and John Whyte.

The objections are all sustained as regards claims for cash lent or advanced, with the addition, in William Whyte's case, of his account for goods, which is prescribed, and none of which claims are supported by legal vouchers.

13. Vote of Gilbert Watson.

The claimant, as being the bankrupt's father-in-law, is con junct with him, and the promissory notes, which are of but recent date, are not supported by adminicles sufficient to entitle him to vote.

14. Vote for George Morrison, sole partner of the firm of George Morrison & Son.

The affidavit appears to be sufficiently specific in all respects as applicable to the bill.

On Note of Objections for Alexander Mann and Alexander Finlay M'Lennan to Alexander Allan Gregory as claiming to be trustee.

1. Vote for Alexander Allan Gregory.

The affidavit having been sworn before a person who is p sonally or ex officio a Justice of the Peace, it is unnecessary specify in it whether he is so in either way. The affida does not appear to be vitiated, as alleged; the word "thir being as originally written and sufficiently distinct.

2. Vote for John Robertson (on sum of £125 11s 7d). In the bills specified in this objection, the bankrupt sta as acceptor and debtor to the claimant, by whom they y held at the time of claiming, thus affording him a right to It is not at all clear that there was any alteration of the in figures at the outset of the bill for fifty pounds, or in part of the body of the bill, which appears quite complete

3. Vote for Janet Watson or Matheson.

The bill (promissory note) forming the ground of debt referred to in this objection, is not authenticated by the of the meeting, and cannot therefore be regarded as prov right to vote, and which right is not otherwise instr Objection sustained.

4. Vote for John Robertson for £149 10s 2d.

This claim is rejected to the extent of one-half, becau claimant, ex facie of the bill claimed on, is to that debtor, and there is no evidence produced that he is n As to the other half, the claimant having paid the amount due in the bill, he became entitled to vote as debt due by the bankrupt to him.

5. Vote for John Robertson for £206 6s 1d.

This vote is sustained, as the credit account for whi bond in question was granted was to be kept in the ba name; and it is therefore, and according to general p to be presumed that the credit was for his exclusive and the claimant having paid the whole amount de obtained a receipt therefor, and the bond and fitted having been delivered up to him, and he having wo the debt is justly due to him by the bankrupt, the clain to be unexceptionable.

6. Vote by Alexander Hay for Gilbert Watson.

Gilbert Watson's right to vote having been found ins in disposing of the objections for Mr Gregory, for the stated under No. 13 of his objections, any vote by his tory must be held invalid; but, separatim, on the obj Mann and M'Lennan, the vote given by a Mandatory claimant could not be sustained, as, according to the s Mandatory can vote only in absence of the creditor. 7. Vote for Alexander Fraser.

This claim is sustained, the document claimed on! law a promissory note. See M'Cubbin v. Stephen, 10t 1856, Jurist, v. 28.

8. Authentication of Minutes.

The truth of the minutes is not impunged in any ps They appear to be quite consecutive and correct, and a by the preses on almost all the pages, and on every s these and all the circumstances of the case-even certain signatures may have been applied only as a objections-it does not appear legally necessary or hold any part of the minutes to be null.

For Gregory-J. D. LAMB. For Mann-ADAM DA