ROBINSON & Ors, v STEWART and WEBSTER (Court of Session)

In a competition for the trusteeship on the sequestrated estates of John Gall and Company of Aberdeen, the candidates were, on the one hand, William Robinson, advocate, John Glennie, merchant, and William Garrow, advocate in Aberdeen; and, on the other, William Stewart and Alexander Webster, also advocates in Aberdeen.

To Robinson it was objected, that he and his partners had, on the day of election, purchased bills for the purpose of creating a majority of votes in his favour, some of which had been alleged by the bankrupts to be forged. The same objection occurred to Garrow, but it was not stated at the election meeting; and to Glennie it was objected, that he had an interest adverse to that of the creditors in general, in consequence of the company, of which he is a partner, claiming on a bill which was, at an early period, challenged by the bankrupt Gall as not genuine.

On the other hand, it was objected to Stewart and Webster, that attempts of the same kind had been made, by friends of one of the bankrupts, to support them in their election; but these were not brought home to the candidates themselves. It was also objected to Stewart, that he was a trustee under a deed granted by the bankrupts immediately before their insolvency; that he was agent for Gall as an individual; and that, from his situation as trustee on the individual estates of the bankrupts, he might have an adverse interest to that of the creditors of the company.

It appears, from Mr Blackie's evidence, that the bill claimed on by Glennie and Black was challenged as forged, before the contest as to the election, at a time when Gall, along with Robinson, came to examine the bills in Mr Blackie's possession. Mr Garrow's concern in the purchase from the Town and County Bank is proved by the evidence of Mr Mitchell, and on his having claimed on one of the bills so acquired.

Of the objections made to Mr Stewart, the Lord Ordinary does not consider that founded on his being a trustee under the trust-deed as of any weight, as he sees no impropriety in the attempts at first made to wind up the affairs of the bankrupt in that way. Neither does he think Mr Stewart's having been agent for Gall as an individual, when he was not agent for the company, constituted him a confident person in relation to the company; while the allegation that he offered to act without charging any commission has not been proved.