Mackay y Crawford. ARGYLLSHIRE. when he says that it is law that a master may dismiss a servant for the first act of disobedience. I think the law is that both Dec. 13, 1892. parties must behave reasonably, and that where the servant is apprehensive of danger the master ought to explain. I do not enter further into the facts of the case, because they are sufficiently dealt with by the Sheriff-Substitute. I therefore repel the appellant's contentions in fact and in law. Sheriff M'KECHNIE. D. M. For pursuer-Mr. DICKSON, S.S.C., Campbeltown. No. 18. ARGYLLSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (Cowal District), Pursuers; DAVID J. URQUHART, Defender. ARGYLLSHIRE. Argyllshire County Council v Urquhart. July 4, 1892. Road-Property-Fence on public road.-Held that a proprietor was not bound to keep back an iron wire fence 25 feet from the centre of a public road. The facts of the case were shortly as follows:-The defender put up an ordinary iron and wire fence upon his estate of Coylet on Loch Eck in order to fence his ground. The pursuers (the Cowal District Committee) then raised an action in the Sheriff Court at Inveraray asking the Court to ordain the defender to remove certain parts of the fence he had erected to a distance of 25 feet from the centre of the road at Coylet. They founded their case on the latter part of the following clause in section 91, 1 and 2 Will. IV. c. 43, " And be it enacted that no houses, "walls, or other buildings above seven feet high shall be "erected without the consent of the trustees previously “obtained in writing, and no new enclosures or plantations shall be made, within the distance of 25 feet from the centre "of any turnpike road." The pursuers contended that the fence in question was an "enclosure," and therefore must be kept 25 feet back from the centre of the road. The defender pleaded, inter alia, that such a construction would be inconsistent with the previous part of the section above quoted, and that the words " enclosures and plantations as used in that Act meant one and the same thing, and only applied where trees were planted which would overshadow the road and so injure it. They referred to several old Scotch Acts, some of which were repealed by 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 43, where these words or similar ones were used in that sense. The defender's contention was sustained by the Sheriff-Substitute (SHAIRP), and the Sheriff (M'KECHNIE), in the following interlocutors : INVERARAY, 4th July, 1892.-The Sheriff-Substitute having Sheriff SHAIRP. considered the petition and condescendence for the pursuers, finds that they have failed therein to state a relevant case: Therefore assoilzies the defender from the conclusions of the action; finds ARGYLLSHIRE. the pursuers liable in expenses, &c. J. C. SHAIRP. Note. The pursuers' whole case rests upon the provisions contained in 1 & 2 Will. IV. c. 43, sec. 91. I am of opinion that the actings of the defender, as set forth by the pursuers, do not amount to a contravention of that section, and that its provisions are not directed against the erection of an ordinary iron fence such as that averred to have been erected by the defender. In section 91 the word "fence" never once occurs, though the word "fence" is used in the same Act in sections 94 and 95, where the Legislature had fences in view. It may be more difficult to say what "enclosure" is, but I am of opinion that in section 91 it is very much an equivalent for "plantation," and that the main intention of the section is to prevent a road being shut in by high walls, plantations, or anything that would keep it damp, which certainly cannot be done by an ordinary iron fence. I think this opinion is in harmony with the case of Partick Police Commissioners v Great Western Steam Laundry Co., 27 Jan. 1886, 13 R. 500. J. C. S. EDINBURGH, 6th October, 1892.-The Sheriff having considered the cause, with the reclaiming petition and answers, adheres to the interlocutor appealed against, finds the pursuers liable in additional expenses, &c. D. M'KECHNIE. Note. The pursuers petition the Court to ordain the defender to remove to a distance of 25 feet from the centre of certain roads a fence erected by him. The demand is said to be supported by section 91 of 1 & 2 William IV. cap. 43, which is reserved as in full force by the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act, section 123. I have read section 91, and I am unable to find the word "fence" mentioned in it, and I am unable to read into Acts of Parliament words of confiscation of private property. The defender has erected a fence-an iron fence-on his own property, and I do not see that I have any power to prevent him from doing so. Even if the matter depended upon the construction of the statute I should have arrived at the same conclusion. But the case of the Partick Commissioners referred to in the Sheriff-Substitute's note is conclusive in itself against the pursuers. D. M'K. The pursuers appealed to the First Division of the Court of Session, but afterwards abandoned their appeal. For pursuers-Messrs. DISSELDUFF & GUTHRIE, Dunoon. For defender-Mr. ROBERT GRIERSON (Messrs. KEYDENS, STRANG, Argyllshire County Council v Urquhart. July 4, 1892. Sheriff SHAIRP. Oct. 6, 1892 Sheriff M'KECHNIE. No. 19. Caledonian Insurance Co. v. Robertson, &c. SHERIFF COURT OF MIDLOTHIAN. MIDLOTHIAN. THE CALEDONIAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Pursuers; WILLIAM BRYSON ROBERTSON and Others, Defenders. Process-Interlocutor not appealable where question of expenses reserved.In an action of maills and duties, held by the Sheriff that an appeal from the Sheriff-Substitute was incompetent where the Sheriff-Substitute had disposed of the matters in controversy, but reserved the question of expenses. Dec. 21, 1892. The following interlocutor by the Sheriff (BLAIR) explains the point in dispute: EDINBURGH, 21st December, 1892.-The Sheriff having heard Sheriff BLAIR. Counsel for the pursuers and the agent for the defenders, in respect the interlocutor appealed against does not dispose of the question of expenses, dismisses the appeal as incompetent; finds the pursuers liable in the expenses of the appeal, modifies the same to the sum of one guinea; remits the cause to the SheriffSubstitute, and decerns. ALEXR. BLAIR. Note. The interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute, dated 9th December, 1892, appealed against, taken with the preceding interlocutors, disposes of the matters in controversy between the parties,"reserving all questions of expenses." The respondent objected that this was not a final judgment in the sense of section 27 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act, 1876, and therefore not appealable. The term "final judgment" is defined in section 3 of the Act, and the expression there used "whole subject matter "of the cause" has been authoritatively determined to apply to and include expenses. (See Baird v Burton, 9 R. 970; see also Greenock Parochial Board v. Miller, 4 R. 737, and Russell v Allan, 5 R. 22.) The Sheriff, therefore, has sustained the objection to the competency of the appeal. A. B. [Additional authority-Weir v Tudhope, 14th June, 1892, 19 R. 858.1 For pursuers-Mr. A. J. YOUNG, advocate; Messrs. CUTHBERT & For defenders-Mr. D. W. WALLACE, S.S.C., Edinburgh. No. 20. JAMES WILSON (with consent of Procurator-Fiscal), Com MIDLOTHIAN. Wilson v Marr. plainer; JOHN MARR, Jun., Respondent. --- Process-Diligence Breach of Poinding-Substitution of inferior articles.—In an action for breach of poinding, in which it was stated that the defender had removed the poinded articles and substituted others of less value, proof was allowed, and the defender thereafter ordered to appear at the bar for judgment. On an appeal against an interlocutor of the SheriffSubstitute (RUTHERFURD) repelling certain pleas in law for the defender and allowing a proof, the Sheriff (BLAIR) adhered, and gave two guineas of expenses. In a note he said— The petitioner avers that the respondent fraudulently carried MIDLOTHIAN. off certain poinded effects, substituting others of a similar kind, Wilson Marr. but of much inferior value, in their place. The respondent denies these statements. The Sheriff agrees with the Sheriff-Substitute in holding that the petitioner's averments are relevant, and that he should be allowed a proof. A proof having been led, the Sheriff-Substitute issued the following interlocutors, which explain the nature of the case: Sheriff RUTHERFURD. EDINBURGH, 21st December, 1892.-The Sheriff-Substitute Dec. 21, 1892. having heard parties' procurators, and having considered the proof with the record and the productions, finds that on the 8th of September, 1892, a light-brown horse with white spots on the back and at end of mane, of the appraised value of £10, a set of harness of the appraised value of 10s., and an Irish jaunting car of the appraised value of £2, within the respondent's premises at Dumbiedykes Road, Edinburgh, were poinded by John Mackenzie, sheriff-officer, in virtue of a warrant granted by Hubert Hamilton, Sheriff-Substitute of the Lothians and Peebles, on the 15th of January, 1892, in an action at the instance of the present complainer against the respondent; finds that on the 15th of September, 1892, warrant was granted by John David Sym, acting pro tempore as Sheriff-Substitute of the Lothians, for the sale of the aforesaid poinded effects, and the sale was appointed to proceed upon the 27th of the same month; finds that between the date of the poinding of the said horse, harness, and jaunting car (8th September, 1892) and the day appointed for the sale thereof (27th September, 1892) the said pointed effects were unlawfully removed by the respondent from his said premises in Dumbiedykes Road aforesaid, and another horse, harness, and jaunting car were substituted therefor; finds that by the statute 1 & 2 Vict. c. 114, entituled "An Act to amend the law of Scotland in matters "relating to personal diligence, arrestments, and poindings," it is enacted, section 30, "that if any person shall unlawfully intromit "with or carry off the poinded effects, he shall be liable, on summary "complaint to the Sheriff of the county where the effects were "poinded or where he is domiciled, to be imprisoned until he "restore the effects or pay double the appraised value." With these findings appoints the respondent John Marr, jun., to appear at the bar on Saturday next, the 24th inst., at eleven o'clock forenoon, when judgment will be pronounced, with certification that in the event of his failure to appear a warrant for his apprehension will be granted; further appoints the order to be intimated to the respondent by an officer of Court. AND. RUTHERFURD. EDINBURGH, 24th December, 1892.-The Sheriff-Substitute, Dec. 24, 1892. the respondent John Marr, jun., having appeared at the bar int obedience to the order of Court of 21st December current, and Sheriff RUTHERFURD. Sheriff RUTHERFURD. MIDLOTHIAN. having stated through his agent that he deeply regretted having Wilson Marr. committed the breach of poinding complained of; that the horse Dec. 24, 1892 poinded had been sold by him prior to the 27th of September last for £8 5s., but that he undertakes to make payment to the complainer of the sum of £12 15s. 8d. to indemnify him for the loss which he has sustained, one-half to be paid now and the other half within fourteen days from this date-continues the cause until Monday, the 9th of January proximo, at twelve o'clock noon, and ordains the parties then to attend. AND. RUTHERFURD. Jan. 9, 1893. Sheriff RUTHERFURD. No. 21. Borthwick, &c. v EDINBURGH, 9th January, 1893.-The Sheriff-Substitute, in For petitioner and complainer-Mr. JOHN M'LAREN, Edinburgh. BORTHWICK & INGRAM, Pursuers; THE NORTH BRITISH The Furthcoming-Competition of landlord's hypothec with arrest- This was an action raised by a firm of manufacturers in Hawick against the North British Railway to make certain goods belonging to their debtor, John Willis, furthcoming to them, or alternatively for damages. It appeared that the pursuers had left a schedule of arrestment of the goods in question, dated 10th November, 1891, in the hands of the defenders' station agent at South Leith. The station agent consequently detained the goods, which were booked for Newcastle. On 17th November, 1891, a sheriff-officer presented to the station agent a warrant granted by one of the Sheriffs-Substitute of Midlothian, at the instance of the landlord of the said John Willis, authorising sheriff-officers to search for and carry back certain goods, which included the goods in question, to the premises the debtor occupied |