the enjoyment of the other; (2) that it was immaterial whether the back lights were interfered with, the servitude being one to have the ground kept open; and (3) that even if any right had been acquired by the use prior to 1883, this did not cover the extended use made subsequent to that date. Taylor's Trustees v. M'Gavigan, p. 707. Property-Club-Common Property-Alienation of Club Property by Majority of Members. A curling club having won and become the owners of a cup presented for competition-held (diss. Lord Young) that the majority of the members at a meeting specially called to consider and determine as to the disposal of the cup,. were not entitled, against the wishes of the minority, to present the cup to the skip of their highest winning rink at the competition. Murray v. Johnstone, p. 714. See Superior and Vassal. Property or Servitude. See Property. Protest. See Bill of Exchange. Provision to Children. See Succession. Provisions to Younger Children. See Public Health-Special Water Supply District Partly in County and Partly in Burgh-Burgh formed after 1889-JointManagement and Maintenance-Assessment-Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. c. 50), secs. 81 and 99. When a special water supply district is established in a rural parish, and a police burgh is afterwards formed within such parish, subsequently to the passing of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, the police commissioners of the burgh, are, under sec. 81 of that Act, charged with the management and maintenance of the water supply and works jointly with the county local authority, and are alone entitled, as burgh local authority under sec. 99, to impose and levy within the burgh the assessments for water supply purposes. Kirkcaldy District Committee v. Police Commissioners of Buckhaven, &c., p. 70. Local Authority-Assessment-Public Health (Scotland) Act (30 and 31 Vict. c. 101), sec. 91-Agreement to Assess in a Manner Inconsistent with Statutory Powers-Ultra vires. A local authority, acting under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867, has no power to enter into an agreement with another local authority to levy an assessment within its own district in a manner other than that prescribed by the Act which empowers it to assess. The Parochial Board of C., as the local authority under the Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867, after forming a portion of the parish into a special water supply district, entered into an agreement, under sec. 92 of the said Act, with a neighbouring local authority, by which, in return for a supply of water, the said parochial board undertook to levy an assessment within the said district in a manner different from that d prescribed by the said Act. The same parochial board also formed a special drainage district within the parish, and entered into a similar agreement with the same neighbouring local authority with regard to the disposal of the drainage of the said district. An assessment was levied in the said districts in terms of these agreements until the County Council of Lanarkshire, coming in place of the parochial board as local authority under the Public Health Acts, in virtue of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1889, levied an assessment for 1894-95 in the statutory manner. In an action raised by the proprietor of lands situated in the said special water supply and drainage districts, to have it declared that the agreements above mentioned were binding on the County Council, and that they had no right to levy an assessment otherwise than in terms of the agreements-held (altering judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that the defenders must be assoilzied, on the ground that the agreements were ultra vires of the parochial board. Wordie and others (Wordie's Trustees) v. County Council of Lanarkshire, p. 91. Public Health Burgh Parish-Joint Hospital-Parish partly Landward and partly Burghal-Transference of Powers of Parochial Board to County Council District Committee-Local Government Act 1889 (52 and 53 Vict. cap. 80). A joint hospital was built by agreement between a town council and a parochial board, each of the contracting parties being entitled to the use of half the number of beds therein "for persons from their respective districts.' The rights and duties of the parochial board were, by the Local Government Act 1889, vested in the district committee of the county council, whose "district" comprised a wider area than that controlled by the parochial board. Held that the right of the district committee to send patients to the hospital was limited to that part of their district which had been under the control of the parochial board. Town Council of Lanark v. District Committee of County Council of Lanark, p. 148. Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867 (30 and 31 Vict. cap. 101), sec. 39-Approval of Local Government Board. The Public Health Act 1867, section 39, empowers local authorities within their district to provide hospitals "provided the Board of Supervision [now the Local Government Board for Scotland] approve of the situation and construction thereof." A local authority applied to the Local Government Board for the approval of the site and plans of a temporary cholera hospital. The Board minuted:-" Approve of the site, subject to the following conditions," one of which was that all infected matter other than clothing should be "disposed of by means of an incinerator, to be placed in a convenient situation." The minute proceeded --“The Board approved of the plans subject to provisions being made for the proper disinfection of clothing." Held that this was a valid approval by the Board of the hospital in question. Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh v. Magistrates and Council of Leith, p. 285. Public Health--Public Health (Scotland) Act 1867 (30 and 31 Vict. c. 101), sec. 39-Public Health Amendment (Scotland) Act 1890 (53 and 54 Vict.c. 20), sec. 1. The Public Health Amendment (Scotland) Act 1890, section 1, enacts that in the application of section 39 of the Public Health Act 1867 to burghs, that section (which empowers a local authority to provide hospitals within its own district) shall be read and construed as if the words "or within a convenient distance of such district" were inserted after the word "district." Held that in exercising the right thus conferred, the local authority of a burgh is not confined to the district of the local neighbourhood landward authority, but may invade the district of a neighbouring burgh. Magistrates and Council of Edinburgh v. Magistrates and Council of Leith, p. 285. Public-House. See Justiciary Cases. Publication of Resolution. See Reparation. 66 Railway-Compulsory Purchase-Omission to Purchase through Mistake or Inadvertency-Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 (8 Vict. c. 19), sec. 117. By sec. 117 of the Lands Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 it is enacted, that if at any time after the promoters of the undertaking shall have entered upon any lands, which they were authorised to purchase, any person should appear to be entitled to any estate, right, or interest in, or charge affecting such lands, which the promoters should, through mistake or inadvertency," have failed or omitted duly to purchase, or to pay compensation for, then whether the period allowed for the purchase of lands shall have expired or not, the promoters should be entitled to purchase such omitted estate, &c., the purchase money to be settled by arbitration, in like manner as if the promoters had purchased the omitted estate, &c., before entering on the lands. Held that where the promoters of a railway undertaking had never manifested any intention, while their compulsory powers existed, of taking any of the minerals lying under the lands acquired by them, except such as were situated above the authorised formation level of the railway, they were not entitled under this section afterwards to acquire minerals situated below formation level at a price to be settled by arbitration in terms of the statute. Davidson's Trustees v. The Caledonian Railway Company, p. 25. Formation Mines and Minerals Level-Compensation - Damages - Measure of Damages. The promoters of a railway undertaking who had acquired ground, the title to which expressly reserved the minerals to the superior, worked out the whole freestone above formation level, sold some of it, and used the rest for the coustruction of stations, sidings, and other purposes connected with the undertaking. Held that, as regards the freestone below formation level, the superior was entitled to damages, and not merely to statutory compensation, and that the measure of the damages was the price which the company would have required to pay for the stone if they had purchased it in the market, less the expenses of working and bringing it to the surface, and not the value of the stone in situ to the superior.—Livingstone v. Rawyards Coal Company, February 13, 1880, 7 R. (H.L.) 1, distinguished. Davidson's Trustees v. The Caledonian Railway Company, p. 25. Railway-Mines and Minerals — Reserved Minerals-Sub-Reservation in Favour of Vassal. By the terms of a feu-contract the minerals were reserved by the superior, but it was declared that it should be lawful for the feuar to dig or work the freestone on the said piece of ground, erecting houses and offices or walls and other buildings upon the said piece of ground, or for making or repairing roads thereon." Held that a railway company who had acquired the feu, were entitled to work out and use the freestone for the erection of stations, sidings, or other buildings connected with their undertaking so far as situated upon the feu so acquired, and for the construction and repair of their line within the limits of the feu. Davidson's Trustees v. The Caledo nian Railway Company, p. 25. 66 for Railway Operations-Compensation to Yearly Tenants-Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (5 and 6 Vict. c. 33), sec. 6-Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. c. 19), sec. 114. Where a tenant from year to year claims, under sec. 6 of the Railway Clauses Act 1815, that the premises occupied by him as tenant have been injuriously affected by railway operations, his claim for compensation falls to be determined, not by statutory arbitration, but by application to the Sheriff under sec. 114 of the Lands Clauses Act 1845. Caledonian Railway Company v. Barr, 17 D. 312, followed. Glasgow District Subway Company v. T. Albin & Son, p. 54. Railway Operations Compensation for Lands Injuriously Affected-Deprivation of Frontage and Access. A claim for compensation, by the owner of lands, under sec. 6 of the Railway Clauses Act 1845, on the ground that he had been deprived of frontage to a road, and of frontage and access to a canal, in consequence of the railway company diverting the line of the road and of the canal, held relevant. Glasgow, Yoker, and Clydebank Railway Company v. Lidgerwood, p. 146. Statutory Powers - Expiration of Time for Completion of Railway-Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. cap. 33), sec. 16Work Necessary for Use of Mine"Doubling Rails at Level-Crossing on Requisition of Board of Trade. The Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1815, by section 16, provides, inter alia, that a railway company "may from time to time alter, repair, or discontinue the before-mentioned works, or any of them, and substitute others in their stead; and they may do all other acts necessary for making, maintaining, altering, or repairing and using the railway. A railway company was authorised by their special Act to carry the railway across and on the level of a certain public road. The special Act further provided that after the expiration of five years from the passing of the Act the powers granted to the railway company should cease to be exercised except as to so much of the railway as should then be completed. More than five years after that date the Board of Trade required the company to interlock the signals at a station immediately to the west of the level-crossing in question. When the arrangements for this purpose were examined by the Board of Trade Inspector, he refused to pass them unless a loop-line at the station was prolonged eastwards and across the level-crossing. The company accordingly made a new loop-line, with the result the line at the level-crossing was doubled. Held that they were entitled to do so, as the doubling of the line at the point in question was "an act necessary for using the railway" within the meaning of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1815, section 16. Opinion (per Lord Trayner) that the laying of a second line of rails at the place in question was a "substitution" of a double for a single line, and as a "substitution" warranted by the same section. Western District Committee of County Council of Stirling v. North British Railway Company, p. 459. Railway-Railway Station-Right of Access to Station by Persons not Actually Travelling-Whether Station Committee Entitled to Interdict Hotel Porters from Coming into Station-Interdict-Vagueness of Prayer. The Perth General Station Committee, as proprietors of the Perth General Station, under the Perth General Station Act 1865, craved interdict against an hotelkeeper, "himself or by his boots or other servant. . . unlawfully entering or trespassing upon any of the railways, stations, or other works or premises of the pursuers, and in particular from so entering or trespassing in or upon the Perth General Railway Station, or other works or premises therewith connected, while wearing the uniform or badge" of the hotelkeeper or of his hotel, and "from waiting the arrival of passenger trains therein for the purpose of obtaining customers" for his hotel. It was proved that the hotelkeeper did not by himself or his servants enter the station except for the purpose of accompanying passengers who were leaving his hotel, or of meeting passengers who had intimated that they were to arrive at his hotel, and that neither he nor his servants had caused any obstruction or inconvenience at the Perth Station. Held that the Station Committee were not entitled to the interdict craved-per the Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord Trayner, and Lord Moncreiff-on the ground that, as regards the first part of the prayer, the terms of the interdict craved were too vague and general; as regards the second part of the prayer, that the wearing of a particular badge or uniform, if otherwise lawfully worn, was not per se a sufficient ground of interdict; and as regards the third part of the prayer, on the ground that it was not proved that the hotelkeeper sent his servants to await the arrival of trains for the purpose of obtaining customers; and -per Lord Young-on the ground that the Station Committee's right of property in the station was not such as to entitle them to the assistance of the Court by interdict in preventing persons, whether hotel servants, relations, friends, or private servants, from going into the station for the purpose of assisting persons leaving or arriving by train." The Perth General Station Committee v. Ross, p. 786. Railway. See Arbitration― Reparation — Process. Railway Operations. See Railway. Real Burden. See Superior and Vassal. Reclaiming-Note. See Process. Recognition of Foreign Decree. See Husband and Wife. Recommendation or Warranty. See Sale Reconstitution of Lapsed District Board. See Process. Record. See Dean of Guild. Reduction. See Expenses-Superior and Vassal-Process. Too In Reparation Wrongous Interdict Wide Interdict-Periculo petentis. an action of damages for the wrongful use of interdict the pursuer averred that in consequence of interim interdict obtained against him at the defender's instance, he had been prevented from carrying out a sale by public auction on the date advertised, and had by the postponement of the sale sustained loss and damage. He further averred that in his application for interim interdict the defender had stated that a number of the articles exposed for sale were his property, which were afterwards found to belong to the pursuer. Held that the action was relevant, the application for interdict being unwarranted in so far as it related to the pursuer's property, and the remedy being granted periculo petentis. Fife v. Orr, p. 1. Slander-Veritas-Facts which Defender may Prove without Counter-Issue. In an action of damages for slander, the pursuer, who was a law-agent, obtained an issue whether the defender had stated to the clerk to the police commissioners of a burgh that a certain clause in an agreement between the police commissioners and a client of the pursuer's had been added or caused to be added by the pursuer to the agreement after its execution by the commissioners, meaning thereby that the clause had been fraudulently interpolated in the agreement by the pursuer, or by his instructions, after execution. The defender admitted that he made the statement referred to, but denied the innuendo, and accordingly took no counter-issue. At the trial he proposed to ask certain witnesses whether the clause in question had in fact been added to the agreement after execution, but the question was disallowed on the ground that it was an attempt to prove veritas without a counter-issue. On a bill of exceptions, held that the evidence ought to have been admitted. Henderson v. Russell, p. 14. Slander Privilege Statement by Person having no Interest in Subjectmatter to Persons Interested. The evidence adduced at the trial showed that the statement referred to in the above issue had been made by the defender in answer to a question by the clerk to the commissioners, who was making inquiries with a view to advising the commissioners whether they should reduce the agreement. Opinions that the occasion was privileged. Henderson v. Russell, p. 14. Relevancy-Interim Judicial Factor on Bankrupt Estate - Breaking Open Lockfast Room. In an action of damages at the instance of a bankrupt's wife against the interim judicial factor on the bankrupt's estate, appointed under the Bankruptcy Act 1856, sec. 16, the pursuer averred that the judicial factor visited the farmhouse occupied by the bankrupt to take an inventory of his effects; that one of the rooms contained effects belonging entirely to the pursuer; that the defender was informed of this, and that he nevertheless broke open the door of the said room, and that he "rudely meddled with the pursuer's property, and, ransacking a wardrobe, he tossed the contents about the floor of the room." Held (rev. judgment of Lord Kincairney) that the pursuer's averments were irrelevant, and that absolvitor must be pronounced, on the ground (1) that, apart from the allegation as to breaking open the door of the room, there was no relevant averment of damage; (2) that in breaking open the door for the purpose of obtaining an inventory of the bankrupt's estate, the defender was acting in the discharge of his duty; and (3) that assuming any legal wrong to have been done by his doing this, it was the bankrupt and not the pursuer who had suffered that wrong. M'Lachlan v. Bell and Another, p. 102. Reparation-Slander - Privilege-Associa tion for Sport-Football Match-Referee. Held (aff. judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that a referee at a football match between members of two clubs belonging to the Scottish Football Union, was privileged in making a complaint to the committee of the Union that a player had "used offensive language" to him during the match, and in giving evidence in support of his complaint to the committee. Murdison v. The Scottish Football Union, p. 337. Slander Association for Sport Publication of Resolution - Privilege Title to Sue and be Sued. The pursuer in an action of damages for slander called as defenders (1) the members of committee of the Scottish Football Union, "as such committee and as representing the said Union;" (2) the members of the committee as individuals. The pursuer averred that the committee, acting upon a complaint by a referee at a football match between members of two clubs belonging to the Union, and in which the pursuer was a player, adopted a finding that the pursuer had used offensive language to the referee, and passed a resolution that he be severely censured, and be ordered to apologise to the referee, and that this finding and resolution were published in certain newspapers upon the instructions of the committee. Held (1) that the pursuer was not entitled to an issue against the committee as representing the Scottish Football Union, the ground of his action being that the committee, in the matter of which he complained, had acted without the authority of the Union; and (2) (rev. judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that the pursuer was entitled to an issue of slander against the members of committee individually, and that, having regard to the allegations as to publication, the pursuer's averments did not necessarily imply privilege or require that malice should be put in the issue. Form of issue approved. Murdison v. The Scottish Football Union, p. 337. Patrimonial Loss Resolution of Association for Sport-Relevancy. Held (rev. judgment of the Lord Ordinary) that a resolution of the committee of the Scottish Football Union suspending a member of a club belonging to the Union from playing, did not entitle him to an issue that the said resolution had been “wrongfully, incompetently, and unwarrantably passed and caused to be published by the committee, to his loss, injury, and damage," the alleged wrong not being one which affected any question of property or patrimonial right, and the appropriate issue, so far as it affected reputation, being an issue of slander. Blasquez v. The Lothians Racing Club, June 29, 1889, 16 R. 893, distinguished. Murdison v. The Scottish Football Union, p. 337. Reparation-Negligence-Master and Servant-Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42), sec. 1, sub-sec. 3. A workman was injured while engaged along with three fellow-workmen in lifting into an upright position part of a printer's guillotine, which was being removed in sections, and which, previous to the attempt to place it upright, was lying on its side on a lorry. It had been contemplated that, as on previous occasions, the part in question, which consisted of the body of the machine, would weigh 6 cwt. or 7 cwt., but owing to a breakage, rendering it impossible to detach the knife block, its weight upon this occasion was 9 cwt. The order was given by one of the men who was directing the operation, and who himself assisted in the manual labour. It was represented to him by pursuer and the others that it would be dangerous to attempt to lift the machine with only four men available, but notwithstanding this he ordered the operation to be proceeded with. Held that there was no actionable negligence, within the meaning of sec. 1, sub-sec. 3, of the Employers Liability Act 1880, on the part of the workman in charge in giving the order. Question-Whether a workman assisting in and directing such an operation is a person "to whose orders or directions the workman at the time of the injury was bound to conform," within the meaning of the same sub-section. Brown v. Furnival & Company, p. 345. Master and Servant-Mine-Defective System-Responsibility of Mining Company Statutory Manager Relevancy-Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887, sec. 20, sub-sec. 1. In an action at common law for damages by a workman against his employers, a mining company, in respect of injuries sustained by reason of alleged defects in the system of working, which the pursuer averred were due to the fault of the defenders, the defenders pleaded that fault on the part of a mining company was excluded by the employment of a certified manager in terms of section 20, sub-section 1, of the Coal Mines Regulation Act 1887. Held that the pursuer was entitled to an issue. Macdonald v. Udston Coal Company, p. 351. Reparation Slander Veritas Issue Counter-Issue-Scope of Issue and Counter-Issue in Relation to Alleged Slander. The pursuer in an action of damages for slander said to be contained in two pamphlets published by the defender, averred upon record that the import of the pamphlets was generally to represent him as "a dishonest and disreputable person." The issues proposed by him were however limited to certain specific charges of dishonesty contained in the pamphlets brought forward to support the general charge. The defender pleaded veritas, specified other instances of alleged dishonesty on the part of the pursuer, and proposed counter-issues upon all the alleged acts of dishonesty. Held that the pursuer was entitled to the limited issues he proposed, and that the scope of the counter-issues for the defender must be limited by that of the issues. Observed (per Lord President) that this limitation did not preclude the defender from crossexamining the pursuer on all or any of the matters which the defender desired to make the subject of counter-issues. Powell v. Long, p. 380. Negligence-Leaving Vehicle Unattended on Street-Child. While the carter in charge of a horse and lorry was absent in a public-house, a child of less than six years of age, who was playing in the street, crept underneath the lorry, which had been left standing at the door of the public-house. On his return the carter drove off without observing the child below the lorry, the wheel of which passed over him and caused serious injuries. In an action at the instance of the child's father against the carter's employers, held (diss. Lord Trayner) that the accident was caused by the fault of the carter in failing to look below the lorry before driving off, and that his employers were liable. Opinion (by Lord Young) that the carter was also in fault in leaving his lorry unattended in the street, his doing so being a contravention of sec. 149, sub-sec. 16, of the Glasgow Police Act 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. 273). M'Ara v. Morrison, p. 384. Culpa Defective Condition of Premises Liability of Tenant of Shop for Accident to Customer- Implied Fault. A person who had entered a shop to make purchases was injured through the collapse of the shop floor, which owing to old age and defective repairing, gave way under her weight. It did not appear that the shopkeeper, who was tenant of the premises, was aware of the defect, or had reason to suspect its existence. Held (diss. Lord Trayner) that the shopkeeper was bound to have his premises in a safe condition for the public using them, and was liable in damages to his customer for the injuries she had sustained. Dolan v. Burnet, p. 399. Master and Servant-Defect in Plant -Whether Stevedore Liable for Shipowner's Plant. A workman brought an action to recover compensation against his employer, a stevedore, for personal |