Page images
PDF
EPUB

obligations of the defenders and their authors could not be affected or the feudal burdens imposed by subsequent charter from the Crown. Spence v. The Union Bank of Scotland, p. 904.

Property. See Executor.

Property Received and Consumed in Good Faith by One not Entitled thereto. See Succession. Proprietor's Right to Sell Newspaper. See Master and Servant.

Prospectus. See Company.

Provident Society-Jurisdiction-Dispute between Member and Society-Dispute whether Person Entitled to Rights of Member-Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1876 (39 and 40 Vict. c. 45), sec. 11, sub-secs. 6 and 7-Provident Nominations Act 1883 (46 and 47 Vict. c. 47), sec. 3. By sub-section 6 of section 11 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1876, as amended by section 3 of the Provident Nominations Act 1883, it is provided that if any member of a society, entitled to an interest in the society not exceeding £100, dies intestate, and without having nominated his successor as authorised by that Act, such interest shall be payable without letters of administration among the persons who appear to a majority of the committee, upon such evidence as they may deem satisfactory, to be entitled to receive it. By sub-section 7 it is provided that any such payment shall be valid against any demand made upon the committee or society by any other person. Section 14 provides that every dispute between a member or person claiming through a member and the society shall be decided in manner directed by the rules of the society. The rules of a society registered under the above Act provided that in the event of any dispute between a member or person claiming through a member and the society, it should be referred to a committee, from whom an appeal might be made to a general meeting of the society. A member of this society having died without disposing of her interest therein, her executor-dative sued the society for the alleged amount of that interest. The defenders answered that the committee of the society had paid the sum sued for to one of the deceased member's sons in accordance with directions received from a majority of the next-of-kin, and that such payment was protected from challenge by sub-section 7 of section 11 of the Act of 1876. They further pleaded that the dispute fell to be referred in terms of the society's rules. Held (1) that the dispute was one for the Court to decide, in respect that the question raised was whether the pursuer had a right to claim as the representative of the deceased member; and (2) that as a majority of the next-of-kin had no right to dispose of the rights of the others, the defenders had not paid the deceased member's interest to a person titled by law" to receive it, and decree granted. Opinion by Lord Adam, that even assuming that the dispute was to be taken as a question between the society and a mem

[ocr errors]

en

ber, it fell to be determined by the Court and not by the society, as its solution depended on the construction of the Act of Parliament. Symington's Executors v. Galashiels Cooperative Store Company, Limited, p. 253. Provision for Grandchildren, whether Onerous or Testamentary. See Succession.

Provision to Widow. See Entail.
Provisions to Children. See Marriage.
Publication of Conviction in Court of Justice.
See Reparation.

Public Conveyance used for Removal of Infectious
Patient. See Justiciary Cases.

Public Health. See Police.

Public-House. See Justiciary Cases—Burgh. Public Right-of-Way for Foot-Passengers over Road. See Road.

Public Road. See Reparation.

Public Waterpipe Laid on Railway Company's Bridge which Carried a Public Road. See Road.

Pupil Lunatic. See Poor.

Purchaser Entitled to Resile. See Contract.
Purchaser's Duty to Replace Goods. See Sale.
Pursuer in Receipt of Parochial Relief.
Process.

Purveyor of Milk. See Justiciary Cases.

See

Qualification. See Company.
Question of Detail. See Valuation Cases.
Question which of Two Innocent Parties is to
Suffer by Fraud of Third Party. See Con-
tract of Hire.

Quorum. See Company.

Held

Railway Mines and Minerals· Freestone Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. cap. 33), sec. 70. that freestone fell within the exception of "mines of coal, ironstone, slate, or other minerals" contained in the 70th section of the Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845, and was not carried to a railway company which had acquired lands under the powers of said Act by a disposition which did not mention mines and minerals. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company v. Bain, p. 98.

Mines and Minerals Right to Work Freestone under Railway Line Railway Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. cap. 33), sec. 71-Bona fides. A railway company sought to interdict the lessee of a quarry who had given them notice under section 71 of the Railway Clauses Consolidation Act that he intended to work the freestone under their line. They made averments to the effect that in the ordinary and proper course of management said freestone would not be worked for years, and that the respondent had given them notice under the Act merely with the view of rearing up a fictitious claim against them. Held that these averments were relevant, and proof allowed. Glasgow and South-Western Railway Company v. Bain, p. 98.

Use of Joint Station by Third PartyRunning Powers Statute Construction

Acts 27 and 28 Vict. c. 11, and 29 and 30 Vict. c. 211. A railway station, declared by statute to be the joint property of the Scottish North-Eastern and the Great North of Scotland Railway Companies, was built by them in 1864, and was placed under control of a joint committee of the two companies. The Act of 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. 211), which transferred the rights, interest, and estate of the North-Eastern Company to the Caledonian Railway Company, by section 106 provided that "the North British Railway Company may, for the purpose of conveying Scottish East Coast traffic" (which included traffic via North British lines), "run over and use with their engines, trucks, and carriages of every description, the Scottish North-Eastern lines, or any part thereof, and the stations, waterplaces, works, and conveniences upon and connected with the Scottish North-Eastern lines." The North British Railway were also entitled to the "joint and separate use of the offices, warehouses, stations, sidings, and other accommodation at the several stations, wharfs, stopping, loading and unloading places, sidings, and junctions of the Scottish North-Eastern lines, including, in so far as the Caledonian Company lawfully may, the station at Aberdeen and all conveniences therewith connected." Held (rev. the decision of the First Division) that the defenders were not entitled without the consent of the Great North of Scotland Railway Company, part-owners thereof, to use the joint-passenger station or any part thereof, or the conveniences connected therewith, for the purposes of their traffic, or to run over or use with their engines, trucks, or carriages of any description the said station or the railway through the same, or the sidings, accesses or works extending for 200 yards on each side of the passenger shed of the said joint-passenger station, or any part of the same. Aberdeen

Joint-Passenger Station Committee and the Great North of Scotland Railway Company v. North British Railway Company, p. 442. Railway Entry upon Lands without Owner's Consent-Compensation-Deposit Unaccompanied by Bond-Interest-Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 (8 Vict. cap. 19), secs. 84 and 86. The Lands Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act 1845 by sec. 84 provides that where the promoters of an undertaking are desirous of entering upon lands without the owner's consent, before an agreement has been come to as to the compensation to be paid, they may do so if they deposit in bank by way of security a sum to be fixed by a valuator, and also, if required to do so, give the owner "a bond with two sufficient securities for a sum equal to the sum to be deposited for payment to such party. . . of all such compensation as may be determined to be payable by the promoters of the undertaking together with interest thereon at the rate of £5 per centum per annum from the time of entering

...

[ocr errors]

on such lands until such. compensation shall be paid." A railway company having made a deposit as required by this section, but without giving any bond, that not being required by the landowner, and having afterwards paid the compensation found due with interest from the date of the decree-arbitral fixing such compensation, presented a petition under the 86th section of said Act, praying the Court to ordain the bank to repay their deposit. Held that the landowner was entitled to interest from the date of entry on the lands upon the compensation found due, just as if he had required a bond, and that a portion of the deposit sufficient to meet such interest must meanwhile remain in bank. West Highland Railway Company v. Place and Others, p. 455. Railway Special Act-Statutory Obligation to Stop Trains-Ordinary Train. A railway company were bound by their Special Act obtained in 1855 to erect and maintaina temporary goods and passenger station at a point to be fixed by agreement on an estate which was to be intersected by their line, and to stop all "ordinary" trains at this station for the purpose of traffic. The Act also contained a proviso that if after the expiry of five years the traffic proved unremunerative the company should no longer be bound to maintain the said station. After the station had been erected, in terms of the Act, the company and the proprietor concluded an agreement which provided that the company should complete the station as a permanent station and maintain it in all time coming at their own expense. In 1892 the then proprietor brought an action to have it declared that the company were bound to stop all ordinary trains at the station, and that certain specified trains which ran over the part of the line which intersected his lands were "ordinary" trains within the meaning of the Act of Parliament. It appeared from the evidence that the line on which the station was situated was originally a branch from the main line of the North British Railway Company from Edinburgh to Dundee. By successive extensions it had been carried on until it rejoined the same main line at another point. The line was not used as a through route, and did not serve important termini, but was used entirely for the purposes of local traffic. The trains about which the parties were in dispute stopped at half the stations on their journey. Their average speed was 24 miles an hour as compared with 18 miles an hour in the case of the trains which stopped at the station on the pursuer's property. Held that the trains in question were "ordinary" trains in the meaning of the Act, and that the company were accordingly bound to stop them at the said station. Opinion indicated by Lord M'Laren, that looking to the character of the line, and in the absence of expressions in the Act pointing out trains of a special or ordinary class, the word "ordinary" was meant to in

clude all trains belonging to the regular service advertised in the company's time table, and running daily over the line. Gilmour v. North British Railway Company, p. 651. Railway — Accommodation Works-Conflicting Interests of Owner and Occupier of Lands Taken -All Parties not Heard-Reduction of Sheriff's Award-Railway Clauses Act 1845 (8 and 9 Vict. c. 33), secs. 60, 61—Relevancy The Railway Clauses Act 1845, by sec. 60, provides that the company shall make works for the accommodation of the owners and occupiers of lands adjoining the railway; and sec. 61 provides that if any difference arise respecting the kind of accommodation works the same shall be determined by the sheriff. Held that the difference contemplated might be a difference between owner and occupier, and that averments by an owner to the effect that the Sheriff had considered the claims of the occupier, had along with a civil engineer inspected the ground, where he had heard parties' explanations, without ordering intimation to him and outwith his presence, and had thereafter, although sisting him as a party to the process, refused to allow him to lodge answers or even to give him time to consider his position, were relevant to support an action of reduction of the Sheriff's award. Lanarkshire aud Dumbartonshire Railway Company and Another v. Main, p.

[blocks in formation]

Reduction of Sheriff's Award. See Railway. Reference to General Statute Modifying Penalty under Special Act. See Justiciary Cases. References to Arbiters Unnamed. See Contract. Refusal by Court to Confirm Alteration. See Company.

Refusal of Adjournment. See Justiciary Cases. Refusal to Supply Sufficient Title. See Contract. Regular Line of Street. See Burgh.

Regulation of Other Railway Companies. See Process.

Rehabilitation. See Poor.

Relevancy. See Caution-Reparation Justiciary Cases--Custody of Children-Contract-Agent and Client.

Relevancy of Questions Reflecting on Character of Witness. See Justiciary Cases.

Relief. See Agreement-Superior and Vassal. Relief of Paupers. See Boundary Commissioners. Religion of Deceased Father, See Custody of Children.

Remit for Further Evidence. See Valuation Cases.

Removal of Trustee. See Trust. Rental Value. See Tramway. Renunciation of Right to Relief in Event of Newspaper being a Failure. See Agreement. Reparation-Illegal Apprehension-Police- Relevancy. A seaman sued a police constable for damages for illegal apprehension, and averred that while he was on board his ship, then lying in Leith dock outside the jurisdiction in which the defender was entitled to act, he had been arrested without a warrant, on a charge of receiving, six months previous, on false representations, a small sum as shipwreck allowance from the Sailors and Firemen's Union; that the defender had thereafter taken him handcuffed, by tramcar, to Edinburgh, and from thence by rail to Falkirk, where he had been tried for the alleged fraud, the charge being dismissed as not proven. Held that the pursuer had stated a relevant case against the defender. Leask v. Burt, p.

30.

Master and Servant-Personal InjuryDangerous Operation-Fault of Fellow-Workman-Action Irrelevant at Common Law. A boilermaker raised an action of damages against his employers for injuries sustained while in their employment. The action was laid only at common law. The pursuer averred that a small crane in the works which ran on rails 15 feet above the ground, to the defender's knowledge was defective, and frequently got displaced during work, that on one occasion he was ordered by his foreman to climb up to assist in replacing it in its proper position, that in order to do so he had to hang on by his hands to a beam about 5 feet higher, on which another and larger crane travelled, and that while in that position the larger crane was moved along its rails and passed over the pursuer's hand and severely injured it. The Court dismissed the action as irrelevant at common law. Baxter v. Abernethy & Company, p. 125.

Personal Injury-Seaman Injured by De

fective Ladder-Fellow Workman. A seaman on board a vessel was injured by a fall from a wooden ladder which broke under him while he was climbing from the hold to the deck. The defect in the ladder might have been observed by inspection, and the captain was in fault for failing to have it repaired. The owners supplied the captain with all that he desired for the use of the vessel. There were two fixed iron ladders from the hold to the deck. In an action by the seaman against the owners of the vessel, held that the defenders were not liable for the accident, which had occurred by the fault of the captain. Mackenzie v. The Steamship "Tregenna" Company, Limited, p. 141. Reparation-Slander-Statements in Answer to A

Attack

Issue-Innuendo-Counter-Issue. wrote to a newspaper attacking various persons, and, inter alia, stating that he had detected B, who had been the contractor for the supply of groceries to a certain school, sending a different and, he believed, a cheaper brand of coffee than that contracted for. B replied by a letter to the newspapers, in which he made the following remarks on A's letter"Every line exposes the true nature of the man who wrote it. Perhaps none will feel it so much as those whom he so gushingly thanks in the same breath as he levels his vile statements against so many of our prominent townsmen. If I am able to show that the statement made as regards myself is a consummate lie, the other statements may be put down in the same category. I hereby charge this man with a deliberate and wilful untruth, contained in what he says with reference to my supplying the school with goods." In an action of damages for slander by A, the Court held that he was entitled to the issue whether B's letter represented that he had no regard for truth and was a liar, and disallowed the counter-issue proposed by B, whether the accusation made against him by A was a lie, as not meeting the pursuer's issue. Milne v. Walker and Wilson, p.

149.

[ocr errors]

Taking Decree in Absence for Debt Paid after Action brought-Process-Jury TrialJudicature Act 1825 (6 Geo. IV. c. 120), sec. 28- Evidence Act 1866 (29 and 30 Vict. c. 112), sec. 4. A brought an action of damages in the Court of Session against B for having taken decree in absence against him in a debts recovery action after he had paid the debt for which he was sued. Held (rev. Lord Stormonth Darling) that the Court was not entitled to refuse to send the case to trial by jury on the ground that only a small award of damages could be recovered. Rhind v. Kemp & Company, p. 223.

Taking Decree in Absence for Debt Paid after Action brought-Issue. A brought an action of damages against B, a debt collector, who had been employed by C to get payment of a debt due to him by A. A averred that after B had caused an action to be raised against him he had paid C a sum in settle

ment of the debt and expenses; that C had thereupon written to B to stop the proceedings against A, but that B, in disregard of these instructions, had wrongfully and maliciously caused decree in absence to be taken against him. Held that A must put malice but not want of probable cause in issue. Rhind v. Kemp & Company, p. 223. Reparation-Personal Injury-Hired VehicleResponsibility of Hirer for Fault of Driver of Hired Vehicle. A woman who was entering the Glasgow Central Railway Station was injured by a hamper which fell off a passing lorry. She sued the Tramway Company, who were the owners of the lorry, for damages, on the ground that the accident had been caused by the fault of their servant the driver. The jury returned a verdict for the pursuer. It appeared that at the time of the accident the driver of the lorry was conveying a Post Office official and a load of Post Office parcels to the railway station in terms of a contract between the Tramway Company and the Post Office authorities, whereby the Tramway Company undertook to convey mails and parcels for the Postal authorities to and from the Post Office and the railway station, and to provide for their conveyance a sufficient number of vans and horses under the charge of steady drivers. On this occasion the Post Office official had directed the driver to go to the covered way outside the station, and as the railway employees would not take the parcels there, he had then directed the driver to enter the station. The driver turned his horses round a sharp corner into the carriageway, and one of the wheels of the lorry took the curb, with the result that several hampers fell off, one of which struck the pursuer. There was evidence to the effect that the accident had been caused by the driver taking the corner at too great speed. The defenders applied for a new trial, on the ground of misdirection and that the verdict was contrary to the evidence, in respect that the driver was at the time of the accident under the control and subject to the orders of the Post Office official. The Court refused to grant a new trial, holding that though the driver was bound to take the parcels where he was directed to go by the Post Office official, he was not subject to the orders and control of that official so as to make the Post Office liable for the consequences of his fault. Anderson v. Glasgow Tramway and Omnibus Company, Limited, p. 240.

Slander Imputation of Inciting to Bloodshed and Violence-Issues. A newspaper having published an anonymous letter, in which the writer expressed his own desire and that of other Orangemen for the chance of letting out the Papist blood once more, an action of damages was brought against the proprietors of the newspaper by a person who averred that the letter falsely pointed to him as its writer. Held (rev. Lord Kyllachy) that the pursuer was entitled not merely to an issue of verbal injury but one of slander.

Waugh v. The "Ayrshire Post" Limited, p. 248.

Reparation-Slander-Privilege-Publication of Conviction in Court of Justice-Bill Posted up in Stations by Railway Company Announcing Conviction of Offence against Companies Acts. A railway company posted up in some of their stations printed bills containing (1) names and addresses of certain persons convicted of travelling without a ticket, and other offences against the Companies Acts and bye-laws; (2) the date and nature of the offence; and (3) the result of the conviction. One of those whose names were thus posted up brought an action of damages against the railway company, in which, while asserting that the conviction was unwarranted, he admitted that it had taken place, but averred that its insertion in the bill was made maliciously by the defenders in order to injure him in the eyes of the public. Held that the action was irrelevant. Buchan v. North British Railway Company, p. 273.

Slander Process Action for Damages by Two Pursuers for Alleged Slander Contained in Same Statement-Competency. Two pursuers sued for damages in the same summons on account of an alleged calumnious statement made by the defender, which they averred referred to both and each of them. The pursuers were Justices of the Peace for the County of Zetland and bank agents at Lerwick, and the alleged slander was contained in the following statement made by the defender at a public meeting at Lerwick:

"The Licensing Court had always been very amusing to him. He had appeared before that Court both for and against licenses; and they used to size up the bench and say, 'Oh yes! This will be a day for licenses, or it will be a day when none will be granted;' or they would say, 'Oh! you are right enough, you are a customer at Mr So-and-so's bank, and he's on the bench,' or 'So-and-so has two clients on the bench, his licence is quite sure."" The summons concluded for payment of a separate sum to each pursuer. Held (following Harkes v. Mowat, March 4, 1862, 24 D. 701) that the action was competent, and a separate issue approved for each pursuer. Mitchell and Another v. Grierson, p. 301.

Slander-Relevancy-Master and Servant -Malice. The head cook in a hotel raised an action of damages for slander against the hotel proprietor. She averred that on her asking the defender for the assistance promised her by him at the commencement of her engagement, he got into a violent temper, ordered her to leave the house at once, repeatedly accused her in the presence and hearing of certain fellow servants of being drunk and in consequence unfit for her work, and several times cried out in a loud voice to her in a public part of the hotel "You are drunk and must go at once," or used words of like import. She further averred that these statements were false, malicious, and calum

nious, and without probable cause, and injurious to her feelings, character, and reputation; that the defender made the slanderous accusation recklessly and without taking any trouble to ascertain whether or not it was true, and well knowing that there was no foundation for it, and that he was angry with the pursuer for asking for further assistance and simply made this accusation to browbeat her. Held (rev. Lord Kincairney, who had allowed an issue averring malice, and diss. Lord Rutherfurd Clark) that the action was irrelevant. Macdonald v. Rupprecht, p. 317. Reparation-Public Road-Horse Shying at Heap of Manure in Field Adjoining - Landlord and Tenant · Breach of Lease - TrespassIssues. An outgoing tenant brought an action of reparation against his landlord for personal injuries sustained through a fall caused by his horse shying at a heap of manure lying in a field adjacent to a country road. He averred that the landlord was in fault (1) in illegally putting the manure too near a public road; and (2) in placing it upon ground which under the lease he could not enter except by trespass. Held that the pursuer was entitled to an issue on the second ground but not on the first, the placing of manure in fields being necessarily incidental to agriculture. Gibson v. Stewart, p. 368.

Road Street - Responsibility of Police Commissioners for Condition of Street in Burgh --Alteration of Rule of Road in Particular Street. A steep street in the city of Glasgow before it was taken over by the city authorities, about forty years ago, had a stone tram track sloping diagonally across and going up the right side of the street for the purpose of easing the traffic. The tram, at the place where the accident after mentioned happened, was about 18 inches from the pavement. The tram line was 3 inches above the pavement, and between them was a gutter 6 inches below the tram. This condition of the street was continued by the city authorities after the street came under their charge. A policeman was placed at the foot of the street in order to regulate the traffic. On 1st June 1891 while two carts in charge of a man seated on the left side of the first cart was going up the street along the tram, a child, who had been playing with a tin can on the pavement, rushed out after it into the street, and tripping on the gutter fell under the second cart, and was killed by it passing over her. The father having raised an action against the Police Commissioners for compensation for her death-held that no actionable fault had been proved against the Police Commissioners. Scott v. Glasgow Police Commissioners, p. 370.

Master and Servant-Defect in Machinery -Relevancy-No Specific Statement of Defect. A carter raised an action against a firm of manufacturers in Glasgow for damages for injuries received by him. He averred that after obtaining delivery of goods, which he

« EelmineJätka »