صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

name, to ordain the company to enter into and register the contract, and thereafter issue the shares as paid up. Harvey v. The Distillers Company (Limited), p. 532.

Public

Company-Winding-up-Production of Company's Books and Papers-Companies Act 1862 (25 and 26 Vict.c.89), secs. 115, 126. Warrant granted in the winding-up of a public company, on the official liquidator's petition, to summon the secretary and the shareholders of the company to depone to their knowledge of the company's affairs, and to produce the company's books and papers. PetitionHutton (Liquidator of The Glasgow Investments Company, Limited), p. 730.

-Transfer of Shares-Rectification of Register-Companies Act 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. c. 89), sec. 35-Ultra vires. A shareholder in a public company sold his shares to the managing director, and the directors approved of the transfer "in favour of the managing director for behoof of the company." The name of the company itself was thereupon entered on the register as holder of the shares. Six years thereafter the company, on the ground that it had no power to hold its own shares, challenged the transaction, and replaced the shareholder's name on the register. Held that the shareholder's name having been lawfully removed in consequence of a transfer which the director's approved, could not again be placed on the register. Gardiners v. Victoria Estates Company, p. 888.

-See Process-Judicial Factor. Public Health. See Justiciary Cases. Public Records-Authentication-Burgh Register of Sasines. Authority granted to a town-clerk as keeper of the Burgh Register of Sasines to collate and subscribe in the said register deeds not collated and subscribed during his predecessor's term of office, and to authenticate certificates of registration of such deeds. Cowper, Petitioner, p. 311. Public Right-of-Way." See Road.

Qualification. See Valuation Cases.
Question of Fact. See Process.

Railway-Construction of Railway-Compulsory
Taking of Land-Compensation.

The pro

moters of a railway company, one of whose proposed undertakings was the erection of a bridge over an estuary, entered, while the bill in which they sought powers to carry out the undertaking was in Parliament, into an agreement with the proprietor of an island in the estuary to pay to him £1500 for the right to erect piers thereon, and in full of compensation for damage caused by such erection-the payment to be contingent on the Act passing and the works being commenced. The Act passed, the works commenced, and the £1500 was paid, and a discharge in full of claims for ground taken and for compensation was granted. Thereafter the company obtained a new Act, authorising a deviation from the line of railway which was to pass over the bridge, but under which the bridge was to be

of the same position and character. This Act provided that the company should "abandon the construction of the railway "authorised by the former Act. It gave them power to take such land as might be required for the construction of the new line. They then gave notice that they intended to take the whole of the island. The proprietor maintained that the £1500 already paid to him by the company under the former Act was not to be taken into account in estimating the amount of compensation payable to him for the loss of the whole island. Held that the amount formerly paid ought to be taken into account. Jamieson (Dundas' Trustee) and Another v. The Forth Bridge Railway Company, p. 160. Railway Statutory Powers--Obstructing Traffic-Statutory Penalty--Competency of Ordinary Action-Reparation-Glasgow City and District Railway Act 1882 (45 and 46 Vict. cap. ccxvi). A railway company whose lines were to be carried through a large town were bound by their Act to restore portions of the carriageway of any street to be from time to time closed by them for traffic for the purposes of their works within three months from the day on which they should be so closed, under a penalty of £20 for each day for which such portions remained unrestored beyond that period, which penalty should be recoverable in the Sheriff Court on summary application by any proprietor or tenant in that portion of the street. In course of construction of a line of railway, the company kept the carriageway of a street closed for traffic beyond three months. Held that the provision for penalty to be recovered by summary application did not exclude a common law action for damage, caused to the business of an occupier of premises in the portion of the street closed, by the closing of the street for more than the period allowed by the statute. Clyde v. The Glasgow City and District Railway Company, p. 879.

-See Valuation Cases-Agreement and Contract--Superior and Vassal--Jurisdiction. Ranking. See Bankruptcy.

Rating. See Road-Burgh.
Real Burden. See Entail.
Reasonable Delay. See Sale.
Receipt. See Revenue.

Rectification of Register. See Public Company.
Record. See Process.

Reduction. See Process-Marriage-Contract

Writ.

Reference. See Arbiter-Process.
Registered Letter. See Process.
Register. See Election Law.
Rehearing. See Justiciary Cases.

Relevancy. Question (per Lord Young) as to whether a complaint made under the Day Trespass Act is relevantly framed which simply negatives the leave of the proprietor? Stuart v. Murray, p. 87.

-See Right in Security-Insurance-Justiciary Cases-Indictment-Theft. Relief. See Superior and Vassal. Remit. See Process.

Rent. See Lease.

Renunciation. See Right in Security. Reparation-Negligence-Damages for Personal Injury-Insecure State of Property-Duty of Proprietor of Tenement having Common Stair to Keep the same in Safe Condition, A man was ascending a common stair in a tenement with a sack of coals on his back, when the stair suddenly gave way under him and precipitated him to the bottom of the tenement. He sustained severe bodily injuries. The stair was a "hanging" stair of unusual breadth. About three years before the occurrence of the accident, the stair being then in an infirm condition from the wearing away of the steps by use, the proprietor, without consulting any skilled person, employed a slater to repair it by cutting out a portion of each step and piecing it with fresh stone. In an action of damages by the injured man against the proprietor of the tenement, the Court, being of opinion on the facts that the fall of the stair was due to its having been materially weakened by the imperfect way in which it had been repaired, held that the accident was due to the fault of the defender, who had failed in his duty to keep the stair in a safe condition, and that he was liable to the pursuer in damages. Fulton v. Anderson, p. 100.

-Master and Servant-Onus of Proving Cause of Accident-Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42), secs. 1 and 2. An accident happened to a workman in consequence of the slipping, through a cause which could not be ascertained, of a heavy mass of metal, close to which he was working. It had been secured in a way usual in the trade. In an action against the employer the workman maintained that the fact of the accident having occurred placed an onus on the employer to account for it consistently with his having been free from fault. Held that no such onus rested on the employer, and that the workman having proved no fault leading to the accident, the employer must be assoilzied. Case distinguished from Fraser v. Fraser, June 6, 1882, and Walker v. Olsen, June 15, 1882, because in these cases fault was shown, though the precise defect in the employer's plant was not, and did not require to be, established. Macfarlane v. Thomson, p. 179.

sec. 9.

-Process-Sheriff-Removal to Court of Session-Appeal-Judicature Act (6 Geo. IV. c. 120), sec. 40-Court of Session Act 1878 (31 and 32 Vict c. 100), sec. 73-Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42), sec. 6Sheriff Courts Act 1877 (40 and 41 Vict. c. 50), Held that an action brought in a Sheriff Court alternatively at common law and under the Employers Liability Act 1880 was competently brought up to the Court of Session by an appeal for jury trial which was not lodged till the fifteenth day after proof had been allowed, the provisions of the Act that an action under it "may be removed to the Court of Session . . . in the manner provided by, and subject to the conditions pre

scribed by, sec. 9 of the Sheriff Courts (Seotland) Act 1877" not having the effect of excluding appeal brought in the ordinary form under the Judicature Act. Paton v. Niddrie and Benhar Coal Company (Limited), p. 345. Reparation-Master and Servant-Culpa-Girl under Fourteen Years Employed in Dangerous Work-Factory-Factory and Workshops Act 1878 (41 and 42 Vict. c. 16), sec. 26. A girl under fourteen was employed as a full-timer at a carding-machine in a factory. She was instructed not to touch or attempt to clean the machine while it was in motion, and she was given a stick with which, at a proper time, to clean off tow which might collect on the rollers. She attempted to clean it off with her hand while the machine was in motion, and sustained severe injuries in consequence. Held that, considering her age, the work was of a dangerous character, and that the injuries were attributable to the fault of the employers in setting her to such work. Sharp r. The Pathhead Spinning Company (Limited), p.

368.

Master and Servant-Culpa-Employers Liability Act (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42), sec. 1. A workman was injured through the breaking of a bolt on which a heavy weight depended. It was proved that the bolt might have been expected to carry a much greater weight, but no latent defect was proved. It appeared that it might previously have been exposed to a very severe strain, and there was no evidence that the employer was in use to have the bolts used in the work tested at intervals. The Sheriff having decided that in these circumstances the employer was liable to the workman, the Court held that there was evidence for his judgment and refused to disturb it. Irwin v. Dennystoun Forge Company, p.

379.

Master and Servant-Putting Machine to Improper Use-Latent Defect. A contractor was using a crane in order to tear up the rails of a disused line of railway-an unusual use to which to apply a crane-when it broke, owing to a pivot giving way in which there was a latent defect. In an action of damages by the widow of a workman who had been killed by the accident, he defended himself on the ground that the strain upon the crane at the time was less than its guaranteed strength, and that the cause of the accident was the latent defect. He had not tested the crane, but it had been used by him for some time. Held (Lord Rutherfurd Clark diss.) that the use of the crane was improper and was the cause of the accident, and that the defender was responsible. Welsh v. Moir, p.

381.

-Slander-Res noviter-Issue in Justification. In an action of damages for slander contained in a newspaper which had erroneously stated that the pursuer had been seven times convicted of theft, the verdict was for the pursuer, damages £50. At the trial the pursuer stated that he " was never convicted of theft, or of any dishonesty." The defen

ders subsequently discovered that he had. twenty-three years previously, when a boy of fourteen, been twice convicted in the same year of petty theft, and had been sent to a reformatory. They obtained a rule for a new trial, on the ground that the damages were excessive, because the jury had been misled by the pursuer's evidence, and because these two convictions had come to their knowledge, which constituted res noviter, entitling them to an issue in justification. Held that the two convictions would not support an issue in justification, and that the damages were not excessive, and rule discharged. Fletcher v. H. J. & J. Wilson, p. 433. Reparation-Assault-Slander-Privilege--Ejecting a Suspected Bad Character from Enclosure at Race Meeting-Policeman. A man went to a race meeting, and having paid the price of admission entered the paddock. A policeman who recognised him as one who had been more than once convicted of theft, and was suspected of resetting stolen property, ejected him, at the same time stating to the bystand

"This is W. the resetter." He brought ers, this action against the policeman for damages for assault and slander on the ground that the defender had no legal right so to act. The Court assoilzied the defender, holding that the pursuer being a noted bad character, the defender's actings were within his privilege and duty as a policeman. Wallace v. Mooney, p. 454.

-Master and Servant-Mine-BottomerSystem of Signals-Reasonable Precautions for Safety of Servant. Two miners were employed in loading a hutch of coals from a seam of coal on to a cage which was raised and lowered up and down a "blind" shaft by means of a rope working over a pulley in charge of a brakesman. He mistaking as a signal what was merely an exclamation by one of the miners to the other, removed the cage at the moment when one of them was pushing a hutch forward. The result was that the miner fell to the bottom of the shaft and was killed. In an action by his widow, held, on a consideration of the proof, that the presence of a bottomer at the opening leading to the shaft, and a proper system of signals, were ordinary and reasonable precautions for the safety of miners, which the employers were bound to have provided, and for omitting which they were liable in damages to the pursuer. Murdoch v. Mackinnon (Gauchalland Coal Company's Trustee), p. 522.

-Process-Issue-Innuendo-Counter Issue. A gamekeeper brought an action of damages for slander on the ground that the defender had said that he (defender) had repeatedly sold game for pursuer, and had paid him the proceeds, meaning thereby that the pursuer had taken game off his master's land and sold it and appropriated the proceeds, and thus been guilty of dishonesty. The defender proposed to take a counter issue whether the pursuer had left game with him for sale, and he had sold it and transmitted the money to

pursuer. The Court disallowed this issue on the ground that it omitted all suggestion of dishonesty. Bertram v. Pace, p. 525. Reparation-Master and Servant-Negligence— Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42), sec. 1, sub-sec. 3—Person to whose Orders or Directions Workmen are Bound to Conform. A workman, while working at a job along with several others, one of whom had higher wages than the others, and was in use to give directions which they obeyed, was injured through conforming to one of these orders, which was, in the circumstances, negligent. The defence to an action against the employer under sec. 1, sub-sec. 3, of the Employers Liability Act was, that the person in fault was in no position of superiority entitling him to give an order. Held that this question was one of fact, and that the workman in fault, though in a humble position, was truly a person to whose orders, according to the practice of the work, the pursuer was bound to conform, and therefore that the employer was liable. Dolan v. Anderson & Lyall, p. 529.

-Issue - Judicial Slander Privilege Counter Issue. A person brought against the law-agent of a person who had presented a petition for cessio against him an action of damages alleging that the defender had in the Sheriff Court, and in the Sheriff's absence, falsely, maliciously, and injuriously, and in the hearing of certain persons, used words concerning him, representing that he had been guilty of an offence under the Debtors Act 1880. He denied these averments, and stated that he had only asked questions pertinent to the cause and to his duty, but did not set forth on record that at the time the words complained of were used the pursuer was under examination in the cessio process, and that the question was asked by him in the course of the action. The Court allowed the pursuer an issue, and refused to allow a counter issue of privilege, but observed that if circumstances showing a case of privilege appeared at the trial the Judge would direct the jury accordingly. Scott v. Johnston, p. 546.

-Negligence-Relevancy. A carter while driving his horse through a half-opened gate forming the egress from certain premises to which he had been sent by his employers on lawful business, was killed by the unopened half of the gate, with which one of the wheels had come into contact, falling and knocking him down so that the wheel passed over his body. In an action for compensation by his widow against the owner of the premises, on the ground of fault, she averred that the gate was defective in construction in certain particulars, and that it was the duty of the defenders to have kept it either quite open or quite shut, and that there was no gateman in charge of it. Held that there was no relevant averment of fault involving liability for the accident on the part of the defenders. Daily v. Allan and Another, p. 548.

[blocks in formation]

-Slander — Innuendo-Privilege-Issue Malice. A newspaper published an anony

mous letter containing a libel, and refused to give the writer's name. Held that it thereby took on itself the responsibility of the writer, and was not privileged, and therefore that in an action of damages by the person libelled malice ought not to be put in issue. Brims v. Reid & Son, p. 670. Reparation-Personal Injury-Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. c. 42). In an action at the instance of an employee in a matchwork against his employers to recover damages for injuries which his hand had sustained in shutting a sliding door on the occasion of an alarm of fire, it was proved that the door in question was for the purpose of preventing fire communicating from one room to another, and that it was regularly closed at mealtimes and at night; that it was not usually the duty of the pursuer to shut the door, and that he had never done so until the day of the accident, when he did so in obedience to an order from the foreman; that the door was moved by means of a handle, but that there was no check in the wall to stop the door, which in consequence ran on until brought up by the handle; and that a very small alteration would have made the door safe. Held in these circumstances that there was fault on the part of the defenders, and that the pursuer was entitled to damages. Johnston v. Mitchell & Company, p. 698.

-Master and Servant-Common Employment. A labourer employed by a company who had a contract for laying with concrete some buildings in course of erection brought an action against a person who had contracted for the plumber and gasfitting work connected with the same buildings, alleging injury by the negligence of one of his men. Held (following Woodhead v. The Gartness Mineral Co., 10th February 1877, 4 R. 469) that the action was irrelevant, because the pursuer's allegations disclosed a case of common employment between the injured man and his injurer. Maguire v. Russell, p. 706.

Master and Servant-Common Employment. A labourer employed by a railway company in packing sleepers in a goods-shed brought an action of damages against a firm of slaters who had contracted to roof the shed, in respect of injuries through the alleged negligence of the slaters' servant in letting a number of slates fall upon him. Held that these allegations did not disclose a case of common employment, and that the action was therefore relevant. Gorman v. Morrison & Son, p. 708.

Master and Servant-Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. cap. 42)-Misad venture. Labourers were engaged in filling with sand a pit intended to be used for making iron castings. They were under the charge of A, who worked with them as foreman of the "shift," and was under the orders of the general foreman. They proceeded to dig sand from the neighbourhood of a heavy log which rested on pillars supported in the sand. This was the nearest sand, but there was other sand

[ocr errors]

which they could have used. The result was that the log, which had been placed in position twelve days before, fell and killed A. Held, in an action by his representatives, (1) that A was a workman entitled to the benefit of the Employers Liability Act 1880, notwithstanding his being foreman of the shift; and (2) that no negligence on the part of the employers, or those for whom they were responsible, had been proved. Hamilton v. The Hyde Park Foundry Company, p. 709. Reparation--Malicious Prosecution-Day Trespass Act (2 and 3 Will. IV. cap. 68)—Title to SueDefective Libelling of Title-Summary Procedure Act 1864 (27 and 28 Vict. cap. 53). The complainer in a complaint under the Day Trespass Act, which was brought under the Summary Procedure Act, libelled his title as tenant of D, and did not set forth also, as was the fact, that he was tenant of the shootings as well. He was afterwards sued in damages for malicious prosecution. Held, without determining whether the title as libelled was bad, that having in fact a good title to prosecute, he was entitled to plead the protecting clauses of the Day Trespass Act, providing that such actions must be brought within six months of the fact committed, and of the Summary Procedure Act 1864, providing that actions in respect of proceedings thereunder shall be brought within two months after the cause of action shall have arisen, and that the action not having been brought within the statutory period must be dismissed. Ferguson v. M'Nab, p. 717.

-Master and Servant - Process Action Raised and Decided at Common Law - Res Noviter- Employers Liability Act 1880 (43 and 44 Vict. cap. 42)-Amendment. An action of damages by a labourer against his employers for bodily injury sustained, was raised in the Sheriff Court at common law, and decided on that footing adversely to the pursuer. He appealed, and on a statement that the agent who had formerly conducted the case had died, and his successor had only discovered, since the appeal was taken, that the notice of raising an action necessary for founding on the Employers Liability Act 1880 had in point of fact been duly and timeously given, he moved to be allowed to plead that Act. The Court refused the motion. Clark v. Adams, p. 740.

·Personal Injury-Persons Engaged together in a Dangerous Amusement--Liability of Persons so Engaged for Injury to Other Persons. A man while engaged in his work of building a stack was injured by another who was working with him, and who in the course of some rough play in which the injured man was not taking part, but without any intention of injuring him, pushed him off the stack. Held that the person whose act caused the injury was liable in damages to the injured man. Observed that a person who is injured in the course of a game in which he takes part by any cause ordinarily occurring in such a game is not entitled to damages therefor, but takes

the risks of the game in which he joins. Reid v. Mitchell, p. 748. Reparation-Slander—Making Erroneous Accusation in Good Faith to Police-Privilege-Malice and Want of Probable Cause. A lady observing on the street a man whom she believed to have defrauded her of money a few days before, charged him in presence of the persons then in his company with having done so, and in a few minutes thereafter, having procured a policeman, gave him into custody. It was proved that she was entirely mistaken as to his identity, and he was liberated. Held, in an action of damages by him, that the charge to the police not having been malicious and without probable cause, was privileged, and did not infer liability in damages; (2) that the charge made before the police were procured was not to be looked on as a separate accusation, but as part of the same res gesta, and therefore could not of itself infer liability. The Court therefore assoilzied the defender. Paterson and Another v. Hassan, p. 775.

----Seduction-Mora-Condonation of Injury. In an action of damages for seduction, brought after the death of the alleged seducer, it appeared that after the first intercourse with the deceased the pursuer had cohabited with him for many years, during which time she was ostensibly in the position of a servant. Held that the action was barred by delay, and by the remaining in the service. Maloy v. Macadam, p. 790.

-Hackney Carriage-Accident through Horse Bolting Culpa-Edinburgh Municipal and Police Act 1879 (42 and 43 Vict. c. 133). By the bye-laws applying to cabmen in Edinburgh it is provided that a cabman shall when at a stance either sit on the box or stand at the head of his horse. The driver of a cab, which was drawn up at a stance, was standing about three yards from his horse, which was feeding from a nose-bag, when the animal took fright and bolted. In an action by the representatives of a person who was alleged to have been knocked down and killed in consequence, held that (assuming the deceased to have been injured in the manner alleged) the provisions of the bye-law could not at all times be literally complied with, and that there had been a failure to make out such negligence on the part of the driver as would render his employer responsible. Shaw v. Croall & Sons, p. 792.

Process-Joint and Several LiabilitySeparate Case against Different Defenders. Where a pursuer brought against separate defenders, "jointly and severally or severally," an action for a slump sum of damages for alleged wrongs, one of which was the act of one defender alone-held, following Barr v. Neilsons, March 20, 1868, 6 Macph. 651, that the action was not maintainable. Taylor v. M'Dougall & Sons and Rutherford, p. 869.

[blocks in formation]

to Sue. Held (diss. Lord Shand) that a claim of damages for solatium not pursued during the wrongdoer's life may be competent against his estate in the hands of representatives. A woman raised an action against the representatives of a man deceased alleging that she had been married to him on the faith of his representations that he was then single, that it had transpired since his death that he was then a married man, and that thus she had been seduced under colour of marriage. Held that the action was competent. Evans v. Stool and Others (Stool's Executors), p. 872. Reparation-Interdict-Unjustifiable Application for Interdict-Application periculo petentis. A railway company who had power by their Special Act, subject to liability to make compensation, to "appropriate and use" the subsoil under a street, were delayed in their operations and suffered damage in consequence of an interim interdict obtained by a proprietor in the street, on the ground that the company were bound before proceeding with their operations to "purchase and take" the subsoil in question. This interdict having been recalled as erroneous in law-held that a sum of money only having been exigible in any event, the interdict was wrongous, and the proprietor was liable in damages to the company for the consequences of it. The Glasgow City and District Railway Company v. The Glasgow Coal Exchange Company (Limited), p. 903.

-See Process-Master and Servant-Railway.

Reponing. See Process.
Reporter's Fee. See Process.
Res judicata. See Process.
Res noviter. See Reparation.
Res perit domino. See Sale.

Reservation of Liberty of Working Minerals. See
Property.

Residential Settlement. See Poor.

Residue. See Succession.

Responsibility of Agent. See Agent and Principal.

Restrictions. See Process.

Retention-Bank-Cautionary Obligation of a Bank Agent for Overdrawn Account of Customer-Arrestment. A bank agent owed a tradesman a sum of money for goods supplied to his family. The tradesman was a customer of the bank and had overdrawn his account, and for that overdraft the bank agent was liable to the bank. A creditor of the tradesman arrested in the hands of the bank agent the debt due by him to the tradesman. Question, Whether the agent had a right of retention in respect of cautionary obligation, and therefore whether the arrestment was good? M'Pherson v. Wright and Sinclair, p. 628. Retiral. See Partnership. Revenue-Succession-Succession Duty Act 1853 (16 and 17 Vict. cap. 51), sec. 2—Entail-Predecessor-Disposition-Devolution of Law. truster who died in 1843 directed his trustees to entail certain lands belonging to him upon the series of heirs called after him in a deed

A

« السابقةمتابعة »