BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Blaw of Castlehill v Robert Geddes and Others, Justices of Peace. [1754] Mor 7610 (9 July 1754)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1754/Mor1807610-327.html Cite as:
[1754] Mor 7610
Blaw of Castlehill v. Robert Geddes and Others, Justices of Peace
Date: 9 July 1754 Case No. No 327.
Justices have no power of imprisoning for civil debts.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mrs Blaw, the pursuer's wife, having done diligence against him, upon a decreet for her separate aliment, the expense of that diligence amounted to L. 13: 15s. Scots; she brought action against him for that sum, before the defenders, as Justices of Peace in the Culross district of the shire of Perth; and, in her libel, she craved not only decreet for the said sum and expenses of plea, but also a warrant of warding, in case payment should not be made within fifteen days after the charge.
The defences made for Mr Blaw were; 1mo, That Mrs Blaw, being clothed with a husband, could not pursue without his consent. 2do, That the Justices of Peace were not competent judges in this cause.
“The Justices decerned, and granted warding in common form.”
The pursuer being thereon put in jail, brought an action of wrongous imprisonment against the Justices; wherein it was insisted, 1mo, That the Justices of Peace have no general jurisdiction in civil debts; and, 2do, Though they had such jurisdiction, yet they have no power of warding or committing to prison.
Pleaded for the defenders; That such was the constant practice of the Justices in that shire, as well as in many other shires in Scotland; and that this practice was founded on public utility.
The Lord Ordinary repelled the defence; and, upon a reclaiming petition,
“The Lords found, That the Justices of Peace did wrong in granting warrant for warding; but, in respect that the pursuer does not now insist, and that the Justices were in practice of granting warding, they assoilzie, and decern.”
Act. Lockhart.Alt. Haldane et Bruce.
Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 358. Fac. Col. No 111. p. 162.
