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 £1, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Snodgrass, &c. v Dr John Wotherspoon. [1776] 5 Brn 573 (00 January 1776) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1776/Brn050573-0660.html Cite as: [1776] 5 Brn 573 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1776] 5 Brn 573
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION. reported by ALEXANDER TAIT, CLERK OF SESSION, one of the reporters for the faculty.
Subject_2 REPARATION.
Snodgrass, &c
v.
Dr John Wotherspoon
1776 .January .Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In an action of defamation and damages, Snodgrass and Others, inhabitants of Paisley, against Dr John Wotherspoon, the Lord Colston, Ordinary, pronounced this interlocutor:—“14th November 1764. Find that the preaching of the sermon complained of was fully justified by the proof brought before the kirk-session; but find that the printing and publishing said sermon, with the explanatory preface prefixed to it, in which the pursuers, by name, are charged as having been guilty of the facts therein mentioned, especially after the sentence pronounced thereanent by the Presbytery, was illegal, unwarrantable, and injurious to the pursuers; and, therefore, finds the defender liable in damages and expenses.”
His Lordship afterwards modified the damages to ₤30, and the expenses to £88:10s., “in respect that the preaching of the sermon, which gave rise to the action, was occasioned by an improper conduct on the part of the pursuers, and that the printing and publishing the sermon, and what followed, appeared rather to have been the effect of an intemperate zeal than of a malicious and deliberate intention to injure the pursuers.” But, on a reclaiming petition of the pursuers, the Lords increased the damages to ₤150, and gave full expenses, since pronouncing the Ordinary's interlocutor modifying the former ones. In considering the damages, they took under consideration the personal expenses of the pursuers; for, although these are not given in ordinary cases, yet, where damages are given, personal expenses may be given as part of damages, and in this case were given eo nomine.
See Kilkerran, p. 181, Mackail. See Scotlands against Mr James Thomson.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
