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 >> Jack v. Scott [1866] ScotLR 1_125_2 (31 January 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0125_2.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 1_125_2, [1866] ScotLR 1_125_2 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 125↓
Motion for a new trial refused in a case of conflicting evidence.
In this case a jury returned a verdict for the pursuer. The question involved was whether the defender Scott had signed a bill, or whether his name which appeared on the bill was a forgery. The defender moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence. After hearing Mr Davidson in support of the motion for a rule, the Court refused the motion, because although there was undoubtedly conflicting evidence, it did not appear that any advantage would be gained by disturbing the verdict.
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Moncrieff. Agents— Messrs Patrick, M'Ewen & Carment, W.S.
Counsel for Defender— Mr J. R, Davidson. Agents— Messrs Hill, Reid, & Drummond, W.S.
