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 >> Petersen and Mandatory v. M'Lean & Hope and Hertz. (Ante, p. 172.) [1867] ScotLR 5_449_1 (7 April 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0449_1.html Cite as: [1867] SLR 5_449_1, [1867] ScotLR 5_449_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 449↓
(Before Lord President.)
(Ante, p. 172.)
Action for wrongous seizure and injury of vessel. Verdict for pursuers.
In this case, Mr Niels Christian Petersen, master and part owner of the vessel Nayaden of Flensburg, in Prussia, presently lying in the harbour of Inverkeithing, for himself, and also as representing the other owners of the said vessel, was pursuer; and Messrs M'Lean & Hope, merchants, Leith, and Mr Theodor Hertz, merchant, Glasgow, were defenders.
The following were the issues sent to the jury:—
“It being admitted that, on or about 16th May 1867, the defenders, M'Lean & Hope, with consent and concurrence of the other defender, Theodor
Page: 450↓
Hertz, raised an action in the Court of Session against the pursuer, as master and part owner of the vessel called the Nayaden, and for himself, and as representing the owners of the said vessel, for payment of £297, 6s. 4d., for alleged short delivery of a cargo of bones, and it being also admitted that the said action was discharged and withdrawn by the defenders:
1. Whether, on or about 16th May 1867, and in or near the roadstead of St Davids, in the Firth of Forth, the defenders, or others acting by their orders, wrongfully and without legal warrant invaded and took possession of the said vessel, and brought her to the harbour of Inverkeithing, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
2. Whether, on or about the 16th day of May 1867, the defenders maliciously, and without probable cause, arrested the said vessel on the dependence of said action, and caused her to be detained, first in the harbour of Inverkeithing, and thereafter in the harbour of Leith, from said date till 22d June 1867, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
3. Whether, on or about said 16th May 1867, the defenders, or others acting by their orders, did by gross negligence or gross unskilfulness cause the said vessel to strike against the quay at the said harbour of Inverkeithing, and against a coal-spout on said quay, whereby she sustained damage in her hull, rigging, and other parts, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
4. Whether the said harbour of Inverkeithing was an unsafe harbour in which to place the said vessel; and whether the defenders, or others acting by their orders, did by gross negligence or gross unskilfulness cause the said vessel to be placed in said harbour on or about said 16th May 1867, and detained therein from said date till on or about the 8th June 1867, whereby she suffered damage in her hull, rigging, and other parts, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?”
Damages laid as follows:—
Under first issue,
£200
Under second issue,
350
Under third issue,
500
Under fourth issue,
550
Dean or Faculty and Scott for pursuers.
Clark and Thomson for defenders.
The jury, after an hour's absence, returned a verdict for the pursuer on all the four issues, assessing the damages as follows:—
|
Under first issue, |
£100 |
|
Under second issue, |
200 |
|
Under third issue, |
5 |
|
Under fourth issue, |
215 |
|
Total damages, |
£520 |
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuers— A Duncan, S.S.C.
Agent for Defenders— John Ross, S.S.C.
