Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord President—The judgment of the Sheriff cannot be supported. I see no justice in it, nor good law either. The objection that the contract was illegal under the Weights and Measures Act is quite untenable. The contract was completed by delivery of the meal, rendering of the accounts by the pursuer, and acceptance of the accounts by the defender without objection. In the accounts the meal is charged at so much the sack or stone. The Sheriff seems to think that the pursuer was not justified, or at least that he has not proved that he was justified, in sending the quantities of meal which he did, because it is not proved that the quantities sent corresponded with the quantities ordered. The answer to this is, that the account was several times rendered, and no objection taken. He had a very good opportunity in the proceedings before the Sheriff-Substitute. He takes time to look through the orders, and never appears again; a practical confession that he had no good defence. The same answer applies to the objection that it is not proved that the orders were signed by the defender. He was in the witness box, and he never denies his signature. The Sheriff-Substitute is quite right.

Lord Deas—I concur, both as to the question under the Weights and Measures Acts and as to the merits. The defences are stated by the defender himself, and that makes them all the more valuable in ascertaining the facts. He admits that the account was rendered as far back as September 1866, and twice subsequently; that during the whole of that time he never made any objection, except one which strengthens the pursuer's case. He sends back the account on one occasion, not to make objections to it, but in order that credit might be given for alleged payments; which payments he has failed to prove.

Lords Ardmillan and Kinloch concurred.