Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The question is, Have we before us such a use of the premises as ought to be interfered with by interdict? The Sheriff had nothing before him except two photographs of the premises. They are a little extreme, I admit, but they show a very large frontage to two streets, and I cannot say that I see anything in these photographs which is different from what one ordinarily sees in connection with such sales. I do not think the Sheriff was justified in granting the interdict he did. He granted a permanent interdict, which practically prohibited the defenders from ever doing anything of the kind again. I do not think that anyone taking a lease of premises of this kind, in which it is to be expected that such sales would take place, ought to be subjected to a permanent interdict against putting up such an advertisement. To call it an interference with the structure is absurd. There is no interference with the structure, and it is not suggested in the pleadings that anything was done to the structure which left it altered in any way after the signs were taken down. On the whole matter I am satisfied that this was not a case in which this interdict should have been granted, and that the interlocutor of the Sheriff should be recalled.

Lord Low—I agree with an observation which fell from my brother Lord Dundas during the course of the discussion, that each case of this kind must be judged according to its own circumstances, and so regarding this case I concur in the conclusion at which your Lordship has arrived. If it had been averred that special sales were of constant occurrence, and that the appellants, instead of carrying on the proper business of shopkeepers, were really carrying on a business which was rather of the nature of an auction business, and were constantly acquiring and selling off bankrupt stocks or the like, the case would have been very different. But I do not think that there is any averment here of a case of that kind. It is, no doubt, said that the sales were frequent, but the specific averment is that there were five of them in eighteen months. That is not excessive. The special sale of Thomas Hodge's goods would be one, I suppose that there would be two Christmas sales, and perhaps two sales at the end of the summer season, which would amount only to the special sales to which one is accustomed in a quite good class of shops. I do not think it is going beyond what a tradesman is entitled to do upon the occasion of a special sale to put up a reasonable advertisement on the outside of his shop, and that is all that was done here. The natural distinction between this case and the British Linen Company v. Purdie, is that there the erection was permanent, whereas here it is merely temporary and for a temporary purpose. I am therefore of opinion that on the material before us we are justified in recalling the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute and refusing the interdict craved.

Lord Ardwall—I also am of the same opinion. These premises were let for the purpose of carrying on a youths and gentlemen's clothing and outfitting and haberdashery establishment and workshop connected therewith. Now I think it is quite a proper incident of a business of that kind that shopkeepers, when they have an opportunity, should buy in stock from other traders and sell it at a profit, and when the defenders here got a stock which was all new, and which they could sell in the course of their business, I do not think that they did anything beyond the limits of their proper business. I take it that this purchase having been made, the defenders were entitled to do anything which was reasonably necessary in the way of advertising its sale, and the question is whether they did anything contrary to the terms of the lease, and whether they were entitled to take the mode of advertising their goods by the erection of banners on the outside wall of their shop. Now these banners are just sheets of linen with an advertisement printed upon them, and stretched upon light wooden spars, and fastened, we are not told how, to the front of the shop apparently in such a way as to do no harm to the structure of the shop, and without altering the structure of the walls in any way. That being so, I do not think this is a case for interdict at all. I entirely agree with the observation that every case of this sort must be judged of by its own circumstances, and that one case cannot really be treated as an authority for another, and, in particular, I think that the case of the British Linen Company v. Purdie cannot be regarded as an authority for this case. There are important differences between that case and the present. In that case the outward structure of the shop was interfered with to a considerable extent, because the width of the show case was added to the outside wall apparently on a buttress. It might very well be that that was inconvenient to the proprietors, but at all events it is quite clear that it was an interference, more or less important, with the outer structure of the shop, with the cement on which the pillars were founded, and with the ashlar front of the shop. Further, it was a permanent interference with the structure of the building, whereas if there was any interference at all in the present case it was only temporary. It is enough to say that, taking the

Page: 276↓