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 >> Buchanan v. Ballantine [1910] ScotLR 111 (05 July 1910) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1910/48SLR0111.html Cite as: [1910] ScotLR 111, [1910] SLR 111 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 111↓
[
A pursuer having raised an action of damages, applied for the benefit of the poor's roll. The reporters found that there was a probabilis causa, but on consideration of their report the Second Division refused admission to the roll on the ground that the cause was unsuitable for trial in the Court of Session. The pursuer thereupon proposed to proceed with the action in the Court of Session in ordinary form.
The Court ( per Lord Mackenzie) ordained the pursuer to find caution for expenses within fourteen days.
This was an action of damages for slander at the instance of Effingham D. Buchanan, Strathaven, against Andrew Ballantine, farmer, Glassford, Hamilton, in which proceedings were sisted in order to allow the pursuer an opportunity to apply for the benefit of the poor's roll.
The matter came before the reporters on probabilis causa litigandi, who reported that there was a probabilis causa, but thereafter, on the consideration of the report by the Second Division, the Court refused to admit the pursuer to the poor's roll, on the ground that the cause was unsuitable for trial in the Court of Session.
The pursuer then enrolled the case before Lord Mackenzie (Ordinary), and intimated that he desired to proceed with the action in the Court of Session in common form, and on 14th June 1910 the Lord Ordinary, on the pursuer's motion, recalled the sist.
On 5th July 1910 counsel for the defender moved the Court to ordain the pursuer to find caution for expenses, and cited Ritchie v. Mackintosh, June 2, 1881, 8 R. 747, 18 S.L.R. 528; and Robertson v. Meikle, July 15, 1890, 28 S.L.R. 18.
The Lord Ordinary (
Counsel for the Pursuer— Dykes. Agent— Robert Gray, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender — Fenton. Agents— Simpson & Marwick, W.S.
