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 >> Newton v. Methven [1914] ScotLR 638 (05 June 1914) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1914/51SLR0638.html Cite as: [1914] ScotLR 638, [1914] SLR 638 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 638↓
(Single Bills.)
The Codifying Act of Sederunt, Book D, chapter iii, sec. 1, enacts—“The appellant shall … print and box the note of appeal, record, interlocutors, and proof, if any, … and if the appellant shall fail … to print and box … the papers required as aforesaid, he shall be held to have abandoned his appeal, and shall not be entitled to insist therein except upon being reponed as hereinafter provided.”
In an appeal from the Sheriff Court where the prints of the record boxed did not contain adjustments made at the closing of the record, the Court allowed the appellant to box and lodge corrected prints.
Richard Newton, 46 Watson Street, Dundee, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Dundee against J. C. Methven, “The Cottage,” Lochee, Dundee, for payment of £100 as damages for injuries sustained in a collision between his (the pursuer's) motor cycle and the defender's motor car through, as he alleged, the fault of the defender's chauffeur. On I7th February 1914 the Sheriff-Substitute ( Neish) assoilzied the defender. The pursuer appealed.
On the case appearing in the Single Bills the appellant presented a note to the Lord President stating that he had, following the usual practice, printed the record from the certified copy initial writ; that the certified copy did not contain adjustments of parties put on at the closing of the record so as to correspond with the principal initial writ as adjusted; and that the record as printed was thus inaccurate. In these circumstances he craved leave to correct the record by including the amendments referred to.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the Court had no discretionary power to grant the motion, and that the appeal was therefore incompetent. He cited—C.A.S., D, iii, 1; Taylor v. Macilwain, October 18, 1900, 3 F. 1, 38 S.L.R. 1; Lee v. Maxton, February 2, 1904, 6 F. 346, 41 S.L.R. 281; and Bennie v. Cross & Company, March 8, 1904, 6 F. 538, 41 S.L.R. 381.
Page: 639↓
The Court pronounced this interlocutor—
“Allow the appellants to box and lodge corrected prints of the record containing the amendments made on the initial writ, the expense thereof to be borne by the appellant: Find the respondent entitled to the modified sum of two pounds two shillings of expenses, and decern against the appellant for payment accordingly.”
Counsel for Pursuer (Appellant)— A. A. Fraser. Agents— Clark & Macdonald, S.S.C.
Counsel for Defender (Respondent)— W. A. Fleming. Agents— Thomson, Dickson, & Shaw, W.S.
