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 >> Campbell v. Farquhar [1917] ScotLR 267 (21 February 1917) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1917/54SLR0267.html Cite as: [1917] ScotLR 267, [1917] SLR 267 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 267↓
(Single Bills.)
[Sheriff Court of Aberdeen.
An appellant from the Sheriff Court, who had against him a judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff, applied for admission to the poor's roll of the Court of Session in order to prosecute the appeal. Opinion of the reporters as to whether the pursuer had a probabilis causa litigandi was equally divided. Held that, notwithstanding this, the fact that the case turned upon the question of contributory negligence justified the Court in dispensing with printing.
George Campbell, pursuer, aged fifteen, residing with his mother Mrs Helen Fraser or Campbell, Aberdeen, brought an action in the Sheriff Court at Aberdeen against Arthur W. Farquhar, defender, to recover damages for personal injuries sustained in consequence of his being knocked down by a motor car belonging to the defender. The Sheriff-Substitute ( Louttit Laing) having assoilzied the defenders, and the Sheriff ( Lorimer) having adhered, the pursuer appealed to the Court of Session.
Both the Sheriff-Substitute and the Sheriff found that there was negligence on the part of the defender, but that negligence on the part of the pursuer had contributed to the accident, the Sheriff intimating that on the question of contributory negligence the case was a narrow one.
On 30th November 1916 the pursuer applied for admission to the poor's roll of the Court of Session in order to be enabled to prosecute the appeal. The reporters on the probabilis causa litigandi reported that they were equally divided in opinion on the question whether the pursuer had a probabilis causa litigandi.
The defender enrolled the cause and moved the Court, in view of the reporters' report, to refuse the application and to order prints to be lodged within fourteen days.
The pursuer moved the Court to dispense with printing, and argued—Where as in the present case there were averments of serious injury, and the question turned on a fine point of law, the pursuer should be given an opportunity of laying his case before the Court. The fact that the reporters were equally divided in opinion strengthened this pursuer's position. Under the circumstances printing therefore should be dispensed with, and for this purpose a dispensation was necessary. In the case of Walker v. Smith, 1912 S.C. 1149, 49 S.L.R. 863, the pursuer was, no doubt, refused admission to the poor's roll, and was ordered to print where he had an adverse judgment of the Sheriff-Substitute and Sheriff to meet. In this case, however, serious injuries had undoubtedly been sustained and the question of law was narrow. Because of that a dispensation of printing was asked for.
The Court granted the request to dispense with printing.
Counsel for the Pursuer— R. Macgregor Mitchell. Agent— T. M. Pole, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defender— D. R. Scott. Agents— Lindsay, Cook, & Dickson, W.S.
