Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this case, John Batey, shipowner, lately residing in Leith, now in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and Francis Batey, shipowner, also lately residing in Leith, and now in Newcastle-upon-Tyne, registered owners of the steam-vessel Montrose, afterwards called the Lord Aberdour, of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, and lately plying between Leith and Aberdour as a passenger boat, are pursuers; and James Dykes, coal merchant and shipowner, residing in Leith, is defender. The issues were—

1. “Whether, on or about the 15th day of July 1865, the defender wrongously, maliciously, and without probable cause, and for a debt not due by the pursuers, arrested the steamship or

Page: 243↓

vessel called the Montrose, and sometimes called the Lord Aberdour, of Newcastle-on-Tyne, the property of the pursuers, while lying in the harbour of Leith, and caused her to be dismantled, and detained in the said harbour of Leith—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuers?”

2. “Whether, on or about the 18th day of July 1865, the defender wrongously exacted and received from the pursuers the sums of money specified in the schedule hereto annexed, in order to have the said arrestment loosed and discharged? and whether the defender is resting and owing to the pursuers the said sums, or any part thereof, with interest at the rate of five per centum per annum from said 18th July 1865 till paid?”

Damages laid at £300.

SCHEDULE.

1. Amount of account sued for in the summons raised at the instance of the said James Dykes against the said John Batey and Francis Batey (which was signeted on or about the 15th July 1865), and in reference to which account the arrestment mentioned in the foregoing issues was used, which amount was advanced or paid under protest by the pursuers to the defender on or about 18th July 1865	£31 10 0
2. Amount of account of expenses incurred to Mr A. D. Murphy, S.S.C., Leith, law agent for the said James Dykes, in reference to the said summons and arrestment, also paid under protest by the pursuers to the defender on or about said 18th July 1865	9 8 8
	£40 18 8

The case chiefly turned on the question whether the account in respect of which the action was raised and the arrestments were used was one for which Messrs Batey, the owners, were responsible. The account was due to the defender for coal supplied for and used in the vessel, and for the hire of the defender's steam-tug Pet; but the pursuers maintained that the account was incurred solely on the credit and responsibility of a Mr Gibb, who had chartered the vessel.

The jury to-day returned a unanimous verdict for the pursuer on both issues, and assessed the damages at £50.