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 >> Fraser v. Macnee [1867] ScotLR 5_365_1 (7 March 1867) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1867/05SLR0365_1.html Cite as: [1867] ScotLR 5_365_1, [1867] SLR 5_365_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 365↓
Place of trial changed from Inverness to Edinburgh, it appearing that the evidence would mostly consist of evidence of skilled medical witnesses, better procurable at Edinburgh than at Inverness.
The pursuer of this action was Catherine Fraser, Munlochy, in the county of Ross, and the defender was Dr James Macnee, surgeon, there.
The following issue was adjusted:—
“Whether, on or about the 7th February 1867, the defender, maliciously and without probable cause, communicated or caused to be communicated to the procurator-fiscal of the western district of Ross-shire, false information or representation concerning the pursuer, to the effect that she was guilty of concealment of pregnancy, in consequence of which the pursuer was apprehended on a charge of concealment of pregnancy, and incarcarated in the prison of Dingwall, from 8th to 21st February 1867, to the loss, injury and damage of the pursuer?”
Damages laid at £300.
The case was set down for trial at the Spring Circuit at Inverness, but the defender applied to have the place of trial changed to Edinburgh, on the ground that the case would mainly turn on medical evidence, which would be more easily and cheaply procured at a trial in Edinburgh than at a trial in Inverness. The pursuer objected, on the ground that she ought not to be compelled to bring her witnesses from Ross-shire to Edinburgh.
Watson for defender.
Strachan for pursuer.
The Court held that, in the circumstances of the case, it was expedient to grant the defender's motion. The material inquiry in the case would be whether, as a matter of medical skill, the defender was or was not justified in the view which he took of the pursuer's condition. If the pursuer's case was good, it was, in fact, her own interest to have the best evidence possible, and that would be had with greater ease and with less expense in Edinburgh than in Inverness.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuer— J. Barton, S.S.C.
Agents for Defender— Adam & Sang, S.S.C.
