BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Earl of Southesk and Others v. The Inch Bleaching Co. and Others [1881] ScotLR 18_380 (5 March 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0380.html
Cite as: [1881] SLR 18_380, [1881] ScotLR 18_380

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 380

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Saturday, March 5. 1881.

Lord Adam, Ordinary.

18 SLR 380

Earl of Southesk and Others

v.

The Inch Bleaching Company and Others.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Issue
Subject_3River
Subject_4Nuisance.
Facts:

In an action of declarator and interdict brought by riparian proprietors against the occupants of paper-mills and other works and the police commissioners of a burgh, to prevent them from polluting a river to the nuisance of the pursuers, the Lord Ordinary adjusted an issue, whether the defenders Polluted the river “to the nuisance of the pursuers or their authors, or one or more and which of them?” The Court ( diss. Lord Shand) held that the words “and which” should be deleted from the issue.

Headnote:

The Earl of Southesk and other riparian proprietors on the river South Esk raised an action of declarator and interdict against the Inch Bleaching Company, Messrs Guthrie, Gray, Peter, & Company, paper manufacturers, The East Mill Company, spinners and bleachers, Messrs Guthrie, Martin, & Company, distillers, and the Commissioners of Police of the Burgh of Brechin, to have them prevented from polluting the said river.

The Lord Ordinary ( Adam) adjusted this issue for the trial of the case—“Whether between the 11th day of June 1877 and the 11th day of June 1880 the Commissioners of Police of the burgh of Brechin did, by discharging sewage or other impure matters, or permitting sewage or other impure matters to be discharged, from the sewers or drains under their charge, at or near the burgh of Brechin, into the Skinners Burn, the Den Burn, and the Glencaldham Burn, or one or more of them, before their confluence with the river South Esk, and into the said river South Esk itself, pollute the water of the said river South Esk, to the nuisance of the pursuer or their authors, or one or more and which of them?”

The pursuer moved the Court to vary the issue by deleting therefrom the words “and which.” They contended that the words were unnecessary, and contrary to the usual form of issue in such cases— Duke of Buccleuch, & c. v. Cowan, &c., 23d Feb. 1866, 4 Macph. 475, and 21st Dec. 1866, 5 Macph. 214.

Judgment:

At advising—

Lord President—I think the issue should be “to the injury of the pursuers or their authors, or one or other of them.”

Lord Shand differed.

Lord Deas concurred with the Lord President.

Lord Mure—My opinion has been distinct from the very first that the insertion of the words “and which” is a departure from the style of issue on which cases of this sort have been satisfactorily tried, and that the Lord Ordinary ought not to have put these words in the issue. I think they are more likely to confuse than to assist the jury, and that the issue without these words is well fitted to try the question. If the words are required here they might as well be required in every indictment where more than one person is brought up for trial in a criminal Court.

The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to adjust the issue in terms of the above opinion of the Court.

Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer— D. F. Kinnear, Q.C.— H. Johnston. Agents— Mackenzie & Kermack, W.S.

Counsel for Defenders— J. P. B. Robertson— Jameson. Agents— Webster, Will, & Ritchie, S.S.C.

1881


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0380.html