[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]
Page: 380↓
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.
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.
At advising—
The Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to adjust the issue in terms of the above opinion of the Court.
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.