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!



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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Macpherson v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1881] ScotLR 18_658 (6 July 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0658.html
Cite as: [1881] SLR 18_658, [1881] ScotLR 18_658

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 658

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Wednesday, July 6. 1881.

18 SLR 658

Macpherson

v.

Caledonian Railway Company.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2fury Trial
Subject_3Change in Place of Trial.
Facts:

This was an action of damages for injury sustained in an accident at Pennilee, on the Glasgow and Paisley joint line, partly owned by the defenders. The defenders admitted liability, but contended that the damages claimed were excessive. The pursuer, passing over the ensuing sittings, had given notice of trial for the Glasgow Autumn Circuit. The defenders now moved to have the trial fixed to take place at Edinburgh, either at the sittings or before one of the Lords Ordinary. They argued that as the question related to the amount of damages, it depended entirely on the evidence of a few skilled witnesses, and would therefore be much more cheaply tried in Edinburgh, for the other expenses were necessarily higher when the trial took place away from Edinburgh. In a recent case arising out of the same accident the Auditor had allowed an addition of one-third to counsel's fees. Further, there were so many season ticket-holders who travelled daily by the line on which the accident took place that it was almost impossible to get an impartial jury at Glasgow. In the former case a gentleman who was claiming damages for this very accident had served on the jury. The pursuer contended that no sufficient reason had been shown for interfering with his right. All the witnesses belonged to Glasgow, so that the expense would be less by having the trial there. The fact of being a season ticket-holder was no objection to a juror, and as regards the juror who was himself asking for damages the defenders ought to have objected to him.

Judgment:

The Court refused the motion.

Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer— Shaw. Agents— Cumming & Duff, W. S.

Counsel for Defenders— R. Johnstone. Agents— Hope, Mann, & Kirk, W.S.

1881


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/18SLR0658.html