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 >> Campbell v. Caledonian Railway Co. [1881] ScotLR 19_187 (6 December 1881)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1881/19SLR0187.html
Cite as: [1881] SLR 19_187, [1881] ScotLR 19_187

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

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 187↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, December 6. 1881.

19 SLR 187

Campbell

v.

Caledonian Railway Company.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Jury Trial
Subject_3Glasgow Winter Circuit
Subject_49 Geo. IV. c. 29.
Facts:

A pursuer having in December given notice of jury trial for “the next Circuit Court to be held at Glasgow,” the Lords appointed the case to be tried at the ensuing sittings in Edinburgh, because if the notice

Page: 188↓

was intended to refer to the Christmas Circuit at Glasgow it was incompetent—if to the next Spring Circuit, the delay was unreasonable.

Headnote:

The pursuer Campbell sued the Caledonian Railway Company for damages sustained by him while travelling on their line at Pennilee, near Glasgow. He had given notice of trial for the next Circuit Court to be held in Glasgow, and now moved the Court to order the trial to proceed at the ensuing Winter Circuit, fixed, in terms of 9 Geo. IV. cap. 29, for the 27th December, or otherwise at the next Spring Circuit to be held in Glasgow.

The defenders resisted the motion.

Authorities— Davidson v. Gray, Jan. 6, 1844, 2 Brown 9; Sinclair v. Hollis, Nov. 9, 1881, ante, p. 71.

 Judgment:

At advising—

Lord President—I see no reason why these cases should not be tried before the Lord Ordinary as in the Kirtlebridge cases. I think the notice of the pursuer is ambiguous, and may mean that he gives notice either for the Christmas Circuit or for the Spring Circuit; if it is for the Christmas Circuit it is incompetent, and if for the Spring Circuit it is very unreasonable, by postponing the case too long, and therefore, in one view or another, I am indisposed to give effect to the pursuer's motion. In these circumstances it is unnecessary to find whether this notice has caused the pursuer to lose the lead and pass it over to the defenders, and therefore I now appoint these cases to be tried here at the Christmas sittings.

Lord Mure—I am of the same opinion. If the notice is for the Spring Circuit it is too long to make the defenders wait, and I think, therefore, that the Court has power to appoint the cases to be tried earlier.

Lord Shand—I read the notice of trial at the Circuit Court as for the Spring Circuit at Glasgow, and in that case I think when notice of trial is given for a distant date the other party may give notice to the Lord Ordinary or to us to have it tried earlier. The course of the later decisions leads me to think that rapidity in these cases is considered to be best, and looking at the length of time which has elapsed since the accident which gives rise to this action took place, I think it more necessary than ever in this case.

Lord Deas was absent.

The Lords appointed the trial to take place at the sittings in Edinburgh.

 Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer— Murray. Agents— Smith & Mason, S.S.C.

Counsel for Defenders— Lord Advocate (Balfour, Q.C.)— 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/1881/19SLR0187.html