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 >> Walker v. Junor [1903] ScotLR 40_745 (03 July 1903) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1903/40SLR0745.html Cite as: [1903] ScotLR 40_745, [1903] SLR 40_745 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 745↓
In a petition and complaint for breach of interdict the respondent appeared by counsel, who admitted an inadvertent breach of the interdict, undertook to observe the interdict for the future, and produced a medical certificate to the effect that it would be dangerous to his health to appear in Court or to be imprisoned. The complainer stated that he did not press for a sentence of imprisonment. The Court, without calling on the respondent to appear at the bar, inflicted a fine of £10.
In 1894 William Junor, a lessee of salmon-fishings on the river Ness, was interdicted, at the instance of Charles Fountaine Walker, the proprietor of the fishings in the said river, from fishing for salmon or grilse by means of a bag net or other fixed net, engine, or machinery in the river Ness or the estuary thereof.
In 1895 Walker brought a petition and complaint against Junor alleging breach of the said interdict. This petition was settled by a joint-minute, in which Junor admitted that he had committed a breach of interdict, explained that it had been done inadvertently by two of the men in his employment, and undertook that it should not happen again.
In June 1903 Walker brought the present petition and complaint, in which he set forth that Junor had again committed a breach of interdict, in respect that he, or one of the men in his employment, had used a trawl net as a hang or fixed net in Rosemarkie Bay in the estuary of the Ness.
No answers were lodged, but counsel for the respondent appeared and produced a medical certificate to the effect that it would be dangerous to the respondent's health to appear at the bar of the Court or to undergo a sentence of imprisonment. He explained that the breach of the interdict was due to the inadvertence of one of the men in the respondent's employment, and undertook that precautions would be taken against any such breach in future. He moved that the Court should not insist on the attendance of the respondent at the bar, and should impose a fine, and in support of this proposal cited Hamilton v. Caledonian Railway Company, November 12, 1847, 10 D. 41; Anderson v. Conacher, December 20, 1850, 13 D. 405.
Counsel for the complainer stated that he did not desire the imprisonment of the respondent, but would be satisfied with a fine.
The Court, without ordaining the respondent to appear at the bar for sentence, imposed on him a fine of £10 and found him liable in expenses.
Counsel for the Complainer— Malcolm. Agents— Carmichael & Miller, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondent— Grainger Stewart. Agent— Alex. Ross, S.S.C.
