 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> The Singer Manufacturing Co. v. Clelland [1905] ScotLR 42_536 (20 May 1905) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1905/42SLR0536.html Cite as: [1905] SLR 42_536, [1905] ScotLR 42_536 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 536↓
[Sheriff Court at Dumbarton.
The Act of Sederunt of 3rd June 1898, which regulates procedure under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897, by section 9 ( f) makes certain regulations as to printing with this proviso—“Provided always that it shall not be necessary to print any document except the case without a special order from the Court, and provided also that either party may move for an order on the sheriff-clerk to transmit the process.”
In a stated case under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 the Court refused, a motion for an order on the sheriff-clerk to transmit the process, made on the ground that there was appended to the Sheriff's findings a note which might in certain circumstances be useful in deciding the case.
This was a stated case in an arbitration under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1897 between the Singer Manufacturing Company, Kilbowie, Clydebank, Dumbartonshire, and Joseph Clelland, sawyer, 1 Elgin Street, Clydebank, brought from the Sheriff Court at Dumbarton. The arbitration was at the instance of the Company to review the weekly payments made by them to Clelland, and to have the same ordered to be ended. The Sheriff-Substitute ( Blair) reduced the compensation payable to one penny per week until further orders of Court and found the Company liable in expenses. The Company appealed.
Upon the case appearing in the Single Bills counsel for the appellants asked for an order on the Sheriff-Clerk to transmit the process, and referred to the Act of Sederunt of 3rd June 1898 ( quoted in the rubric) It was explained that a note appended to the Sheriff-Substitute's decision might, in the opinion of the appellants, be of use in the decision of the case under certain circumstances.
Counsel did not appear for the respondent.
The Court ( Lord President, Lord Adam, Lord M'Laren, and Lord Kinnear) refused the motion.
Counsel for the Appellants— Constable. Agents— J. W. & J. Mackenzie, W.S.
Agents for the Respondent— Mackay & Young, W.S.