 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Dickson v. Pringle. [1819] ScotJCR 2_Murray_146 (24 June 1819) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1819/2_Murray_146.html Cite as: [1819] ScotJCR 2_Murray_146 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 146↓
(1819) 2 Murray 146
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 25.
PRESENT, LORDS CHIEF COMMISSIONER AND
Specification of the papers called for, necessary to entitle a party to a diligence.
Russel, Form of Pro. pp. 33 and 97.
Cockburn moves for a diligence to recover all tacks, &c. in the possession of the defender, relative to the subject in dispute, and states:—This is not a diligence to fish for information before the action is brought, but to procure evidence to prove our case. The only difficulty is, whether this Court has power to grant it. It was understood to have it, and the power has been exercised.
Baird.—I do not object on the want of authority, but that the writings are not specified. A diligence is not always granted in the Court of Session—Lady L. Crawford v. Lord Crawford, 8th August 1783.
Page: 147↓
It is not competent to grant a general diligence to search a charter chest, but the party must specify the paper he wants. But when the demand is for a diligence to recover other writings in evidence of a fact, the case is totally different. The Court, however, will not grant a general diligence, but only to recover writings relative to the subject of dispute; and these to be produced in presence of a person who is capable of judging of them. There may be private entries in books, or the haver may refuse to produce the document; and the Court will then hear the Objection, and the Act of Sederunt would apply.
The motion yesterday was not sufficient, from want of specification; to-day it is.
Lord Chief Commissioner.—Yesterday when I sat alone, I thought there was difficulty on both points; but now I am satisfied, from the whole purview of the Act of Sederunt, and the nature of the Court, that the Court has power to grant the diligence. I thought the notice yesterday too general, and that it was an attempt to get a diligence to recover papers of which a list had not been
Page: 148↓