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 >> Gardner v. M'Gaghans [1866] ScotLR 1_205 (6 March 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/01SLR0205.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 1_205, [1866] ScotLR 1_205 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 205↓
Jury Trial.
(Before
In an action for malicious apprehension and slander, verdict for the pursuer.
In this case John Gardner, joiner, residing in Home Street, Edinburgh, was pursuer, and Mrs Mary Reilly or Keddie, residing in No. 17 Spittal Street, Edinburgh, now wife of Michael M'Gaghan, labourer, there, and the said Michael M'Gaghan for his interest, were defenders.
The issues sent to the jury were in the following terms:—
“1. Whether, on or about Monday the 24th of July 1865, and in or near the female defender's house in Spittal Street, Edinburgh, the female defender, maliciously and without probable cause, apprehended, or caused the pursuer to be apprehended, and thence conveyed to the Fountainbridge station of the Edinburgh City Police—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?
2. Whether, on or about the 24th day of July 1865, and on the way between the female defender's house in Spittal Street and the Fountainbridge station of the Edinburgh City Police, the female defender did falsely and calumniously, in the
Page: 206↓
hearing of Mrs M'Gregor, wife of Donald M'Gregor, residing in Spittal Street, Edinburgh, say that the pursuer had stolen her late husband's watch, or did falsely and calumniously utter words to that effect of and concerning the pursuer—to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer?” Damages were laid at £250.
The jury, after three hours' enclosure, returned a verdict by 11 to 1 for the pursuer—damages, £10.
Counsel for Pursuer— Mr Gifford and Mr Guthrie. Agent— Mr James Renton jun., S.S.C.
Counsel for Defenders— Mr Alexander Moncrieft and Mr W. A. Brown. Agent— Mr James Bell, S.S.C.
