 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Watt v. Menzies (ante vol. 1, p. 194) [1866] ScotLR 2_16_1 (19 May 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0016_1.html Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 2_16_1, [1866] SLR 2_16_1 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 16↓
( ante vol. 1, p. 194).
Motion by defender for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to the ground that the verdict was contrary to the evidence refused.
This case was tried before Lord Ormidale and a jury on 28th February 1866. The question was whether the pursuer, a widow residing in Glasgow, had received certain personal injuries when being set down from one of the defender's omnibuses in Argyle Street, Glasgow, on 6th June 1865, through the fault of the defender, or those for whom he was responsible. The jury found for the pursuer, and awarded her £50 of damages.
R. V. Campbell (with him the Lord Advocate), for the defender, addressed the Court on Thursday in support of a motion for a rule upon the pursuer to show cause why a new trial should not be granted.
The Court to-day refused the motion. The verdict was not against evidence. The preponderance of evidence seemed to be in favour of the pursuer. There was a competition going on betwixt the defender's omnibus and another, and all the witnesses concurred in saying that the pursuer was allowed to come out of the defender's omnibus when it was in motion, and the guard assisted her to get out. This was wrong. The natural consequence was just what happened, that when suddenly set down, she should stagger for a little and be unable to get out of the way of the other omnibus coming up behind.
Solicitors: Agents for Defender— Hamilton & Kinnear, W.S.