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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Mackin v. North British Railway Co. [1885] ScotLR 22_775 (25 June 1885)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/22SLR0775.html
Cite as: [1885] SLR 22_775, [1885] ScotLR 22_775

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 775

Court of Session Inner House Second Division.

Monday, June 25. 1885.

[ Lord M'Laren, Ordinary.

22 SLR 775

Mackin

v.

North British Railway Company.

Subject_1Process
Subject_2Jury Trial
Subject_3Notice of Trial at Circuit Court
Subject_4Motion to Change Place of Trial. Headnote:

John Mackin, a mason, was run over by one of the North British Railway Company's trains at a level-crossing near Stirling, and seriously injured. He raised an action of damages in the Court of Session against the railway company. Issues were adjusted, and the pursuer gave notice for trial at the next Circuit Court at Stirling. The Lord Ordinary ( M'Laren) reported the case to the Second Division on the motion of the defenders that the case should be tried in Edinburgh, on the grounds of convenience and saving of expense. It depended, they argued, on the duration of the criminal work at Circuit how long the witnesses might be kept waiting till the cause came on for hearing. There was, too, a danger of getting a biassed jury at Stirling, and a question of right-of-way at the place where the accident happened might arise. The pursuer opposed the motion on the ground that he was a poor man, and resident in Stirling, where also the witnesses lived and the accident happened. He argued that no ground had been shown for having the case tried in Edinburgh.

The Court refused the motion on the ground that no cause had been shown for granting it, and the pursuer was only exercising his legal right in giving notice for trial at the Circuit Court.

Counsel:

Counsel for Pursuer— M'Kechnie— M'Lennan. Agent— James M'Caul, S.S.C.

Counsel for Defenders— J. P. B. Robertson— Jameson. Agents— Millar, Robson, & Innes, S.S.C.

1885


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1885/22SLR0775.html