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 >> Hughes v. Morgan [1910] ScotLR 637 (25 May 1910) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1910/47SLR0637.html Cite as: [1910] SLR 637, [1910] ScotLR 637 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 637↓
(Single Bills.)
In an action of damages which was founded on (1) slander and (2) wrongous arrest, an issue of wrongous arrest only was allowed. The jury awarded the pursuer £10 in name of damages.
Held that the action could not be regarded as an action for defamation, and that as the Judge who tried the cause refused to grant the necessary certificate the pursuer could not, in virtue of section 8 of the Act of Sederunt, 20th March 1907, recover more than one-half of his expenses.
The Act of Sederunt, 20th March 1907, enacts—Section 8—“Where the pursuer in any action of damages in the Court of Session, not being an action for defamation or for libel, or an action which is competent only in the Court of Session, recovers by the verdict of a jury £5, or any sum above £5 but less than £50, he shall not be entitled to charge more than one-half of the taxed amount of his expenses, unless the judge before whom the verdict is obtained shall certify that he shall be entitled to recover any larger proportion of his expenses not exceeding two-third parts thereof.”
In August 1909 Bernard Hughes raised an action of damages against John Morgan. The pursuer averred that he had been slandered by the defender's servant William Greig, and that he had been wrongously arrested in consequence of statements made to the police by the said William Greig.
On 8th January 1910 the Lord Ordinary ( Guthrie) approved of the following issue:— “Whether on or about 21st March 1909 the defender's servant William Greig, while acting within the scope of his employment by the defender at No. 9 West Scotland Street, Glasgow, maliciously and without probable cause caused the pursuer to be arrested, conveyed to Kinning Park Police Office, and there detained in custody, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuer. Damages laid at £500.”
On 18th March 1910 the case was tried before the Lord Justice-Clerk and a jury. The jury found for the pursuer and assessed the damages at £10.
The pursuer moved the Court to apply the verdict, and maintained that the action being one of defamation the Act of Sederunt, 20th March 1907, section 8, did not preclude him from recovering his full expenses. Alternatively he asked that the Judge before whom the verdict was obtained should grant him a certificate entitling him to recover two-thirds of his expenses. He cited the following cases— Gorman v. Hughes, 1907 S.C. 405, 44 S.L.R. 309; M'Gilp v. Caledonian Railway Company, October 26, 1904, 7 F. 4, 42 S.L.R. 33; M ‘Raid, v. Coltness Iron Company, Limited, November 4, 1904, 7 F. 33, 42 S.L.R. 50; Ridley v. Kimball & Morton, Limited, May 23, 1905, 7 F. 655, 42 S.L.R. 559; Bonnar v. Roden, June 1, 1887, 14 R. 761, 24 S.L.R. 539.
There was no appearance for the defender.
If I am asked to say—as the Judge before whom the verdict was obtained—whether I am prepared to give a certificate entitling the pursuer to recover more than one-half of his expenses, I have no difficulty in saying that I consider he is not entitled to any larger proportion than is allowed by the Act of Sederunt, and that I decline to grant any such certificate.
The Court applied the verdict, and found the pursuer entitled to one-half of his expenses.
Counsel for Pursuer— Crabb Watt, K.C. — Garson. Agents— Marr & Sutherland, S.S.C.
