GEORGE CAMPBELL—Suspender, v JOHN ANDERSON—Charger (Court of Session)

In Nov. 1823, Campbell engaged to serve in Mr Anderson's iron-foundry for one year. The engagement was reduced into writing by a letter, in the following terms:—‘ Leith Walk Foundry, 5th Nov. 1823.—Sir, I hereby agree, and become bound to serve you for one year for 25s. weekly wages, and £6 at the year's end, in name of house-rent; and I promise to conduct myself faithfully, diligently, and honestly, and to promote your interest to the utmost of my power, as loam, dry-sand or green-sand moulder. I am, &c. (Signed) George Campbell.’ Addressed, ‘ Mr Anderson, Leith Walk .’

Campbell presented a bill of suspension and liberation, which was passed; and, thereafter, (Feb. 1. 1825) the Lord Ordinary suspended the letters simpliciter , and found expences due.

If, in point of fact, there was in this case a desertion of service, and a failure on the part of the suspender to fulfil his engagement, the remedy applied for by the charger was the only step he could take, and recognised by every day practice. Although, from the decision in the case of Murray and Bisset, 15th May 1810, inferior judges did for a time entertain doubts of their power to grant summary warrants in questions about breach of civil contract, these doubts were completely removed by the recent decision in the case of Raeburn v. Reid, 4th June 1824.

The Court were of opinion that this was a very different case from that of Raeburn v. Reid; and, as the period of service under the written contract was expired, the sheriff ought not to have granted a summary warrant of imprisonment without allowing a proof. They, therefore, adhered to the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor; and refused a reclaiming petition without answers.

Lord Meadowbank, Ordinary. Act. Forsyth, Sandford. D. Fisher, Agent. Alt. A. M'Neill. Tho. Baillie, Agent. Sir R. Dundas, Clerk.