Lord Trayner —I am prepared to affirm the judgment of the Sheriffs on the grounds stated by them, namely, that the pursuer has failed to prove any fault on the part of the defender subjecting him in liability for damages. If it were necessary to deal with the question of contributory negligence I should take the same view on that question which was taken in the case of Grant v. Caledonian Railway Company , December 10, 1870, 9 Macph. 258, 8 S.L.R. 192; and Fraser v. Edinburgh Tramways Company , December 2, 1882, 10 R. 261, 20 S.L.R. 192, cited to us in the course of the argument.
Lord Moncreiff —I agree with the majority of your Lordships in thinking that no negligence on the part of the defender has been proved.
The Court dismissed the appeal, found in fact and in law in terms of the findings in fact and in law in the interlocutor of the Sheriff-Substitute, and of new assoilzied the defender.
Counsel for the Pursuer and Appellant— W. Thomson. Agent— T. E. Gilbert Taylor, Solicitor.
Counsel for the Defender and Respondent— Campbell, K.C.— Munro. Agent— Jas. Ross Smith, S.S.C.