Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
On discussing the appeal, Lord Meadowbank, who presided at the ensuing Circuit Court, ‘recalled the interlocutor complained of, hoc statu ; and, before further answer, remitted the cause back to the magistrates, to allow an inspection and experiments on the meter to be made by persons of skill, reserving all questions of expenses; and remitting to the magistrates to proceed farther as they shall see proper and just, with power to award to either party the expenses of this appeal, as well as the other expenses of process.’
The Magistrates obtempered this interlocutor; and thereafter, in consequence of the report made by the inspector, named by the Judge at the Circuit, adhered to their former interlocutor, decerning against the defenders, and finding them liable in the expenses of process, including the expenses incurred in the court of appeal. These additional expenses amounted to L.26 : 10 : 4½, of which L.12, 8s. were incurred before the remit to the Magistrates, and L.14 : 2: 4½ were the expenses occasioned by the investigation subsequent to that remit.
The chargers answered —That the judgment pronounced ultimately by the inferior court, under a remit from the Circuit Court, was in fact a disposal of the appeal on its merits, and consequently fell strictly within the terms of the bond of caution granted by the suspender.
The Lords President, Balgray, Gillies, Mackenzie, Medwyn, Core-house, Fullerton and Moncreiff .—‘The caution required by the statute is, ‘for answering and abiding by the judgment of the Circuit Court, and for paying costs, if any shall be by that Court awarded.’
‘The obligation of the parties by the bond granted is, that the principal parties ‘should answer and stand by the judgment of the Circuit Court, and should make payment to the complainers (the Gas Company) of whatever sum or sums of money should be found due to them, after discussing the said appeal, including the expenses of the appeal, if any awarded; and, failing their doing so, that the said William Snell junior, and his foresaids, should make payment thereof for them.’
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.