JAMES WILSON—Suspender, v JOHN and JAMES MITCHELL Chargers (Court of Session)

The chargers brought this interlocutor under the review of the Court by a note; and objected to the competency of the second bill on the two following grounds:

I. This being the case of a passed bill, if the party wished to submit the interlocutor to review, the only competent mode of procedure, under the act of sederunt 14th June 1799, was to apply to the Lord Ordinary for a sist against the letters being expede, till he had an opportunity of petitioning the Court to pass the bill without caution or consignation. Under the above act of sederunt, and according to the universal practice, it is only by a petition to the Court that the party can get redress.

II. Even in the case of a refused bill, a second bill can only be presented to the next immediate succeeding Ordinary, under the above act of sederunt. In this case, the interlocutor on the first bill is dated the 8th, whereas the second bill was not presented till the 25th of Oct. so that more than a fortnight had elapsed before the second bill was presented; and there had, of course, been two intervening Lords Ordinary. A bill in similar circumstances was refused as incompetent, by the Second Division, in the case of Morison v. Levy, 9th March 1824.

The Court unanimously repelled the objection to the competency; and, from inspection of the document, being satisfied of the forgery, they passed the bill without caution or consignation.

Lord Medwyn, Ordinary. For Chargers, Maitland. William Guthrie, Agent. For Suspender, Jameson. C. Fisher, Agent. S. Clerk.