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.
Subject_1 Expenses Subject_2 Skilled Witnesses Subject_3 Preliminary Investigation Subject_4 Jury Trial — A. S. 10th July 1844. Facts: Successful party entitled to recover the expense of bringing down from London a civil engineer, who had special knowledge of the ground concerning which the dispute arose, and whose evidence was of great service in the cause. Expenses of preliminary investigation disallowed, the condition of A. S., 10th July 1844, not having been complied with.
The Lord Ordinary stated that he was much influenced in forming his judgment by Mr Bruce's evidence.
Another question arose as to the expense of £3, 3s., charged for preliminary investigations, it being objected to this charge that the requisite certificate by the presiding Judge was not produced in terms of the A. S., 10th July 1844.
But there is a charge of £3, 3s., for preliminary investigation. In the ordinary case, apart from the Act of Sederunt, 10th July 1844, that is not a charge that can be made against the opposite party, and, therefore, if the Act of Sederunt does not apply, there is no warrant for such a charge. If the Act of Sederunt does apply, then the condition under which it allows such a charge has not been purified, and therefore the £3, 3s., must be disallowed.
Lord Curriehill —I am of the same opinion, although on the second point I have a little hesitation.
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.