ROBERT SCOTT v MARY CASSELLS and HUSBAND (Court of Session)

Note .—‘It is to be regretted that such a case as this ever should have been made the subject of legal proceedings.

It was answered —That the libel was expressly laid on alleged practice, by the advocator and his family, of throwing in water and filth at the respondent's window, but there was no proof of any such averment. It was proved, indeed, that, on one particular occasion, some water was thrown at the respondent by a daughter of the advocator; but although this might be a blameable act, it afforded no proof of a practice; nor was there any proof of the alleged throwing of filth by any of the advocator's family.

Lord Balgray .—I don't know a more useful form of process than an interdict. If it can be shown to have been improperly or nimiously granted, it may be recalled, and there may be room for a claim of damages. In this way the law of Scotland provides a remedy to any person apprehending wrong. It is far better to have a mode of prevention, than to drive a party to seek for reparation in an action of damages. It is sufficient to warrant a party, in applying for an interdict, to aver that he has probable ground for apprehending the evil he wishes to prevent.

The Lord President having also concurred in this view, the Court ‘altered the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary, and remitted the cause simpliciter to the Sheriff; and found expenses due by the advocator to the respondents, both in this Court and in the Sheriff-court’ &c.

Lord Fullerton, Ordinary. For the Advocator, Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Wood. Alt. Sol.-Gen. (Cuninghame,) James Paterson. Francis Hamilton, W. S. James Macdonell, W. S. Agents. B. Clerk.