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.
The Jury Court having pronounced decree for L.20. 10s. 8d. against the suspenders as agents for the unsuccessful party in a cause, as ‘the balance of expenses remaining due to witnesses,’ who had been brought to Edinburgh upon the trial, and the respondent (the agent for these witnesses) having intimated his intention to apply to the Lord Ordinary for diligence against the suspenders, under the act of sederunt, 29th Nov. 1825, § 58, they brought a suspension upon the ground that the decree was incompetent and unjust.
Another, and a still more recent example of the same kind, was in a proceeding before the church courts relating to the dismissal of a parochial schoolmaster, where the Court of Session suspended the proceedings, upon the ground that the forms required by the church courts had been deviated from.
Upon the second point in discussion, viz. whether the Jury Court had exceeded their powers, either in awarding expenses against the suspenders, or as to the amount of the payments which, by the existing regulations, were to be made to witnesses, his Lordship was not prepared to decide.
Lord Moncreiff, Ordinary. For the Suspenders, Pyper. Party, Agent. Alt. Cockburn. Party, Agent. D. Clerk.
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.