 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Scougal v. Lady Mary L. Crawford. [1819] ScotJCR 2_Murray_110 (13 March 1819) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1819/2_Murray_110.html Cite as: [1819] ScotJCR 2_Murray_110 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 110↓
(1819) 2 Murray 110
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 18.
PRESENT,
Damages against a proprietor, for taking the root off the house of a servant.
An action of damages for taking part of the roof off a house possessed by the pursuer.
Defence.—The house belongs to the defender,
Page: 111↓
“Whether, betwixt the hours of twelve and one o'clock of the morning of the 19th November 1816, or about that time, a number of persons, at the instigation, or acting under the orders, or by the authority of the defender, did proceed to a dwelling-house called Crawford Priory Cottage, then in the occupation of, and inhabited by, the pursuer and his family; and did then and there, under cloud of night, violently proceed to barricade one or both of the doors of the said house, and to tear off and throw the thatch from the roof of the said house; or did commit other acts of violence, to the great alarm and damage of the said pursuer and his family.
Damages claimed, as restricted by the pursuer, to L.1000.”
Cockburn, for the pursuer.—This is a simple, and in some respects an absurd case, though it was one of a very serious nature. The pursuer was engaged for a period of
Page: 112↓
Jeffrey, for the defender.—We maintain that the defender was entitled to take off the roof, but deny all violence or outrage. It was by a personal contract he got possession of this house; and being servant to the defender, she was entitled to turn him out when she pleased. The method of doing it was rendered necessary by his refusal to leave the house. The action of removing was unnecessary, as this was not a lease.
In many cases the Jury are the proper judges of the whole case. But when a plea in justification is stated, it becomes the duty of the Court to dispose of it. In the present case, it appears to me that it would have been
Page: 113↓
In this country, a person is entitled to repel aggression; and if any one forces his way into my house, I am entitled to turn him out. The counsel for the defender says, this house belonged to the defender, and as the pursuer refused to leave it, he is to be held in the situation of a person who forced his way into it. This, in my opinion, is an erroneous view of the case. The house belongs in property to the defender, but the pursuer was in the legal possession of it, and it was therefore his castle.
His title was a personal contract, by which he was to have a suitable house, garden, &c. If the defender had refused to implement this contract, the pursuer must have brought his action; but she did implement it, and the pursuer being put in possession, his right was completed, and was as effectual as by any lease. But he was bound to remove; not, however, at the will of the defender, but of the law; and he had a clear and indisputable right to keep possession, till a house was provided, such as the Judge, and not the defender,
Page: 114↓
It is said there is something ludicrous in this case; and this is true; but the conduct of the defender might have led to very serious consequences; as, if the pursuer had resisted, and death ensued, I am bound to say, he would have been justified in the sight of God and man.
There was more blame on the part of the defender than injury done to the pursuer; but as this is not a prosecution at the instance of the public prosecutor, we are not entitled to consider the degree of blame which attaches to her, but merely the extent of his suffering, which happily was not very considerable.
Verdict for the pursuer—damages L.250.
Counsel:
Cockburn and
H. Drummond, for the Pursuer.
Jeffrey and
Hope, for the Defender.
Solicitors: (Agents, Alexander Goldie, w. s. and George Lyon, w. s.)