 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Walker v. Arnot. [1820] ScotJCR 2_Murray_349 (27 November 1820) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1820/2_Murray_349.html Cite as: [1820] ScotJCR 2_Murray_349 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 349↓
(1820) 2 Murray 349
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 51.
PRESENT, LORD CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
Damages for defamation.
An action of damages for defamation.
Defence.—A denial of having stated any thing defamatory.
Costs allowed where one shilling damages was given for defamation.
The case was tried on the 8th November, and the Jury found for the pursuer, damages 1s.
Page: 350↓
Jeffrey moved for costs to the pursuer.
Cockburn and Murray objected.—The Jury only gave 1s., which does not carry costs. In the case of Sibbald, ante, p. 122, tried at Dumfries, when 1s. was given, the Court of Session refused expences; and in this Court they were also refused, in a case tried at Glasgow. By the law of Scotland, a person is not entitled to bring an action in the Court of Session for less than L.25; and probably in that Court the expences would have been given the other way. In England, by the statute of Gloucester, and other acts, 1s. in a case of this sort, does not carry costs.
Jeffrey.—This was a case of gross defamation, clearly proved; and being a new case, is well worthy of consideration. There were specialties in the case referred to. It is said the Court of Session would not give expences where the damages are under L.25; but they have given expences without any damages.
Lord Chief Commissioner.—I wish to consider this, and shall give the decision on a future day; but will now state how the case strikes me at present.
If damages are really nominal, it is the same as a verdict for the defender; and on that ground costs are not given. But in the
Page: 351↓
Being ready, if called on, to certify that this was a fit case to be brought, and the defamation being proved, I am at present of opinion, that costs ought to be given; but I wish to have an opportunity of conversing with my brethren.
Two days after, in presence of the other Lords Commissioners, his Lordship stated, There ought to be a statutory regulation of costs; and in that case the rule should be, that costs should follow the certificate of the
Page: 352↓
On a subsequent day, on a motion to approve of the Auditor's report, it was proposed that part of the expence should be struck off, on account of the smallness of the damages.
Lord Chief Commissioner.—In this Court the damages are left to the Jury, and they have in this case found damages. The present question does not depend on the amount, but whether it was a fit case for an action. I formerly stated, that it appeared to me that the action was properly brought; and therefore, unless there is any objection to the report by the Auditor, we must approve of it.