 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> John Kirkland & Son, &c. v. Nisbet & Company [1859] UKHL 1_Paterson_876 (15 July 1859) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1859/1_Paterson_876.html Cite as: [1859] UKHL 1_Paterson_876 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 876↓
(1859) 1 Paterson 876
REPORTS OF SCOTCH APPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
No. 126
Subject_Proof — Correspondence — Witness's construction of document — Parole.—
At a jury trial in a question as to the extent of an order for goods given by the defenders to the pursuers, which mainly depended on the construction of correspondence, a witness was asked what an employer “would be entitled to expect” on receipt of a particular letter in the correspondence. The defenders claimed that they were entitled to put the question, so as to prove that no mercantile usage qualified the clear terms of the letter, seeing that the pursuers had averred and founded on such usage.
Held (affirming judgment), That the question was incompetent, 1. Because it was not so put as to relate to mercantile usage, but really asked the witness to construe the writ, which was the province of the Court and jury; and, 2. Because it was asking the witness to construe an isolated letter without shewing him the whole correspondence. 1
The defenders appealed to the House of Lords, maintaining (in their printed case) that the judgment of the Court of Session should be reversed:—“1. Because the said question to the witness Kaeracouse was a competent question, and ought not to have been disallowed by the Lord President at the trial. 2. Because the exception taken to the ruling of the Lord President disallowing the said question, ought to have been sustained.” Smith v. Wilson, 3 B. & Ad. 728; Shore v. Wilson, 9 Cl. & F. 355.
The respondents supported the judgment, maintaining (in their printed case):—“1. As a general rule, the construction of written documents is for the Court, and there was nothing in the case to take it out of that rule, or to entitle the appellant to put the question which was objected to. 2. The question was irrelevant to the issue. 3. Having regard to the terms of the question, and the circumstances under which, and the time when it was put to the witness, it was unintelligible and inadmissible.” Calder v. Aitchison 5 W.S. 40.
Lord Advocate Moncreiff, and Rolt Q.C., for the appellants. The question was competent We wanted to prove that 600 tons of the sugar had been actually sold to us by the respondents, and that this was the meaning of the word “contracted” in the letter of nth Dec. 1850. We produced a witness to prove the mercantile usage, and asked him that question.
[ Lord Chancellor.—If you had asked the witness about the mercantile usage, that might have been well, but how could you ask him such a question as this: “What would the employer be entitled to expect from that letter?” That was asking the witness to explain or construe a written document. It was asking him the meaning of the document.]
_________________ Footnote _________________
1 See previous reports 21 D. 1; 31 Sc. Jur. 3. S. C. 3 Macq. Ap. 796: 31 Sc. Jur. 641.
Page: 877↓
What we wanted was merely to explain the technical meaning of the word “contracted.”
[ Lord Chancellor.—But you must defend the question as put. The question was in substance—What is the meaning or just construction of the whole letter?]
[
[ Lord Chancellor. You are not to substitute the witness for the Judge.]
We can carry the argument no further.
Anderson, Q.C., for the respondents, was not called upon.
Interlocutor affirmed, with costs.
Solicitors: Appellants' Agents, Gibson-Craig, Dalziel, and Brodie, W.S.— Respondents' Agents, Campbell and Smith, W.S.