Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 RECOMPENSE - CAPTIVE.
Subject_3 Ransomer entitled to an Allowance in solatium.

Alexander Home
v.
David Loch

Date: 15 February 1769

Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

(Faculty Collection, IV. p. 339; Dictionary, 2025.)

Gardenston. This boy was sent upon a trying voyage,—not a sailor,—yet he was singled out as a ransomer. I thought that some solatium was due: reason and humanity point at this.

Hailes. There is a plain ground upon which the interlocutor may stand. It is an established rule among captors to take the mate as a ransomer. The French captain could never have deviated from this rule and pitched upon a boy to be the ransomer, unless the master of Loch's vessel had pointed that boy out as connected with people of fashion. The master acted prudently in this, for he thereby saved his mate: at the same time, this was unjustifiable, according to Loch's own account, for he charges board for the boy as a passenger. Now, no one ever heard of a passenger being given as a ransomer. I think that Loch is liable for the conduct of the master,—wrong in itself, but useful to the voyage; and that the sum awarded is not too high.

Justice-Clerk. I am of the opinion last given, for the same reason. The second in command is always taken as the ransomer. This boy could not have been taken unless he had been suggested by the master of the vessel: herein the master acted profitably for Loch, and Loch must be answerable.

President. I have some doubt as to solatium. Would inquire whether the boy's friends knew that he was to be sent to Havannah instead of Hamburgh; for, if so, there was a fraud and a wrong, and the solatium given would be too small.

On the 15th February 1769, “The Lords found Loch liable in £40 sterling, and in expenses;” adhering to Lord Gardenston's interlocutor.

Act. R. Sinclair. Alt. R, Blair.