Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this case a jury returned a verdict for the pursuer. The question involved was whether the defender Scott had signed a bill, or whether his name which appeared on the bill was a forgery. The defender moved for a new trial on the ground that the verdict was contrary to evidence. After hearing Mr Davidson in support of the motion for a rule, the Court refused the motion, because although there was undoubtedly conflicting evidence, it did not appear that any advantage would be gained by disturbing the verdict.