Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The following issues have been adjusted to try this case:—

“1. Whether between 1st January 1835 and 1st October 1853, the defenders, the first-mentioned firm of Alexander Cowan & Sons, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their mills of Bank Mill, Valleyfield Mill, and Low Mill, or any of them, pollute the water of the stream or river called the North Esk, to the nuisance of the pursuers or their authors as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of one or more of them?

2. Whether, between 1st October 1853 and 20th May 1864, the defenders, Alexander Cowan & Sons, the present occupants of said mills, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their said mills, or any of them, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers or their authors as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of one or more of them?

3. Whether, between 1st January 1835 and 15th May 1856, the defenders, the first-mentioned firm of William Somerville & Son, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their mill called Dalmore Mill, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers or their authors as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of one or more of them?

4. Whether, between 15th May 1856 and 20th May 1864, the defenders William Somerville & Son, the present occupants of said Dalmore Mill, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their said mill, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers or their authors as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of one or more of them.

5. Whether, between 1st January 1835 and 1st July 1856, the defenders, the first-mentioned firm of Alexander Annandale & Son, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their mills called Polton Papermills, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers, the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Melville, or their authors, as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of either of them?

6. Whether, between 1st July 1856 and 20th May 1864, the defenders, Alexander Annandale & Son, the present occupants of said Polton Papermills, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near the said mills, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers, the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Melville, or their authors, as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of either of them?

7. Whether, between 15th May 1856 and 20th May 1864, the defenders, James Brown & Company, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their mill, called Esk Mill, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers, or their authors, as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of one or more of them?

8. Whether, between 1st May 1848 and 20th May 1864, the defender, Archibald Fullerton Somerville, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near his mill, called Kevock Mill, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers, the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Melville, or their authors, as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid, or of either of them?

9. Whether, between 1st January 1843 and 20th May 1864, the defenders, William Tod & Son, did, by discharging refuse or impure matter at or near their mill, called St Leonard's Mill, pollute the water of the said stream or river, to the nuisance of the pursuers, the Duke of Buccleuch and Lord Melville, or their authors, as proprietors of their respective lands aforesaid or of either of them?”

The Court repelled the plea of acquiescence stated for the defenders, and held that there were no counter issues required.