Scottish Court of Session Decisions

The Lord President, in summing up said the question was whether this loss of life was caused by machinery which was defective through the fault of the defender. It was the duty of persons such as the defender to have machinery properly fit for the purpose for which it was destined. It was impossible to foresee and prevent all accidents; and therefore when the law required that a master should provide proper and suitable machinery, it meant that all due and reasonable care should be taken that the machinery be of a proper kind. The case for the pursuers was that the machinery was defective. Their theory was that the rope had got over one of the spokes; that that was the cause of the accident; and that this took place because the pirn was not properly constructed or properly furnished. It was alleged that some of the spokes were altogether awanting, and that some were broken. Then the defender affirmed that the pirn was of the ordinary construction, and furnished in the ordinary way, and that none of the spokes were broken or awanting. As to the question whether spokes were wanting or displaced, which seemed to be the great contention in the case, there were witnesses on both sides. His Lordship then went over the evidence of several witnesses, showing that some said that the machinery was all right, and others that it was not right. It was impossible to hold that all these witnesses could be giving true testimony, and the question was which of them they were to believe; and whatever witnesses they believed, they would give their verdict accordingly.

The jury, after a short absence, returned a verdict for the pursuers, assessing the damages at £100 to Mrs M'Lachlan, £5 to William, £10 to Elizabeth, and £20 to Mary M'Lachlan, the children.