Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Glebe Sugar Refining Co. v. Lusk [1866] ScotLR 2_9 (17 May 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0009.html
Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_9, [1866] ScotLR 2_9
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 9↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
Form of issue in an action of damages for slandering a mercantile company.
Subject_Process. —
Facts:
An action having been raised by a company and its partners, as partners and as individuals, and not insisted in by the partners as individuals, held that the defender was entitled to have the action dismissed in so far as not insisted in.
In this action of damages in which the Glebe Sugar Refining Company, sugar-refiners in Greenock; and James Johnstone Grieve, Charles Philip Hunter, John Kerr, and Walter Grieve, all merchants and shipowners in Greenock; and Abram Lyle, merchant and sugar-refiner there, partners of the said Company, are pursuers; and Robert Lusk, wholesale grocer and sugar broker in Greenock, is defender, the following issue was to-day adjusted:
“Whether, on or about 14th November 1865, the defender, within the public coffee-room or news-room in Greenock, commonly called and known by the name of the Greenock Coffee-room, situated in or near Cathcart Square, Greenock, and in the hearing and presence of Hew M'Ilwraith, writer in Greenock, and then one of the bailies of the town of Greenock; Mr William Neill, surveyor at Greenock to the Glasgow Underwriters' Association, and shipowner there; Mr Peter Ballingall, accountant, Bank of Scotland, Greenock; Mr Robert Morrison, assistant surveyor or officer of customs, Greenock; and Mr John Lyle, wine and spirit merchant, Greenock, or one or more of them, did falsely and calumniously say of and concerning the said Glebe Sugar-Refining Company that their conduct or actings in regard to what the defender called Ker Street of Greenock was infamous, or most infamous, or did use words of similar import; meaning thereby that the said company had been guilty of dishonest and dishonourable conduct, to the loss, injury, and damage of the pursuers?”
Damages laid at £2000.
The action had been raised at the instance of the company and its individual partners, as such partners and as individuals; but at the adjustment of the issue,
Gifford and Watson, for the pursuers, stated that they did not intend to insist in the action for the individual pursuers as individuals. Whereupon
The Lord Advocate (with him the Solicitor-General and J. G. Smith), for the defender, moved that the action should be dismissed, in so far as it was raised at the instance of the individual pursuers, as individuals.
Gifford submitted that this was not usual or necessary. He was willing to delete the words “and as individuals” from the principal summons.
The Court thought that the defender was entitled to have the action dismissed to the extent asked, which was done.
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuers— Patrick, M'Ewen, & Carment, W. S.
Agent for Defender— W. Archibald, S. S. C.