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 >> Scotts v. Home Drummond and Another [1866] ScotLR 2_79_1 (12 June 1866)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0079_1.html
Cite as: [1866] ScotLR 2_79_1, [1866] SLR 2_79_1
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session
Page: 79↓
Court of Session Inner House First Division.
v.
Facts:
Question as to the form of issue in a right of way case in which it was denied that one of the termini of the road was a public place.
Lord Barcaple reported the following issues, which had been proposed by the pursuers for the trial of the case:—
“I. Whether, for forty years and upwards prior to 1864, or form time immemorial, there existed a public road or right of way from the town of Coldingham, on the south, to the public seashore at Petticurwick or Pettico Wick, and to the harbour, or inlet called Pettico Wick Harbour, on the north, passing through the estate of Northfield, or part thereof, in or near the direction indicated by a line coloured red on the plan, No. 9 of process, and which line is marked by the letters A B C.
II. Whether, for forty years and upwards prior to 1864, or from time immemorial, there existed a public right of way for foot passengers, from the village of Coldingham Shore to St Abb's Head, and onwards to the public seashore at Petticurwick or Pettico Wick, and to the harbour there, in or near the direction indicated by a line coloured blue on the plan, No. 9 of process, which line is marked by the letters D E F C.
III. Whether, for forty years and upwards prior to 1864, or from time immemorial, there existed a public right of way for foot passengers
Page: 80↓
from the village of Coldingham Shore to the public seashore at the point called Burnmouth Harbour, and on to St Abb's Head, and to the seashore at Petticurwick or Pettico Wick, and to the harbour there, in or near the direction indicated by a line coloured yellow on the plan, No. 9 of process, which line is marked by the letters H E G C.”
Fraser and Duncan, for the defenders, objected to these issues, that they did not put in issue, but assumed that the seashore and harbour mentioned in them were public places.
Gifford, for the pursuers, consented to strike out the word “public” in each issue, and also to put in a minute consenting that the question as to the seashore and harbour being public places should be determined at the trial. He had offered to do so in the Outer House.
The Court allowed this to be done without expressing any opinion as to whether or not it was necessary.
Solicitors: Agent for Pursuers— Thomas White S.S.C.
Agents for Defenders— Jardine, Stodart, & Frasers, W.S.