Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a note of suspension and interdict presented by the Provost and Magistrates of Inverary against the Argyleshire Road Trustees, asking to have the respondents interdicted from enforcing certain regulations recently passed by them relating to a steamer plying on Loch Fyne between Inverary and St Catherines.

By section 75 of the Argyleshire Roads Act 1864, the Trustees are empowered “to regulate the rates

Page: 32↓

and other matters connected with the ferrymen in the county in such manner as the situation of such ferries respectively shall appear to them to require,” adopting certain procedure set forth in the section before making the rules. On 1st May 1867, the Trustees, at a meeting held at Inverary, issued the rules and regulations now complained of. The Magistrates of Inverary, proprietors of the ferry between Inverary and St Catherines, and claiming to have managed the ferry from time immemorial, now objected to these regulations on various grounds. The rules enacted, inter alia, that if a steamer be employed on the said ferry, the fare chargeable therein shall be one shilling for each passenger, and also that the said steamer shall leave Inverary twice in the day, viz., at 10.30 A.M. and 2.30 P.M. The complainers alleged that if these regulations were enforced, it was impossible that the said steamer could any longer be maintained on the ferry. The steamer would have to leave Inverary at a certain fixed hour; and the owner would be prevented from making any arrangement with coaches so as to lessen his expenses, and would otherwise be subjected to pecuniary loss. The complainers contended that the Trustees, in issuing these rules and regulations, had exceeded their powers under the Act 1864; that they had acted irregularly; and that the rules and regulations were to the prejudice of the public. They accordingly craved interdict.

The Lord Ordinary (Mure) passed the note of suspension, but refused interim interdict, adding this note to his interlocutor:—

“The power to regulate rates and other matters connected with ferries in question, even with the proprietors of those ferries, conferred on the respondents by section 175th of the Argyleshire Road Act, is very broad; and the Lord Ordinary, as at present advised, does not see that, when passing the rules and regulations in question, the respondents have, ex facie of the proceedings, failed to comply with the requirements of the statute as to the manner in which such rules and regulations are authorised to be passed, or have in that respect committed any excess of power. Whether they have interfered with the privileges of the complainers, as reserved by section 58th of the Act, depends upon the terms of their charter of erection; and the possession which they may be able to instruct has followed thereupon, and will be tried under the passed note. But while the Lord Ordinary has passed the note to try that question, he does not think it would be expedient to interdict the respondents from, in the meantime, carrying out the rules and regulations, which appear to be reasonable in themselves, as establishing uniformity of rates, and are alleged by the respondents to be necessary for the protection of the public, and must, hoc statu, it is thought, be presumed to have been adopted for their benefit.”

The complainers reclaimed.