Scottish Court of Session Decisions

This was a note of suspension and interdict presented by Dr Robert Beveridge, residing in Aberdeen, of a charge upon a bill for £100, said to have been drawn by James and George Collie, advocates in Aberdeen, upon and accepted by Dr Beveridge, Peter Beveridge, and Thomas Gordon Beveridge. He denied ever having adhibited his signature, and asserted that it was his belief it had been unanthorisedly adhibited by his brother Thomas Gordon Beveridge, one of the acceptors of the bill, who had left the country. The Lord Ordinary ( Ormidale) sisted execution and ordered genuine subscriptions to be lodged in process; and eventually the Lord Ordinary on the bills ( Gifford) pronounced the following interlocutor:—

“ Edinburgh, 22d February 1870.—The Lord Ordinary having considered the note of suspension, answers, and productions, and having heard parties' procurators, on caution passes the note, and continues the sist formerly granted.

“ Note.—The Lord Ordinary does not feel warranted in passing this note without caution. In general, the mere allegation of forgery will not entitle an obligant on a bill or note to suspend execution, even in order to obtain a proof of the alleged forgery. A bill or note is a liquid and privileged document of debt until reduced or set aside, and completely instructs the obligation and warrants summary diligence, which will not be stopped without caution, unless there be circumstances of very strong suspicion. The Lord Ordinary has compared the signature to the bill charged on, bearing to be the signature of the complainer, with the genuine subscriptions produced. There are no doubt, differences, which different minds will view as of more or less importance, but the comparatio literarum does not impress the Lord Ordinary with any conviction that the subscription charged on cannot be genuine. Genuine subscriptions often very considerably differ from each other. Neither is the Lord Ordinary much moved by the circumstance that there are other bills and notes, apparently amounting to about £700 or £800, against which forgery is also alleged. There is no inherent impossibility, or even improbability, that the complainer and the other relatives of Thomas Gordon Beveridge, may have interposed their credit for his behoof to the full extent of all the

Page: 431↓

bills founded on. The correspondence founded on by the respondents, though perhaps of not very great importance, furnishes, so far as it goes, an additional reason why caution should be found.”

The complainer reclaimed, and asked to have the note passed without caution.

Fraser and Macdonald for him.

Solicitor-General and Birnie in answer.

The Court adhered.