Scottish Court of Session Decisions

When this case was called no appearance was made for the reclaimer, and it was stated at the bar that, as the case was a small one, only a single counsel was instructed, and he was engaged in a proof before a Lord Ordinary, in which he was also employed alone. The Court, while observing that, in a case such as this, one counsel appeared to be sufficient, held that the excuse could not be accepted, and desired that the reclaimer's counsel be informed of this. In the meantime, the gentleman who had acted as counsel for the respondent (the pursuer) in the Outer House appeared at the bar, and stated, in reply to the Lord President, that he had not been instructed for the Inner House, though he had no doubt that he would be. After waiting for some time,—the reclaimer's counsel failing to appear,—the Court, in respect of no appearance for the reclaimer, refused the reclaiming note, but, in respect of no appearance for the respondent, without expenses.

Afterwards, a counsel appeared for the reclaimer, and in reply to the Court, stated that he had been instructed since the calling of the case, to support the reclaiming-note. The Lord President remarked that such instruction could not be held as professional instruction; and that the Court could not hear him. It was farther remarked, that as an interlocutor had already been pronounced, the Court could not listen to counsel's argument.

Reclaiming-note refused, but without expenses.