Scottish Court of Session Decisions

Lord Cowan—I am clear the application should be refused, on the ground that our Judgment was not pronounced on the whole merits of the case. We have not ordered a general accounting, and exposure to the public is not to be presumed.

Lord Benholme—I am of a different opinion. It appears to me that if our judgment is reversed there will be an end of this litigation, and a settlement between the parties on a different basis than if our order stands. Because in that case there will be a quick mode of ascertaining the rights of parties independently of any investigation.

It has been suggested by Lord Cowan that we do not do much harm by ordering these partial productions, but it seems to me they are only introductory to a more full examination, which will be shut out as being unnecessary in case this alleged agreement is held good.

Now, in regard to the respective dangers or embarrassment to the parties respectively, according as the appeal is admitted or refused, there is no equality. On the one hand these children are to receive the £300 a-year pending the appeal, while, if the defenders are once compelled to produce their books, any danger or damage they may sustain are irremediable. I am always tender of the rights of companies where they state a plea which if well founded would supersede the necessity of minute and detailed investigation into accounts.

I think we ought to grant leave to appeal.

Lord Neaves—I am clear for refusing. There is no general ground for granting this application, and the practice is the other way; neither can I find any special ground considering the relations of the parties and the position of the case.

Lord Justice-Clerk—I think we should refuse' The judgment is interlocutory, and there is no special reason for departing from the usual practice.