Scottish Court of Session Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Duke of Atholl v. Glover Incorporation of Perth [1900] ScotLR 38_58 (13 November 1900)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1900/38SLR0058.html
Cite as: [1900] ScotLR 38_58, [1900] SLR 38_58

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 58↓

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, November 13. 1900.

38 SLR 58

Duke of Atholl

v.

Glover Incorporation of Perth

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Taxation
Subject_3Making and Printing Excerpts from Session-Papers in Old Cases Referred to.
Facts:

The Auditor on Taxation having allowed as a charge against the unsuccessful party the expense of making and printing excerpts from the session-papers in certain old cases referred to at the debate, objection was taken to his report in respect of the allowance of this charge. Objection sustained.

Headnote:

See Wedderburn v. Duke of Atholl, and Duke of Atholl v. Glover Incorporation of Perth, March 3, 1899, 36 S.L.R. 481, and 1 F. 658, and (H.L.) May 28, 1900, 37 S.L.R. 686.

In these cases the pursuers (the Duke of Atholl and Others) were found entitled to expenses both in the Court of Session and House of Lords.

On the motion for approval of the Auditor's report on the expenses in the Court of Session in these cases, the defenders objected to a charge of £40 which had been allowed for the expense of excerpting and printing extracts from the session-papers in certain old cases which had been referred to at the debate; and argued, that as the session papers could be obtained from the library, the expense of printing from them should not be allowed against the losing party. The pursuers pointed out that these excerpts had been used both at the hearing before the Division and before the House of Lords, and that the expense of printing them could not be recovered as part of the costs in the House of Lords, as it was there a rule not to allow the expenses of documents already printed in the Court below.

Judgment:

Lord Adam—[ after dealing with another objection]—The second objection is quite different. It appears that there were several old cases referred to by both parties which are very briefly reported, and it is alleged that the reports were incorrect, and that the grounds of these decisions could not be understood or the point decided ascertained without reference to the session-papers. In the course of that investigation Mr Johnston's clients printed large excerpts from the session-papers, and the question is, whether he is entitled to charge the expense thereby incurred against the unsuccessful party. These excerpts may have been useful to the Court and to counsel, but I take it they are of the nature of things which a party may do to facilitate the apprehension of the case by counsel, but which he cannot charge against the opposite party. In the ordinary course counsel obtains and reads, in the course of his argument, the session-papers, and I think we cannot allow the expense of procuring and printing excerpts from them.

Page: 59↓

Lord M'Laren—As regards the 2nd objection, I agree that it would be an innovation to allow the expense of excerpts from printed reports because they are referred to merely as precedents. Where a reference to old documents is necessary in the course of a historic inquiry, the rule might be different.

The Lord President and Lord Kinnear concurred.

The Court disallowed the charge objected to, and quoad ultra approved of the Auditor's report.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuers—Solicitor—General ( Dickson, Q.C.)— C. N. Johnston. Agents— Thomson, Dickson, & Shaw, W.S.

Counsel for the Defender— Dundas, Q.C.— Blackburn. Agents— Dundas & Wilson, C.S.
1900

About BAILII - FAQ - Copyright Policy - Disclaimers - Privacy Policy amended on 25/11/2010