United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Thomas Meek, Writer in Glasgow v. Thomas Mitchell & Company, and John Harper, Thread Manufacturers in Glasgow [1819] UKHL 6_Paton_420 (26 April 1819)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1819/6_Paton_420.html
Cite as: [1819] UKHL 6_Paton_420

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

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 420↓

(1819) 6 Paton 420

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS, UPON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND.

No. 80

Thomas Meek, Writer in Glasgow, Appellant

v.

Thomas Mitchell & Company, and John Harper, Thread Manufacturers in Glasgow, Respondents

House of Lords, 26th, April 1819.

Subject_Act — Contravention of — Illegal Seizure. —

The Act 28 Geo. III. c. 17, made certain regulations in regard to the manufacture of linen thread, otherwise called Nun's thread, and the respondents, manufacturers of that thread, were alleged to have committed a breach of these regulations. Held that they had committed no breach of these regulations, and ordained that the seized thread be restored, reserving claim for damages as for an illegal seizure. Affirmed in House of Lords.

This was an action brought by the appellant, as procurator-fiscal of the Justice of Peace Court of the Lower Ward of

Page: 421↓

Lanarkshire, founded on the provision of an Act of Parliament, 28 Geo. III. c. 17, in regard to the manufacture of linen thread of a certain fineness, which Act fixed the size of the “reel used in reeling or making up that kind of thread commonly called ounce or nun's thread,” and also fixing that it “shall be one yard or thirty-six inches in circumference,” and declaring that any person who shall use, in reeling or making ounce or nun's thread, a reel less than one yard or thirty-six inches in circumference, should be convicted of an offence, and subjected in the forfeiture of the thread and the penalties of the Act.

The respondents had been charged with committing a breach of these regulations, when the present complaint was brought before the justices. The thread so manufactured was ordered to be taken possession of under a warrant.

May 26, 1814.

The petition was allowed to be answered, and when advised, a proof ordered and judgment pronounced, and in an advocation of this judgment to the Court of Session, the Court pronounced this interlocutor:—

“Upon report of Lord Glenlee, Ordinary, and having advised the mutual informations, the Lords advocate the cause, find in terms of the interlocutor of the justices, that the thread as made up and sold by the defenders, is not contrary to, nor any evasion of the Act of Parliament libelled on; therefore, ordain the seized thread to be restored to the defenders respectively; assoilzie them from the conclusions of the action, and decern: Find the pursuer liable in the expense of procedure, both in this Court and before the justices, and remit to the auditor to report on the account thereof when lodged: Find it unnecessary to pronounce any deliverance on the petition and complaint for the defenders, and reserve to the parties to be heard on the question of the legality or illegality of the seizure in the action of damages brought by the defenders against the pursuer.”

Feb. 15, 1815.

On reclaiming petition the Court adhered.

Against these interlocutors, the present appeal was brought to the House of Lords.

After hearing counsel,

It was ordered and adjudged that the interlocutors complained of be, and the same are hereby affirmed, with £50 costs.

Counsel: For the Appellant, Sir Saml. Romilly, Andrew Skene.
For the Respondents, Fra. Horner, Jas. Grahame.

1819

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