Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> David Brown v. William Goldie [1855] UKHL 1_Paterson_567 (3 July 1855)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1855/1_Paterson_567.html
Cite as: [1855] UKHL 1_Paterson_567
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
SCOTTISH_HoL
Page: 567↓
(1855) 1 Paterson 567
REPORTS OF SCOTCH APPEALS IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS.
No. 84
v.
Subject_Appeal to House of Lords—Process—Printing Record—
The an appeal to the House of Lords, omitted, in that part of his case setting forth the record, to print the pleas in law of the respondent:
Held, That the omission was not sufficient to suspend the hearing of his though the House would, in settling the costs, order the appellant to pay to the respondent such additional costs as he had been put to by reason of the omission.
Subject_Appeal to House of Lords—Process—Printing Record—
The appellant omitted to print in his case the statement of facts and pleas in law of the respondent:
The House of Lords, in respect of the omission, ordered the appellant to pay the respondent the costs of the day, and to amend his case within ten days, otherwise the appeal to be dismissed.
The appellant brought two appeals against several interlocutors of the Court of Session, pronounced in two processes, in one of which he had been the pursuer, and in the other the defender. In both cases he was unsuccessful. The merits are immaterial for the present purpose. On the two causes being called—
Lord Advocate (Moncreiff) was proceeding to open the appellant's case.
Anderson Q.C., for the respondent, objected—That the appellant had not complied with the standing orders of the House, inasmuch as he had not printed the entire records, but had omitted the pleas in law of the respondent in both instances. The order No. 177 required, “that in all cases of appeals from Scotland the appellant alone, in his printed case, shall lay before the House a printed copy of the record, as authenticated by the Lord Ordinary.” The pleas in law of the respondent formed part of that record, and therefore should have been printed. The House cannot safely proceed to hear the case, without having before it the entire record, so as to know upon what both parties relied in the Court below.
Lord Advocate.—The appellant has complied with the standing order, as far as regards the presenting of the record to the House, but he has only failed to include a small portion of such record in his printed case. The respondent must be taken to know his own pleas; and the omission ought not to prevent the case being proceeded with, as it could not possibly prejudice the respondent.
Anderson replied.—Though the pleas which have been omitted are our own, still I am as ignorant of what they are as if they had been those of the appellant. The respondent always takes it for granted that the record is printed in the appellant's case, for it is the appellant's duty to print it; and it may happen that the printed cases are not exchanged until a day or two before the hearing. The hearing ought to be postponed, that the case may be amended; and we are entitled to the costs of the day.
It was shortly afterwards discovered that not only the pleas in law, but the statement of facts of the respondent, were omitted in the appellant's printed cases.
Anderson called the attention of the House to this further omission.
The Lord Chancellor said, that in such circumstances it was impossible to hear the cases; and the House thereupon made an order, that unless the appellant, within ten days, paid to the respondent the costs of the day in both appeals, and amended his printed cases, such appeals should stand dismissed, with costs. 1
Solicitors: Appellant's Agent, Andrew murray. — Respondent's Agent, James Crosbie.
_________________ Footnote _________________
1 It was understood that the costs of the day were not paid, as ordered; consequently both appeals were dismissed with costs.