20 Dunl 1077
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 05 June 1858 |
| Date | 05 June 1858 |
| Year | 1858 |
| Docket Number | No. 195 |
| Court | Court of Session (Inner House - Second Division) |
Ld Mackenzie. I.
Agent and Client—Agents' responsibility—Negligence—Reparation—Master and Servant—Stat. 4 Geo. IV. c. 34—
MESSRS GRANT AND LESLIE, writers in Elgin, were employed by Mr Smith to take proceedings under the statute 4 Geo. IV. c. 34, against four farm servants for desertion of service. A complaint was accordingly presented to the Justices of the Peace for the county of Elgin, and on that complaint the servants were brought before three Justices of the Peace—one of the partners of the firm of Grant and Leslie attending, along with Mr Smith, and conducting the prosecution on his behalf.
The record of the proceedings commenced with the following minute:—
‘Elgin, 16th December 1854.—In presence of three of her Majesty's Justices of the Peace for the county of Elgin—Compeared Alexander French, James Gill, William Murdoch, and James Hendry, who being interrogated whether or not they are guilty of the offence libelled, they severally answered, that they left Mr Smith's service, but in consequence of having received foul meat made by Mr Smith's cook; and the declarations were taken down apart.’ This minute was not authenticated by the signatures either of the servants or the justices. Immediately below was another in these terms:—‘I depart from the complaint in so far as regards James Hendry.’ (Signed) ‘GEO. LESLIE.’ The declarations of the other three servants were taken down at length on a separate paper, but were not authenticated by the signature of the justices. Then followed the interlocutor disposing of the cause:—‘The Justices of the Peace having resumed consideration of the complaint, with the oath of the petitioner thereto, and the declarations of the several respondents, taken severally, in respect that they all admit that from Monday the 11th December current till Thursday the 14th December current, the day on which they deserted the petitioner's service, that their food was clean and sufficient, they are now debarred from going into a proof of the question of the food previous to the said 11th December current: Find that. … have all been guilty of a breach of their agreements: Therefore decern and adjudge the said. … to be imprisoned in the prison of Elgin,’ &c. This warrant was enforced on instructions given to an officer by Messrs Grant and Leslie.
In a suspension raised by the servants before the Court of Justiciary some time after the period of their imprisonment had expired, this interlocutor was pronounced on 25th June 1855:—‘In respect that the declarations of the complainers, on which the conviction bears to have proceeded, were not authenticated by the signature of the Justices, pass the bill, suspend the sentence complained of simpliciter, and decern: Find the suspenders entitled to expenses.’
The expenses in which Mr Smith was subjected by the suspenders amounted to L.32, 13s.
Alexander French then raised an action in the Court of Session against Smith, concluding for L.14 as wages and board wages due to him from 14th December 1855 to Whitsunday following, and for L.100 as solatium and damages; whereupon Smith raised the present action of relief against Messrs Grant and Leslie, of the expenses decerned for in the suspension, and of the wages and board wages, and damages claimed by French; and also for the expenses in which he might be subjected in French's action, and his own expenses, whether incurred in the suspension or to be incurred in the action of damages.
It was pleaded, that it being the duty of the defenders to see that the proceedings before the Justices were properly conducted, and the minutes and declarations duly authenticated; and the proceedings having been quashed owing to gross want of skill on the part of the defenders, they were bound to relieve the pursuer from the consequences.
The defenders pleaded;—That the pursuer's averments were irrelevant, and insufficient to support the conclusions of the action. That it was not their duty to see to the due...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Trevor Rush Mccafferty Wright V. Paton Farrell+robert Paton+peter Farrell
...cases which he had in mind but Ritchie v Macrosty (1854) 16 D. 554, Urquhart v Grigor (1857) 19 D. 853, Smith v Grant and Leslie (1858) 20 D. 1077 and Murray v Reilly 1963 S.L.T. (N) 49 are noted as having been cited in argument (page 207). Having held that, for the public policy reasons wh......