BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Proudfoot v. Lecky (ante, vol. i., p. 240) [1866] ScotLR 2_19 (22 May 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0019.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_19, [1866] ScotLR 2_19 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 19↓
( ante, vol. i., p. 240).
In an action of damages for wrongous dismissal of a servant, in which the jury found for the pursuer, with one farthing damages, neither party found entitled to expenses.
This case was tried before Lord Barcaple and a jury, on the 23d, 24th, and 26th March 1866. The question was whether the pursuer had been wrongfully and illegally dismissed from the service of the defender, to his loss, injury, and damage. The defender pleaded justification. The jury found for the pursuer—damages one farthing.
A. Moncrieff moved the Court to apply the verdict of the jury, and in terms thereof to decern against the defender, with expenses.
Pattison (with him the Lord Advocate) opposed the motion for expenses, on the ground that the verdict of the jury substantially represented the amount of patrimonial loss incurred by the pursuer, and was not intended as a vindication of his character. He cited Paterson v. Ronald, January 31, 1820, 2 Murray's Reports, 188; and Paterson v. Walker, November 29, 1848, 11 D. 167.
A. Moncrieff (with him Gifford) argued that the case was assimilated in principle to cases of slander, in which nominal damages carried expenses; and in support of this quoted Balfour v. Wallace, December 3, 1853, 16 D. 110; Ross v. Macvean, June 2, 1860, 22 D. 1144; and Borthwick v. Gilkison, November 21, 1863, 2 M'Ph. 125.
The Court refused the motion. In the case of Borthwick, malice had been found by the jury. There was nothing of the sort here.
Solicitors: Agents for the Pursuer — Wilson, Burn, & Gloag, W.S.
Agent for the Defender— R. P. Stevenson, S.S.C.
