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 >> Routledge v. Somerville and Son [1866] ScotLR 2_87 (16 June 1866) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1866/02SLR0087.html Cite as: [1866] SLR 2_87, [1866] ScotLR 2_87 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 87↓
In a case having reference to the mode in which paper was manufactured in the defenders' premises, a motion by the pursuer to be allowed access to their premises in order to prepare for the trial, granted.
The issue for trial in this case is whether the defenders, in breach of an agreement with the pursuer, purchased esparto fibre otherwise than from the pursuer or his brokers. The defenders have taken a counter issue for the purpose of proving that the pursuer has failed to implement his part of the same agreement, by not imparting to the defenders full particulars of the method employed by him for the treatment of esparto fibre for the manufacture of paper.
Gifford and Shand, for the pursuer, to-day moved for an order on the defenders to give access to their mills and works for the manufacture of paper at Dalmore to the pursuer and his agents, and Dr Stevenson Macadam, of Edinburgh, whom it was proposed to examine as a witness at the trial.
Clark and Lancaster, for the defenders, opposed the motion on the ground that it was not fair to give the pursuer, who was in the same business as the defenders, the means of knowing the secrets of their trade.
The Lord President—I rather think that from the nature of the statements on record and of the counter issue taken by the defenders, this is a motion which may be granted. There may be cases in which it may be dangerous to grant such a motion, but I do not anticipate any danger in the present case.
The other Judges concurred; and the motion was accordingly granted.
Solicitors: Agents for Pursuer — Leburn, Henderson, & Wilson, S.S.C.
Agents for Defenders— White-Millar & Robson, S.S.C.
