Scottish Court of Session Decisions

In this case, Mr James Cameron, tenant of the farm of Bullions, in the parish of Torryburn and

Page: 236↓

county of Fife, is pursuer; and the Right Hon. Sir James William Colvile of Ochiltree, Knight, residing at Craigflower, Dunfermline; George Menzies, formerly tenant of the said farm of Bullions, presently residing at Trentham, Staffordshire; and Alexander Duncan, tenant of the farm of Pusk, in the county of Fife, and residing there, for his interest, if he have any, are defenders.

The issue sent to the jury, and relative documents, were as follows:—

“It being admitted that in the year l861 the defender George Menzies became tenant of the farm and lands of Crombie, called the Barns and Bullions of Crombie, and others, in terms of the lease No. 12 of Process, and remained tenant thereof until the term of Martinmas when he ceased occupy the same, in terms the minute of renunciation No. 12 of process:

“It being also admitted that the pursuer became tenant of the said farm and lands and others at the said term of Martinmas 1865, in terms of the lease No. 13 of process, and also obtained the assignation No. 8 of process:

“It being also admitted that in November 1865 the pursuer, and the defender George Menzies, and Colin M'Kenzie, W.S., on behalf of Sir James William Colvile of Ochiltree, Knight, the proprietor of the said lands, entered into the submission No. 6 of process, to Robert Lucas, Bridge of Allan, and James Robertson, farmer, Hilltown of Beath, who accepted the said submission, and thereafter devolved the same on Alexander Duncan, farmer, Pusk, Fifeshire, as oversman, by the minute No. 6 of process:

“It being also admitted that the said oversman pronounced the decree-arbitral No.6 of process:”

The decree-arbitral as having been issued by Mr Alexander Duncan was as follows;—

“I, Alexander Duncan, tenant, Pusk, oversman or umpire chosen by the referees in terms of the foregoing minutes, having met with the parties, or others on their behalf, and considered the mutual claims, disputes, questions, and differences existing between them, hinc inde, and in virtue of the tack and renunciation referred to in a minute of reference, and having also heard the referees, and being well and wisely advised in the matters, and having God and a good conscience before my eyes, do give forth the following as my final award and sentence:—1. In regard to the claims for alleged miscropping the farm and lands contained in the tack, I find that the outgoing tenant is not liable in the sums claimed on that account, nor any part thereof. The farm has been left in uncommonly good condition, and, in my opinion, is not the least deteriorated. 2. I find Mr Cameron and the proprietor, Sir James William Colvile, liable in payment to Mr Menzies in the following sums-viz., the sum of £178, 4s. 6d., being the value of the turnips which have been measured by Mr Robert Hay, surveyor; the sum of £32, 4s., being the value of manure in the seed, also measured by Mr Hay; the sum of £351 16s., being the value of the straw effeiring to the corns proofed, including value of greay corn; the sum of £22, 1s. 6d., being the value of the horse, bones, implement shed, wooden fence, strained wire fence, wooden rhond and door, all specially mentioned in the reference; the sum of £240, 7s. 6d., being the value of 1259 cwt. of hay, left by the outgoing to the incoming tenant; the sum of £11, 15s., being the value of Takings of wheat, barley, and oats; and the sum of £2, 12s., for thrashing the proof grain. These several sums, amounting together to £839, 0s. 6d., I decern Mr Cameron and the proprietor to pay to Mr Menzies, one-half thereof at Candlemas, and the other half at Whitsunday, both next, with interest from these terms till paid. 3. And I find Mr Menzies liable to pay Mr Cameron and the proprietor the sum of £22, 4s. 6d. in lieu of, satisfaction of his obligation in the lease to maintain and leave the dwelling-house, cottages, steading, and offices, stone dykes, hedges, ditches, and drains in good order and condition, and not in need of any repairs; and I also find him liable to Mr Cameron and the proprietor in the sums of £20 and £18, 10s., in respect of having taken from an extra portion of ground, and in respect of a second cutting taken from grass land; and I also find Mr Menzies liable to Mr Cameron in the sum of £116, 12s. 10d., as the expense of stacking, thrashing, and carrying to market the crop given over to the proprietor or incoming tenant, in terms of the lease, deducting the charge for 63 acres stacked by Mr Menzies-these several sums amounting together to £177, 7s. 4d. I decern Mr Menzies liable in payment of the measurer's fees for measuring dung and turnips, and I decern all other expenses to be paid mutually; and in respect to all other matters and claims in dispute falling under the reference to me, I ordain the parties to grant mutual acquittances or discharges, hinc inde, the one to the other.”

The submission mentioned was entered between Mr George Menzies, outgoing tenant, Mr James Cameron, incoming tenant, and Mr Colin Mackenzie, W.S., on behalf of Sir James William Colvile, and showed that the lease of the farm of Bullions had been renounced by Mr Menzies, on condition that he should leave the whole houses, buildings, dykes, hedges, fences, ditches, drains, and rotation of cropping in the manner prescribed in the lease with regard to the last year under the tack; and that the lands of Bullions had been let to Mr James Cameron, and certain obligations of the said George Menzies, contained in the lease assigned to Cameron. In order that all disputes between outgoing and incoming tenants should be settled amicably, and that all the obligations between these persons and the landlord arranged, it was referred to Mr Robert Lucas, Bridge of Allan, and James Robertson, farmer, Hilltown of Beath, as arbiters, to pronounce decree-arbitral, or, in case of difference of opinion between the arbiters, it was to be referred to an oversman or umpire.—

“1. Whether the said oversman acted corruptly in pronouncing the said decree-arbitral?

“2. Whether the said decree-arbitral was wrongfully pronounced by the said Alexander Duncan, without hearing the pursuer on the matters thereby disposed of?

The trial occupied the Court till after six o'clock, when the jury returned a verdict for the pursuer by a majority of ten to two.