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 £5, 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 Jury Court Reports |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Jury Court Reports >> Downie v. Burgan and Company. [1817] ScotJCR 1_Murray_219 (24 February 1817) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotJCR/1817/1_Murray_219.html Cite as: [1817] ScotJCR 1_Murray_219 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 219↓
(1817) 1 Murray 219
CASES TRIED IN THE JURY COURT.
No. 20
Present, The Three Lords of Commissioners.
Damages for breach of contract.
This was an action to recover a sum of money paid to the defenders to account of the price of a cargo of herrings, and for damages on account of breach of contract.
Defence.—The herrings, when shipped, were of the quality stipulated. The pursuer accepted of them, and paid part of the price after they had been some weeks in his possession.
“1. Whether the defender did, in the months of September and October 1814, sell to the pursuer 500 barrels of herrings of the best quality, and in a state to keep for six or eight months, and engage to ship the same at Eyemouth, to be conveyed from thence to the pursuer, at or near Cork, to be at the
Page: 220↓
2. Whether the said 500 barrels of herrings, so shipped by the defenders for the pursuers, were of the best quality, and properly cured and prepared for the Irish market, and in a state to keep for six or eight months; and whether the same were properly taken care of between the time of completing the bargain and the shipment of the said herrings; or whether the said herrings had been by the defenders improperly exposed to the sun, and weather, and accidents, on the quay of Eyemouth during the period last aforesaid?
3. Whether the defenders are justly indebted to the pursuer in the sum of L. 842, 6s. 9d. Irish currency, as the balance of the account libelled on, and whether they are further liable in damages to the pursuer for their undue performance of the aforesaid bargain?”
The defender failed to appear.
Page: 221↓
There were produced two affidavits of due notice having been given, and the persons who gave the notice were called to the table, and swore that “the contents of their affidavits were true.”
When Mr Cockburn had stated the case for the pursuers,
The defences and answers to the condescendence were given in.
His Lordship put a number of questions to the witnesses.
Verdict,—“For the pursuer on the three issues, with L. 50 Sterling damages.”
Counsel: W. Erskine and Cockburn, for the Pursuer.
Solicitors: (Agent, J. Nairne, w. s.)
On the 19th July 1816, Mr Erskine moved for a commission to examine witnesses in Ireland; Mr Bruce opposed the motion, as the proof was irrelevant. He maintained that the
Page: 222↓
