In the 583 cases expenses were decerned for at and above L.100 The highest amount was L.1012; the lowest, L.2, 2s. In 50 cases the expenses awarded were at and under L.25.

in 286 cases.

Second, Summary of the Sheriff Court Returns of the Four Courts. (Why was Edinburgh, with Three Substitutes, excluded ?)

1. Sheriff Court, Glasgow. (Four Sheriff-Substitutes.) Litigated cases finally decided within the year 1860, giving the names, 390.—In dependence upwards of one year, 28; one, five years and upwards; one, four years; one, three years; seven, two years; eighteen, upwards of one year.

Decided within one month, 24. The shortest, eight days. The highest sum of principal decerned for, L.568.

Decrees for principal sums above L.25 were given in 80 cases. The lowest principal sum decerned for was 30s.

Decrees for expenses were given for sums above L.10 in 78 cases. The highest award of costs was L.52. (The case was in dependence two years and fifty-four days.) The lowest award of costs was 6s. 1d. (The case had been in dependence two years, and the defender was ultimately assoilzied.)

2. Sheriff Court, Perth. (One Sheriff-Substitute.)

Litigated cases finally decided within the year 1860, 100.-In dependence upwards of one year, 34; two, for four years; two, for three years; nine, for two years; twenty-one, for upwards of one

year.

Decided within one month, seven. The shortest, seven days. The highest sum of principal decerned for, L.442.

Decrees for principal sums above L.25 were given in eleven cases. Decrees for expenses were given for sums above L.10 in 38 cases. The highest award of costs was L.55. (The case had been in dependence for 3 years 104 days.) The lowest award of costs was 25s.

(One Sheriff-Substitute.)

3. Sheriff Court, Ayr. Litigated cases finally decided within the year 1860, 67.—In dependence upwards of one year, 30; one for three years; ten for two years; nineteen for upwards of one year. Decided within one month, 10. The highest sum of principal decerned for was L.500. Decrees for principal sums above L.25 were given in fifteen Decrees for expenses above L.10 were given in nineteen The highest award of costs was L.39; the lowest award, 30s.

cases.

cases.

4. Sheriff Court, Aberdeen. (One Sheriff-Substitute.) Litigated cases finally decided within the year 1860, 128.-In dependence upwards of one year, 47; one for three years; one for six years; six for two years; 39 for upwards of one year. Decided within one month, 12.

The highest sum of principal decerned for was L.550. Decrees for principal sums above L.25 were given in 39 cases. Decrees for expenses above L.10 were given in 35 cases.

award of costs was L.52.

two years and 180 days.)

The highest

(The case had been in dependence for

The following gentlemen were, on the 13th November 1862, admitted members of the Society of Writers to the Signet, viz.:Mr John Hendry, Mr John Forman, and Mr C. Y. B. Bell.

Digest of Decisions.

COURT OF SESSION.

FIRST DIVISION.

POWELL AND CO. AND MANDATORY v. GALLACHER.-Nov. 13.
Reduction-Title to Exclude.

Powell and Co., corn merchants, Liverpool, the pursuers in this action, averred that in February 1862 they had made advances to the defender Crean, on the faith of certain shipments of oats, but that, instead of being delivered to them, the oats had been sent to certain merchants in Glasgow. The pursuers applied to the Sheriff of Lanarkshire for an interdict against these merchants delivering said oats to any one except the petitioners, and from making advances to the defenders in respect thereof. The defender Gallacher, a pawnbroker in Ireland, appeared and opposed the interdict, on the ground that the oats belonged to him, and not to Crean; and produced a letter bearing to be from Crean, of date 24th February 1862, offering the oats for sale, and a bill bearing to have been granted by Gallacher to Crean for L.1000, in proof of the sale. The present action was raised for reduction of these two documents, and for payment of L.907, as the balance of the account due by Crean, the pursuers alleging that the sale from Crean to Gallacher was simulate and fraudulent. Gallacher stated a preliminary plea in defence, that he should not be required to satisfy production, on the ground that the pursuers had no title or interest to pursue the reduction. In the process of interdict which was brought up by advocation ob contingentiam, Gallacher pleaded that he was not subject to the jurisdiction of the Scotch Courts. The Lord Ordinary (Ardmillan) held, that as Gallacher had founded on the documents and the alleged sale in the Sheriff Court process, he could not prevent the party against whom they were pleading from having them looked into in a reduction; and that Gallacher having appeared and pleaded in the Sheriff Court, he could not now plead want of jurisdiction. After the Lord Probationer had expressed his opinion on the case, the Court adhered.

LINDSAY (TRUSTEE FOR THE EARL OF STRATHMORE AND KINGHORN) v. BELL. Nov. 15.

Submission-Landlord and Tenant.

This was an application by Lindsay for interdict against a waygoing tenant, to prevent him selling corn, fodder, etc., of the last year's crop. The tenant expressed his willingness to make over the same at a value to

be ascertained by arbiters, to be mutually chosen, in terms of the lease. The complainer insisted that he was not bound to enter into the submission, unless a clause was inserted to the effect that the subjects were to be valued at their value for consumption on the farm. The tenant maintained that the market price was the proper value, and that he was not bound to agree to any such stipulation in the submission, on the ground that the lease contained no such condition. The Lord Ordinary (Mackenzie) held that the submission should be framed in conformity with the terms of the lease, as proposed by the respondent; and that to insert the stipulation for which the complainer insisted, would be making a contract for the parties which they had not made for themselves in the lease; and refused the interdict. The complainer reclaimed. The Court unanimously adhered, holding that the Court could not fix beforehand the principle of valuation, and that this was a matter for the discretion of the arbiters. The interdict was accordingly refused.

ANDERSON V. DRYSDALE AND OTHERS.-Nov. 22.

Process-Interdict-Intimation.

This is a note of suspension and interdict at the instance of John Anderson, fishmonger, Edinburgh, against James Drysdale, auctioneer, Stirling, and others. The complainer prays for interdict against the respondents from fishing for salmon ex adverso of certain lands on the western bank of the river Forth, in the county of Clackmannan-of the fishings of which lands the complainer is tenant. On the 17th July last, the Lord Ordinary on the Bills pronounced the following interlocutor:To see and answer within six days after intimation; reserving as to caution, and also reserving consideration of the question of the interdict till the case comes to be advised, with or without answers.' On the 18th July, a copy of the note of suspension and interdict, but not of the foregoing interlocutor, was served by a messenger-at-arms upon the respondents. The execution of service, inter alia, bore-'In her Majesty's name, and in name and authority of the said Lord Ordinary, lawfully intimate the said note of suspension and interdict to you the said James Drysdale, respondent, by serving you with the foresaid copy, that you may not pretend ignorance of the premises, and cite you to lodge answers thereto, if so advised, within six days next after the date of this my intimation given you, with certification as effeirs.' Copies in similar terms were served on the other respondents. Answers were lodged, in which the respondents pleaded that, there having been no competent service upon them, in respect no copy of the interlocutor ordering service and answers was served, the note should be refused. Thereafter, on 25th July, a copy of the note was served anew on the respondents, along with a copy of the interlocutor ordering service and answers, and the previous service of the note was withdrawn. But on the day preceding, viz., the 24th July, the Lord Ordinary on the Bills pronounced an interlocutor passing the note on caution, and granting interdict as craved. It was contended for the reclaimers, that under the statute of 1 & 2 Vict., cap. 86, service in common form, both of the note of suspension and of the interlocutor ordering service and answers, is required, and that the common form of service is by a copy of the writ served. The complainer VOL. VI.-NO. LXXII. DECEMBER 1862.

4 D

contended that the requirement of the statute was sufficiently complied with by the reference in the messenger's execution to the terms of the interlocutor.

The Court held that the direction in the statute had not been complied with, and therefore recalled the interlocutor reclaimed against, and remitted to the Lord Ordinary on the Bills to advise the case with the answers given in.

SECOND DIVISION.

Susp., CAMPBELL v. BLACKWOOD.-Nov. 7.
Process-Sheriff Court.

Campbell, the suspender, some time ago raised an action in the Sheriff Court of Peebles, against a person of the name of Lindsay, in which he was unsuccessful; and the Sheriff, adhering to the interlocutor of the Sheriff-substitute, assoilzied Lindsay, dismissed the action, and found the defender entitled to expenses. This judgment, dated 5th July 1859, disposed of the merits of the cause. The decree was not extracted; but no advocation was presented. After the judgment was pronounced, the suspender (who was the unsuccessful pursuer of the action) borrowed the process, and, though repeatedly applied to, he failed to return it till November 1859, being more than three months from the date of the judgment. By the Sheriff Court Act, 16 & 17 Vict., c. 80, sec. 15, it is provided that any action in which neither party moves for three months shall eo ipso stand dismissed, but with power to the Sheriff to revive it within the next three months, on a motion made to that effect. In the present case no steps were taken to revive the action within the statutory period; but the defender's account of expenses was given in, and taxed in presence of both agents. The Sheriff-substitute decerned for the taxed amount in name of Blackwood, the defender's agent, who had disbursed the expenses. The present suspension has been brought to meet a charge on the extracted degree for the expenses, the suspender maintaining that, at the date of taxation and decerniture by the Sheriffsubstitute, the cause was at an end, the same standing dismissed, in terms of the 15th section of the statute. The Lord Ordinary (Ardmillan) repelled the suspender's pleas, and refused the suspension. The Court recalled the Lord Ordinary's interlocutor, and suspended the charge for the expenses.

M.P., IRVINE'S EXECUTORS v. ORMISTON AND OTHERS.-Nov. 11.

Intestate Succession Act.

This is a competition for the moveable estate of an intestate between her cousins-german and the descendants of her cousins-german, and involves the construction to be put on the clause in the Intestate Succession Act (18 Vict., cap. 23), which provides, that no representation shall be admitted among collaterals, after brothers' and sisters' descendants.'

The Lord Ordinary (Neaves) pronounced the following interlocutor:'Edinburgh, 14th January 1862.-The Lord Ordinary having heard parties' procurators, and considered the closed record and whole process, ranks and prefers the six claimants, Michael Broad, etc., to the whole of the fund in medio, in terms of their claim, No 11 of process; repels the