date

Dec r 1806 6 + Scotch Reform To L
Dec r 1806

6 + Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

Resolut. 10

"Resolution the 10 th. That when a Party in any Court the decrees of which are subject to be reviewed by the Court of Session, shall be disatisfied with any judgement of such Court, he shall be at liberty, instead of proceeding by the present mode of advocation or suspension, to enter an appeal to the Court of Session after the mode and form by which decrees of inferior Courts are brought under the review of the Lords of Justiciary on the Circuit, with the exception of such cases as, for the sake of the dispatch of justice or otherwise, it may be found necessary to except, and for which cases particular regulations may hereafter be provided."
Similar Items
  • Title: [PRIVATE 10 June 1807 (1)]
    Description: PRIVATE

    10 June 1807

    (1) (4)

    VI. 3. [...?...?]

    In the section which forms the 2 d paragraph on the 28 pages of the Bill the ground of the provision there made is to me so incomprehensible that, for a solution to the difficulty I can not help suspecting the omission of such a word as not. Instead of a Bill of Suspension or a Bill of Advocation presented to the Court of Session as at present, what is provided is that in the case therein mentioned, the proceeding, though still before the Court of Session, may be by way of Appeal, "after the mode and form by which Decrees of Inferior Courts are brought under Review by the Lords of Justiciary on the Circuits" viz. in virtue of the Statute 20 Geo.2.c.43. By that Statute the mode of proceeding, it is declared but without further explanation, shall be "in a summary way" and in respect of the value of the subject matter of the suit, the faculty of Appeal is limited to the cases where it does not exceed £12 sterling.

    Here, if the clause is to be understood without the word not which I suppose to have been accidentally omitted the description of the case in which the Appeal is to be allowed stands thus - "where the subject matter of such dispute shall exceed in value the sum of Fifty pound sterling." My notion is that it should have been " shall [not] exceed."

    Not that I can conceive any good reason - any reason which to me would appear a good one why the value allowed to be the subject matter of the appeal should receive any limitation.
  • Title: [24 Dec r 1806 Scotch Reform To L d]
    Description: 24 Dec r 1806

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville

    3 15(13

    Resolut. 10

    Advocate suspension

    As to suspension, it is upon the face of it so much pure injustice. Delay and nothing more /beyond/ is the professed /avowed/ object of it delay and nothing more /beyond/ is the declared effect.

    By suspension, advocation is pre-supposed: in suspension, advocation is included: at the instance of one of the parties, the superordinate Court takes the cause out of the hands of the /its/ subordinate. For what purpose? That nothing may be done in the cause by either of them, or by any Court: that delay and nothing but delay may be the consequence.
  • Title: [[...?] 1806 Scotch Reform To L d Grenville]
    Description: [...?] 1806

    Scotch Reform To L d Grenville 13(11

    Resolut. 10

    Advocate suspension

    In addition to Appeal, or in lieu of Appeal, the practice of the Court of Session, as attended to in this Resolution (resolution the 10 th) admitts of two other modes of Removal - Advocation and Suspension.

    As to Advocation, considered as a remedy against misdecision what can be the use of it?

    1. Is it no /Let it be/ the instance of the Plaintiff that the superordinate Court is aplied /urged/ to take the cause out of the hands of the subordinate Court? - But why? What possible reason /ground in part[?] of/ can there be for it? Decision none, misdecision is impossible. What were the grounds for committing the cognizance of the cause to the subordinate Court, the Court wtin reach /a moderate distance/ of the abodes of the parties? saving of delay, vexation and expence. For what reason should an [...?] of all the mass of inconvenience be produced at the requisition of either party /side of the parties/. Can it be /is[?] application[?]/ productive of any other effect. can it have had any other object, than the [...?] of all that mass of collateral inconvenience in a word than the opposition of the party on the other side.

    Oh, but, partiality was expected /suspected/ - was even experienced. In the present case The mischief by the supposition of it take place at all it will be in the shape of misdecision, of mere misdecision without delay: wait then for the decision, if it be erroneous there is time to apply for removal: if not erroneous, then there is no ground for it. But if not till after decision removal is not advocation but Appeal.