If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?

Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!


BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Thomas Gemmil v Colonel John Walkinshaw-Crawford. [1782] Mor 7422 (20 February 1782)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1782/Mor1807422-137.html
Cite as: [1782] Mor 7422

[New search] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]


[1782] Mor 7422      

Subject_1 JURISDICTION.
Subject_2 DIVISION IV.

Jurisdiction of the Court of Session.
Subject_3 SECT. VI.

Criminal Jurisdiction of the Court of Session.

Thomas Gemmil
v.
Colonel John Walkinshaw-Crawford

Date: 20 February 1782
Case No. No 137.

An action of damages, founded on an acquittal in the Court of Justiciary, is not competent before the Court of Session.


Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy

Colonel Crawford having received certain anonymous threatening or incendiary letters, of which he suspected Gemmil to be the author, brought him to trial before the High Court of Justiciary. But Gemmil having been acquitted by his jury, he instituted, on that ground, an action of damages against Colonel Crawford; in support of which he insisted, that it was not competent to have entered any claim for damages in the criminal court.

The Lords were of opinion, That this claim was competent before the Court of Justiciary, and only there; as it would be a solecism, for the one Supreme Court to pronounce a judgment founded upon proceedings held in the other. It was further observed, that the claim's not having been entered there, betrayed such a consciousness of its being ill founded, as would have precluded the present action, though otherwise proper; in the same manner as if the demand had been actually made in that Court and rejected.

The Court therefore dismissed the action.

Lord Ordinary, Alva. Act. Geo. Fergusson. Alt. J. Boswell. Clerk, Menzies. Fol. Dic. v. 3. p. 346. Fac. Col. No 35. p. 56.

The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting     


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1782/Mor1807422-137.html