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

Scottish Court of Session Decisions


You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Stroyan v. M'Whirter [1902] ScotLR 40_142 (02 December 1902)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1902/40SLR0142.html
Cite as: [1902] SLR 40_142, [1902] ScotLR 40_142

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


SCOTTISH_SLR_Court_of_Session

Page: 142

Court of Session Inner House First Division.

Tuesday, December 2. 1902.

[ Lord Kincairney, Ordinary.

40 SLR 142

Stroyan

v.

M'Whirter.

Subject_1Expenses
Subject_2Copying
Subject_3Type-writing.
Facts:

Observations on the use of typewriting for copying purposes.

Headnote:

When the pursuer's taxed account of expenses in this case came before the Court in the Single Bills their Lordships' attention was drawn to a note to the Auditor's docquet in the following terms:— Note.—In this case a very large amount is charged for copies. This would have been very much less if the copies had been typewritten. Without referring to all the copies the Auditor finds that by typewriting the copies of the precognitions and correspondence there would have been a saving of £34, 8s. 6d. It seems unreasonable that such an unnecessary expense should be allowed, but there being no rule against it the Auditor has not felt himself entitled to deal with the matter.”

The expenses were taxed at the sum of £459, 8s. 2d. No objections had been lodged to the Auditor's report.

The table of fees in the Supreme Courts of Scotland as regulated by Act of Sederunt, 15th July 1876, provides as follows “3. Copying papers per sheet—(1) If in Eng lish 1s. 6d… . Where more than three copies of papers are necessary the same shall be printed, and if not printed the charges for three copies only shall be allowed by the Auditor.”

Counsel for the pursuer argued that as no objection had been taken to the report the question was now closed, but that even if the question had still been open no objection could have been taken, for only two written copies were charged for, and that was allowed (Act of Sederunt, 15th July 1876). An agent was not bound to use a new and, possibly for him, inconvenient

Page: 143

process, although it might be cheaper, provided he kept within the provisions of the Act of Sederunt.

Counsel for the defender argued that where a note was added by the Auditor to his docquet the Court would consider it, although no objection had been lodged— Dempster v. Wallace, Hunter, & Co., 1834, 12 S. 844. As it was now possible to get type-writing done outside, inconvenience could not be pleaded.

Judgment:

Lord President—There is a good deal to be said in support of the view that typewriting is a kind of printing, but it is obviously not the printing contemplated by the provision which has been read to us. At the same time I think that if there had been any abuse in multiplying manuscript copies of the papers in this case the Court might well have considered whether the rule suggested by the Auditor should not be adopted and applied. But, as I understand, only two manuscript copies of the papers were made, and accordingly, if this had been a case of printing, the rule of the Act of Sederunt would not have applied.

Lord M'Laren—I agree that typewriting might be regarded as a species of printing, but I am not quite sure that for the purposes of taxation we should so treat it. For I understand that law-printing is charged at a uniform rate, and that rate is probably higher than type-writing. I think we are indebted to the Auditor for the suggestion in his special report, and if it appeared that undue expense was occasioned by the multiplication of handwritten copies instead of making use of the type-writer, we might correct the evil by making a new rule. In the meantime we can all see that type-writing is being extensively used by the agents practising in our Courts.

Lord Adam and Lord Kinnear concurred.

The Court gave decree for the expenses as taxed.

Counsel:

Counsel for the Pursuer— A. S. D. Thomson. Agent— P. Adair, S.S.C.

Counsel for the Defender— Munro. Agents— Auld & Macdonald, W.S.

1902


BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1902/40SLR0142.html