![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] |
![]() |
||||||||
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||||||||||
PLEASE SUPPORT BAILII & FREE ACCESS TO LAW
To maintain its current level of service, BAILII urgently needs the support of its users.
Since you use the site, please consider making a donation to celebrate BAILII's 25 years of providing free access to law. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing this vital service.
Thank you for your support! | ||||||||||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Manners v Whitehead [1898] ScotCS CSIH_1 (25 November 1898) URL: https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1898/1898_1_F_171.html Cite as: (1898) 1 F 171, [1898] ScotCS CSIH_1, (1898) 6 SLT 199 |
[New search] [Printable version] [Help]
25 November 1898
Manners |
v. |
Whitehead. |
If the action be one of damages, then it was scarcely disputed that it is necessary to the pursuer's success that he prove fraud. Now, that there are in the case several things constituting, so far as they go, cogent evidence of fraud, cannot be ignored. Each of these matters is involved in circumstances requiring a good deal of attention, but several misstatements were made, which, when all is said, are not well accounted for. Still, the question is one of personal conduct; the Lord Ordinary saw and heard the witnesses whose conduct is inculpated, and he has held that the pursuer has failed to prove that the misstatements were made fraudulently. I attach the more weight to the Lord Ordinary's conclusion, because his opinion discloses a complete grasp of the points which bear against the honesty of the gentlemen involved. With these things fully in view, he absolves the defender. As I do not regard any one of the proved misrepresentations, nor the whole taken together, as demonstrative or conclusive of fraud, I do not feel justified in rejecting the Lord Ordinary's conclusion that in fact there was no deceit.
I am for adhering to the interlocutor reclaimed against.
LORD ADAM was absent.
The permission for BAILII to publish the text of this judgment
was granted by Scottish Council of Law Reporting and
the electronic version of the text was provided by Justis Publishing Ltd.
Their assistance is gratefully acknowledged.