he also claimed damages against them for being deprived of the use of his pew. The seatholder alleged that the management had acted maliciously, without any warrant or authority, and for the purpose of injuring him and driving him out of the church. He averred that the management devised a scheme of depriving him of his pew, so that being publicly affronted and privately distressed he might resign his membership. He further alleged that he had sustained a serious wrong through the invasion of his civil rights, and had suffered greatly in his feelings and reputation in consequence of the management's actings-Held that as the seatholder had set forth no right to the pew the averments that the management had acted maliciously and in combination did not disclose any cause of action, and action dismissed as irrelevant. Queree v. Smith.

76

Reparation-Negligence-Accident on unlighted stairCommon law and statutory duty to light Burgh Police (Scotland) Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. cap. 55), section 104-While a visitor was about to descend the last flight of the common stair of a tenement, he fell down and was injured. In an action by the visitor against the owners for reparation it was averred that the close and common stair were lit by inverted gas-brackets fitted for incandescent burners and mantles, there being one bracket in the close and one on each stair-landing; that the gas in the bracket at the close was not lit on the evening in question, and had not been lit for a period of three or four weeks prior to the date; that during this period there had been no mantle fitted; that the existence of a mantle was necessary to render the gas-bracket capable of use as a means of lighting; that in consequence of the want of a mantle there was no illumination; that if there had been illumination from the gasbracket the accident would not have happened; and that section 104 of the Burgh Police Act, 1892 (55 & 56 Vict. cap. 55), imposed on the defenders an absolute duty towards all persons lawfully using the stair to maintain the gas-bracket in such a condition as to render it capable of use-Held (1) that there was no duty imposed upon the proprietors of the building to light the staircase; and (2) that the proprietors were not bound to take on themselves the business of inspecting the condition of the lighting appliances, and as the averments did not disclose any breach of duty owed by them at common law or by statute, action dismissed as irrelevant.

M'Clymont v. Kingston Investment Company
Limited

113

Reparation-Negligence-Landlord and tenant-Gateways giving access to plantation left open-Poisonous shrubs-Injury to cattle. A farm was bounded partly by a drystone dyke in which were two hunting gates. The dyke separated the farm let to the tenant from a plantation belonging to and remaining in the possession of the landlord. The landlord had power to remove any timber cut in the plantation through the lands let, and the tenant was bound to uphold the whole dykes, etc., in good condition. In the plantation rhododendron bushes were growing, and about the end of December the landlord's workmen commenced felling trees in the plantation and removing the timber through the gates and across the tenant's lands. In the course of the operations the two gates were left open and unguarded. The tenant had his milk cows out on the field adjoining the plantation, and twelve or more of the cows entered the plantation by the said gates. On the following day seven of the cows became ill, and the said illness was caused by their having eaten of the

rhododendron bushes growing in the plantation, and the tenant suffered loss thereby. In an action by the and tenants against the landlord for the loss sustained, held (1) that the landlord in leaving the gates open and unguarded was in breach of a duty which he owed to his tenant; (2) that the injury to the tenant's cows, though a result of the negligence of the landlord, was not a natural or probable consequence of that negligence, in respect (a) that the dangerous properties of rhododendrons are not matters of common knowledge even among persons entrusted with the care and management of cattle and were not known to the landlord, (b) that it is not a natural instinct or propensity of cattle to eat of rhododendron bushes in injurious quantity and that the action of the tenant's cows in so doing was attributable to, and induced by, the special circumstance that for some months they had been in the byre on winter feeding and their natural instincts in the matter of green foods were thereby temporarily vitiated, and (c) that the injury to the tenant's cows was not a contingency which the landlord might reasonably be expected to anticipate as likely to occur in the case of cattle entering the plantation; and (3) that, therefore, the tenant was not entitled to recover damages. Young v. Houston

26

102

Reparation-Negligence Property-Defective gas-pipe -Duty of owners- -A gas-pipe leading to a tenement and laid in 1893 had, in 1922, become so corroded that several parts were worn into holes only covered by a thin coating of rust, it belonging to the proprietor of the tenement. Employees of the Corporatian, without notice to the owner, entered upon digging operations in the vicinity of the pipe and the rust was disturbed. An escape of gas followed, causing. injuries to persons in the tenement-Held that the owner of the pipe was liable in damages. Kennedy v. Benson Reparation-Negligence-Street-Running down-Motor car overtaking tramcar on offside-Duty of driver of motor car-Contributory negligence-A pedestrian who was crossing a street passed in front of a tramcar which was sufficiently far away to enable him to do so safely. Immediately after passing in front of the tramcar the pedestrian was run down by a motor car which was overtaking the tramcar on its offside at a distance of about 1 yard from the tramcar-Held (1) that the driver of the motor car was bound in the circumstances to take special precautions; that he was in fault in not sounding his horn, in passing too near the tramcar, and at an excessive speed; and (2) that the pedestrian was not bound to foresee that a motor car was overtaking the tramcar on its offside, and therefore that he was not guilty of contributory negligence.

M'Colgan v. Richmond Park Laundry

121

Reparation Negligence Vehicle Duty to avoid animal on road—A racing whippet dog was walking from the west to the east of a public road while a motor van was being driven along the road in a northerly direction and more to the right-hand side than to the centre. When the dog had almost reached the east footpath it was run into by the motor van and received injuries which resulted in deathCircumstances in which held that the owner of the motor van was liable in reparation to the owner of the dog. M'Gale v. 112 Reparation-Wrongous use of diligence-Arrestment in execution Seaman's wages arrested in hands of his employers-Arrestment ineffectual by statuteAverments that the arrestment was lodged "with

M'Phillip