An
attempt by some Miners at Strontian to bring a legal action
fails
by John Dye
Transcribed
handwritten material from the office of the Procurator Fiscal
of Tobermory, currently held in the Argyll Archive at Lochgilphead.
In
1854, some of the miners tried to bring a case against the mining
company, but were ruled out of order by the sheriff substitute.
What
is interesting is the recurrence of some of the names which
also appeared at the Strontian Mines Inquest in 1851. Knowing
that many names were held in common at this time does not guarantee
that the people concerned are the same as those involved in
1851. However, there is enough common ground to make it an interesting
speculation. Those names appearing in both documents are highlighted
in colour, including that of poor Duncan Cameron who was killed
in the 1851 rock-fall.
|
The proposers
to bring a case
Interlocutors
In Causa
Duncan
Cameron, John Cameron, James Lowrie, Duncan MacMillan, Alexander
McPhee, Miners, all residing at Scotstown and Hugh Cameron
(More), Miner residing at Ariundle, all in the parish of Ardnamurchan
Pursuers
Against
Mark Milligan or Milliken, residing at Strontian, Mines defender
The decision
Tobermory
30th April 1855
The Sheriff Substitute having considered the Preliminary Defence and a
motion for the Pursuers to sist the Strontian Mining Company as parties
in the Action and heard parties Procurator for the reasons Conatined in
the annexed Note (not attached - JD) sustains the preliminary Defence
and Dismisses the Action and Decerns - Finds the Pursuers liable in Expenses
- allows an Account thereof to be lodged for taxation.
Signed Wm Robertson (Sheriff Substitute,
also Factor for Sir James Milles Riddell Bart. - JD)
Explanation
(1)
Note
The Strontian
mining company has been carrying mining operations for many years at Strontian,
and these have been superintended and the business of the Company Conducted
by a Manager. Besides the Manager there usually was a foreman that superintended
the working of the Mines. This foreman was in the habit of telling jobs
and had the principal superintendence of the Mines. The person that had
this post before the Defender entered into a Contract with the Pursuers
which has given rise to the present Action.
About that
time the resident Manager of the Company was Mr
Barrat who it is understood left
Strontian before the Contract was entered into, but is still connected
with the Company. This Action is directed against the Defender as coming
in place of the person that entered into the Contract, and as such representing
the Company.
The Sheriff Substitute is of opinion that the Defender does not properly
represent the Company and that a Decree against him in the character libelled
would be of no use to the Pursuers even if they were to get it. And from
the motion made for them to have the Company sisted, that appears to be
their own opinion now. The constitution of the Company has not been explained
but it is not all likely that it is such that it can sue, or be sued,
in the name of an inferior servant without Calling the Company as a party,
whether by its descriptive name or otherwise it is for the Pursuers to
determine.
The Sheriff
Substitute has very strong doubts of the Competency of sisting the Company.
The present Defender is not in any way responsible for the actings of
his predecessor, and nothing has appeared like a right to sue one foreman
of the Company under Contracts of another. Then the Action is improperly
directed - for he cannot be sued as either representing the Company or
his predecessor. The Company is the principal party, and it may be bound
by the Contracts of its servants, but when these Contracts come to be
enforced against the Company it must be sued (as) the principal party.
If the principal is let out and a person in no way liable is proceeded
against there is an imperfection in the essence of the Actin that cannot
be rectified in the manner proposed.
Initialled
- W.R.
Decision
at appeal upholding the Sheriff's earlier ruling
Tobermory
2nd May 1855
Appeal against this Interlocutor
Signed Henry Nisbet Pros. for Purs.
Edinburgh 17th May 1855
The Sheriff having considered the appeal for the Pursuers and whole process
adheres to the Interlocutor of thirtieth April Eighteen hundred and fifty
five, appealed against and Dismiss the appeal
Thomas Cleghorn
Explanation
(2)
Note
The Sheriff
adopts the reasoning in the Note of the Sheriff Substitute which is in
conformity with the Decisions in the case of McMillan vs. MacCulloch,
Jany. 28 1842 4 W.B.M. 492 and the two cases there referred to King vs.
Shirra 5 sch 231 and Russell 23 May 1837 15 Sh. These cases seem to establish
not only that the action is wrongly laid against the Manager but that
the defect cannot be cured by calling the Company now. In McMillan vs.
MacCulloch the Lord Ordinary observed "The summons was directed against
the Respondent solely as an agent which was an incompetent ground on the
face of the Summons for claiming the dues libelled on from the Defender".
In the present case the Defender is called as Manager on behalf of and
representing the running Company, and this being an incompetent ground
of Action on the face of the Summons it falls to be dismissed.
The mere
fact of the Contract libelled on having been entered into with a previous
Manager does not seem so material, because the Defender admits having
adopted it and it was renewed for the Month of March after his appointment.
But the action is not laid against him on the ground of employment by
him or adoption by him of the contract and as being liable jointly or
alternatively with the Company, but solely on the incompetent ground that
he represents the company.
The only
mode of calling the Company (had it been competent) would have been by
a supplementary Summons while the Defender would have been entitled to
the expenses hitherto incurred by him (see case of Barbour v. Smith 2
Sh 795) so that the Pursuers would have gained little or nothing had their
motion been granted. 'Sisting' a party implies his voluntary appearance
in the Action and no mere intimation to a citation of the Company would
have enabled the Pursuers to get decree against them without petitory
conclusions for which a Summons is secured.
Initialled T.C.
Tobermory
13th June 1855
The Sheriff
Substitute having considered the Denenders Account of Expanses, Modifies
the same at Four pounds Ffiteen Shillings and decerns(?)
Signed Wm Robertson.
|