Inventory of Process Procurator Fiscal Vs Wm. Jobson. 1. Petition 2

advertisement

Inventory of Process Procurator Fiscal

Vs

Wm. Jobson.

1. Petition

2. Answers

3 Plan of alterations

4 letter pf Concurrence

5. Replies for the Pror Fis

6. Inventory

7 Account of Process Expenses

Replies for the Procurator

Fiscal

To the

Answers for William

Jobson Druggist in

Dundee

The Petitioner has nothing to state in reference to the explanation made by the

Respondent farther than to submit that the Respondent has been guilty of a breach of the

Regulations of the Burgh and he leaves it to your Lordship to dispose of the case in your own wisdom.

The Petitioner is discharging a public duty in regard to this enquiry and he is not disposed to go into any argument upon the Plea of Law urged by the Respondent further than to state That his Plea in Law is that by the Regulations of the Burgh no person is entitled to make alterations upon the property fronting the public streets without judicial authority.

In respect whereof

D. McEwen

The Petitioner most humbly suggests that your Lords should appoint a visitation for the operations complained of in tenure.

D. Mc

Dundee 14 June 1838 The petitioner holds the Petition & replies as containing his full & final statements of faults.

D. McEwen

Answers for William

Jobson Druggist in Dundee

To the

Petition of David Mc Ewen

Procurator Fiscal of

The Dean of Guild Court

Nothing can possibly be further from the Respondents wish than to act in

Opposition to the Standing Regulations of the Burgh.

The Respondents operations are not on the ground floor merely his enlarging the

Windows of the flat belonging to him for which purpose he has projected scaffolding upon his Windows. In beginning to do so the Respondent got a Plan of is intended Operations prepared and submitted the same to the whole Conterminous Proprietors who gave their

Consent to his carrying the same into effect. The Plan and their written Concurrence are both herewith produced.

The Respondent thereupon applied to his Agent the Prosecutor who subscribed this

Paper to know if any thing further was necessary to be done, and was informed that there was not. This Opinion it is respectfully submitted was correct. The Respondent is not taking the use of any part of the Street. He has not deprived any individual of the use for one moment of so much as an Inch of Ground – and he could not therefore conceive that it was necessary for him to do more than get the Consent of all who were interested in the Fabric of the Building. He did not think that it was requisite to get the Warrant of your Lordsp where he was not interfering with any of the privileges or freedom in Property of the Lieges - and which Warrant would have cost nearly as much as the contemplated alteration. But the

Respondent - to shew that he did not mean any infringement of the Public rights – employed the Superintendent of Works for the Town – Mr Scott – to superintend the Work in question which was the best guarantee that no Encroachment was contemplated. The

Respondent will not detain your Lorsp any further.

He begs your Lordp to inspect the place if you see meet. If your Lordps Warrant is required he prays that you will no grant it empowering him to proceed with the alterations – in terms of the Plan – He feels satisfied that the foregoing Explanation must convince any one that the Respondent proceeded in good faith – and had no intention of evading any of your Lorps Regulations.

Pleas in Law

1. As the Respondents operations were sanctioned & approved of by the whole conterminous Proprietors & were carrying on under the jurisdiction and Direction of the

Superintendent of Works for the Town – And as the Respondents operations did not interfere with the free exercise of any part of the Street or Public thoroughfare no Petition for a Warrant was necessary.

The Respondent therefore Prays Absolution with Costs and that your Lordp would in the meantime remove the Interdict granted.

In respect whereof

Drawn by

Wal. Shaw

For the respondent.

Dundee 14 June 1838. The Respondent consents to hold their Answer as containing in full and final abatement of facts.

J. W. Thomson

For the Respd

Download