§ MR. J. CALDWELL (Mid Lanark)I beg to ask the Lord Advocate whether his attention has been called to the judgment of the Court of Session in a case at the instance of Merry and Cunninghame (Limited), where by the court have interdicted 23 miners from trespassing upon roads leading to dwelling houses tenanted by miners working at the colliery, on the 293 gound that the said road, although forming the access to the dwelling houses, is the private property in the personal occupation of the pursuers, the mineral lessees; and whether, inasmuch as the judgment appears to interdict the defenders from using the said roads as an access to the miners' dwellings for the purpose of visiting the tenants for any purpose, including the right of picketing, he will give the consent of the Crown to actions for breach of such interdict.
§ *THE LORD ADVOCATEI have read the report of the judgment in this case, and I do not understand that the Interdict was granted solely on the ground that the road, although forming the access to the dwelling houses, is the private property in the personal occupation of the pursuers, the mineral lessees, but upon the further ground that there was no evidence that the persons interdicted were upon the road with the desire of the occupants of the houses, or that these occupants wished that they should be permitted to come there. In other words, I understand that the judgment proceeded on the ground that the persons complained of had no authority, express or implied, from any of the persons interested in the road to be upon it, and that, consequently, they were trespassers. I do not think that an interdict against trespass would prevent a person from going to the houses at the desire, or with the approval, of the occupants of the houses; nor do I consider that consent to proceedings for breach of interdict would, or should, be given, unless it was alleged that the persons complained of had been trespassing in the sense now explained.
§ MR. CALDWELLMay I ask what right has a proprietor, by interdict or otherwise, to interfere with those who wish to visit the houses of his tenants or with the purposes of such visits?
§ THE LORD ADVOCATEThe Court, in giving judgment, expressly said that such visits to the houses of tenants would not be interdicted, and the decision proceeded upon the ground that the persons complained of had gone upon private property when no one interested in that property had directly or indirectly given them authority to go there.