RENFREW AND Watson & Co. v July 17, 1907. sum decerned for and £50, while an arrestment on the dependence of a Debts Recovery action for £50 and expenses, in which the pursuer obtained decree for £50 and expenses, would secure only the principal sum. The Act is intended Sheriff KENNEDY. to provide summary modes of trial, not to take away a substantive right incident to every action containing a pecuniary conclusion. The limit of £50 is in all other sections of the Act the limit of the principal sum only. I think that the omission in the 6th section of the words "exclusive of expenses and dues of extract," which were probably inserted in the other sections ob majorem cautelam, does not warrant the inference that they were omitted in order to narrow the scope and effect of arrestments. the Act had intended that arrestments on the dependence under the Act should not secure the expenses of that action, either generally or where the sum decerned for amounted to £50, one would have expected an express declaration to that effect and the occurrence of qualifying words in the 9th section on furthcoming. If this view is sound, an arrestment on the dependence of an action for £49 8s. 8d. and for expenses is not incompetent or inept because used to an extent or amount exceeding £50. If If this view is unsound, the question remains-Is the arrestment for more than £50 void in toto, or only void quoad the excess over £50? The pursuer has restricted the conclusions of the furthcoming to £50, therefore he is not using the diligence of arrestment to recover more than £50. It is not maintained that the arrestee had, at the date of arrestment, money or goods of the common debtor in his hands exceeding the value of £50. The defender, the arrestee, says there was nothing arrestable, or only £26 11s. 4d. Even if the arrestee had had £60 in his hands, any hardship to the arrestee or common debtor as regards the excess could have been promptly and adequately remedied by recall or restriction. Why should an arrestment, even if void quoad the excess over £50, be void in toto? Nothing is so severable as a sum of money. As a general rule, in any contract, decree, proceeding, or act, if the part which is null or void, or ultra vires, can be severed from the other parts, that which is bad falls, that which is good stands. Void in uno, void in toto, applies only where the subjectmatter is inseparable. The presumption of law is in favour of validity, and therefore of severability. This general rule may be illustrated by reference to reductions of decreesarbitral (Adams, 16 R. 843, affirmed 19 R. H.L.), suspensions of criminal sentences (Bonthrone, 1 White's (J.C.), 279), and suspensions of charges for payment (Dick, 8 D. 1; Haughhead Coal Co., 11 S.L.T. 156). No one would now RENFREW AND Watson & Co. v Urie, &c. maintain that the objection of plurispetitio quoad amount sued for was fatal to an action. I do not see why it should be fatal to an uncompleted diligence, incident and accessory to an action. In adjudications it has long been held that July 17, 1907. an error of pluris petitio may be rectified by the decree being Sheriff KENNEDY taken only for what was due, though the effect may be to restrict the adjudication to an adjudication in security (Porteous' Heir, 1783, M. 120, affirmed, 3 Pat. App., H.L. 9). I am therefore of opinion that this arrestment was, so far as the plea now in dispute is concerned, competent and valid from the first to the extent of £50; and that, if express restriction is necessary, the pursuer has timeously restricted it to that amount in this summons of furthcoming. N. J. D. K. For pursuers-Mr. JAMES A. M'LEISH (Messrs. M'LEISH, For defenders-Mr. WM. J. SIM, Paisley. SHERIFF COURT OF KIRKCUDBRIGHT SHIRE. M. M'CONNELL, Pursuer; JAMES G. BREW and Others, Defenders. Reparation-Deforcement of sheriff-officer poinding.- M. M'Connell, carting contractor, Castle View, Kirkcudbright, sued James G. Brew, clothier, Kirkcudbright; Robert Hannay, coal agent, Kirkcudbright; and William Nicholson, jun., solicitor, Kirkcudbright, jointly and severally, in the Small Debt Court, Kirkcudbright, for £7 6s. 5d. damages. The pursuer's statement of claim was as follows: 23rd April, 1907. To loss and damage sustained by the complainer in respect that on this date George M'Kill, sheriff-officer of Dumfries and Galloway, having been instructed by him to poind furniture in the house at 36 No. 77. M'Connell v SHIRE. M'Connell v KIRKCUDBRIGHT St. Cuthbert Street, Kirkcudbright, belonging to Mrs. Helen Gibson or Hogg, the individual partner of the firm of Adam Hogg & Sons, steam saw mills, Kirkcudbright, in virtue of a decree by the Sheriff of Dumfries and Galloway, dated 5th April, 1907, for the sum of £6 11s. 3d., with 9s. 4d. of expenses, obtained at the complainer's instance against the said Adam Hogg & Sons, was by the defenders, on the ground of a pretended sale to them of said furniture, wrongfully and illegally stopped and prevented from executing the said poinding, and the said furniture has since been carried off or disposed of by the defenders, thus preventing the complainer from recovering the sums under said decree. The Sheriff-Substitute (NAPIER), without a proof, but after argument, gave an opinion as follows: June 1, 1907. This The pursuer sues for damages on the averment that a Sheriff NAPIER sheriff-officer duly instructed by him to poind the furniture at 36 St. Cuthbert Street, said to belong to Mrs. Hogg, against whom a decree had been obtained in this Court, was wrongfully and illegally stopped and prevented by the defenders from executing the poinding. In my opinion the officer was not stopped and prevented from poinding, and the pursuer's averment is therefore wrong in fact. clearly appears from the special report. The poinding was not carried out because (1) the officer was refused the key of the house by one of the defenders. But such a refusal does not stop the poinding, because a sheriff-officer is entitled to force his entrance into a house by breaking a door or window. (2) One of the defenders on oath stated that the furniture belonged to them, and in support of this statement produced a conveyance of it in their favour. But this ought not to have stopped the poinding. If the officer had been perfectly satisfied that the furniture belonged to the defenders, he ought, of course, to have stopped and specially reported that fact. But if he were in doubt, as it is clear from the special report that he was, he ought then to have proceeded with the poinding. In other words, the defenders' statement that the furniture was theirs did not or ought not to have prevented the officer from proceeding with the poinding. (3) Mr. Nicholson, one of the defenders, informed the officer that if he took steps to force an entrance he would hold him personally responsible. This means, in law, that the defenders threatened the officer with the civil consequences of his act. But it is perfectly clear that a threat of taking civil proceedings if an act be done excuses no one from doing his duty. For these reasons I hold that the pursuer cannot recover damages, as the defenders caused him none. The case would probably have been different if they had stopped and prevented the Kirkcudbright- For pursuer-Messrs. HowMAN & WILLIAMSON, Kirkcud- For defenders-Mr. A. BROWN, Kirkcudbright. SHERIFF COURT OF LANARKSHIRE. Workmen's Compensation Acts-Compensation-Option This was SHIRE. M'Connell v Brew, &c. No. 78. M'Quillan, &c. v M'Quillan, &c. Motherwell LANARKSHIRE. the Workmen's Compensation Act, in respect that the deceased was in their employment at the time of his death. Considerable negotiations took place between the pursuers' agent and the agents for P. & W. Anderson and the Motherwell Bridge Company. The result was that P. & W. Anderson refused to pay anything unless under compulsion, as they alleged they would have a claim of relief against the Motherwell Bridge Company, and an extrajudicial settlement might prejudice that claim; but, they said, as they had great sympathy with the deceased's relatives, they would augment whatever sum they recovered under an action against the Motherwell Bridge Company under the Workmen's Compensation Act, so as to give the pursuers in all the sum of £250. The pursuers then raised this action. The defenders pleaded that the pursuers were precluded, in terms of sec. 6 of the Act, from recovering compensation from them, in respect that they had claimed compensation from P. & W. Anderson for the death of deceased, and had accepted, or agreed to accept, a sum from them in discharge of their claims in respect of the accident; and in the debate they cited Mulligan v Dick & Sons, 6 F. 126, and Murray v North British Railway Company, 6 F. 540, in support of this contention. The Sheriff-Substitute (THOMSON) issued the following interlocutor: March 25, 1907. HAMILTON, 25th March, 1907.-The Sheriff-Substitute, Sheriff THOMSON, having considered the cause, finds in fact (1) that on 30th October, 1906, the deceased James M'Quillan, the husband of the pursuer, was a craneman in the employment of the defenders in the demolition of the Caledonian Railway bridge at Stirling; (2) that on the said date the crane and "dolphin " on which the deceased was working fell into the river, and the deceased was killed or drowned; (3) that the said crane or "dolphin" belonged to and had been erected by Messrs. P. & W. Anderson, who were the principal contractors for the demolition of the said bridge; (4) that the deceased's weekly earnings averaged £1 2s. 5 2-5d., and that the pursuer's compensation, if due, amounts to £175 5s. 8d.; (5) that it is not proved that the pursuer has accepted, or agreed to accept, a sum from Messrs. P. & W. Anderson in discharge of her claims against them in respect of the said accident; but (6) that it is proved that Messrs. Anderson agreed, ex gratia, and without admitting any liability, to give the pursuer such a sum as would, with the compensation awarded, amount to £250; (7) that in these circumstances the pursuer is not barred from obtaining compensation by |