FIQ2 onanterdicts. > 307° 
Our judges, however, are so far from adhering to 
this mode of procedure, ‘that, from the highest to the 
lowest, as far as I have been able to learn, no question 
is ever afked when.a petition is given in, stating, in g¢-- 
neral terms, that such aiperson is engaged in any ope- 
ration, that itis alleged can prove hurtful to the 
eomplainer, and'craving:an interdict, but it is grant- 
ed of course, without hesitation or farther ceremony. 
and thus may amanufacturer, who has, perhaps, seve- 
ral hundreds of persons at work, about. a businefs that 
cannot admit of being stopt for an hour, without the~ 
greatest and most lasting detriment to him, be in~. 
stantly laid idle. Perhaps inaday or two, by a pro- 
per representation, he gets permifsion to go on. But 
is this enough? A wretch who takes a pique.at an=- 
other, may this have the malevolent satisfaction, by 
making his application at. a particular time; (against 
a printer for example, during the throng of sefsion 
businefs, or the publither ofa periodical work, at the 
hour of publication,) to subject him to a very heavy’ 
jofs, though he knows that the cause which gave rise 
to the interdict is altogether untenible., 
The great difference between Scotland and England, 
in cases of this sort, is, that-in England, the damages 
in this case would be ascertained by a jury, who fail 
not, when they see the slightest attempt at oppref- 
sion, to give exemplary damages; whereasim Scot- 
land the amount of these dabhiccs is ascertained by 
the judge, who scarce ever. gives an award that néar-. 
ly compensates for the mjury committed; for men 
in the sphere of life they have moved in, can seldom. 
enter warmly into the situation of those mother cir: 
