Adams v M'Kenna
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 17 July 1906 |
| Date | 17 July 1906 |
| Docket Number | No. 23. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord M'Laren, Lord Pearson, Lord Mackenzie.
Complaint—Relevancy—Statutory Offence—Review—Suspension—Competency—Objection to relevancy not taken in Court below—Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871 (34 and 35 Vict. cap. 112), sec. 13.—
The Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, sec. 13, enacts, that ‘any dealer in old metals’ who purchases certain metals in quantities less than the quantities specified in the Act, shall be guilty of an offence, and liable to a penalty.
A, designed as ‘general dealer,’ was charged with contravening the above enactment on a complaint which did not state that he was a ‘dealer in old metals.’ A did not take any objection to the relevancy of the complaint, was convicted, and was sentenced to pay a fine, which he did.
A, having brought a suspension on the ground that the complaint was irrelevant, held (1) that the complaint was fundamentally irrelevant, it being of the essence of the statutory offence that the accused should be a ‘dealer in old metals,’ and, therefore (2) that A was not barred from insisting in the objection although he had not taken it in the Court below. Conviction suspended.
Review—Suspension—Competency—Mora—Acquiescence—Statutory Offence—Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871 (34 and 35 Vict. cap. 112), sec. 13.—
The Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, sec. 13, enacts, that ‘any dealer in old metals’ who purchases certain metals in quantities less than the quantities specified in the Act, shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable to a penalty.
A, designed as ‘general dealer,’ was charged with contravening the above enactment on a complaint which did not state that he was a ‘dealer in old metals.’ A did not take any objection to the relevancy of the complaint, was convicted, and was sentenced to pay a fine, which he did. Eleven weeks afterwards A brought a suspension on the ground that the complaint was irrelevant, in respect that it did not state that he was a ‘dealer in old metals.’
Held that A was not barred by mora and acquiescence from insisting in the suspension.
Review—Suspension—Expenses.—
A conviction on a summary complaint having been suspended on the ground that the complaint was fundamentally irrelevant, the Court refused to allow the suspender any expenses, the objection not having been taken in the Court below, and eleven weeks having elapsed before the bill of suspension was presented.
On 20th March 1906, Robert Adams junior, general dealer, Fullarton Street, Irvine, was charged in the Sheriff Court at Ayr on a summary complaint at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal. The complaint set forth:—‘That Robert Adams junior, general dealer, Fullarton Street, Irvine, did, on 12th February 1906, in Portland Street, in the burgh of Troon, or in Templehill, in said burgh, or in the premises in Union Street, in said burgh, occupied by Alexander Hamilton, dealer, purchase and receive from John Saul, labourer, residing at Loans, in the parish of Dundonald, Ayrshire, and Robert Davidson, labourer, residing in Templehill aforesaid, both now prisoners in the prison of Ayr, fourteen pounds of mixed brass and copper scrap-metal, being a quantity of less weight than the quantity—namely, fifty-six pounds—set opposite the metals brass and copper in the second column of the schedule annexed to the Prevention of Crimes Act...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin Robertson And Seamus O'dalaigh+kevin Ruddy V. Procurator Fiscal Aberdeen+procurator Fiscal Perth
...from section 75 of the Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act 1908. This reflected the previous practice of the court (Adams v. McKenna (1906) 8F (J) 79). So the statutory provision was regarded by the appeal court as not excluding a question as to the jurisdiction of the lower court (Wilson v......
-
Ruddy v Procurator Fiscal, Perth
...Lochridge v MillerUNK 2002 SCCR 628 affirmed. Millar v DicksonSC 2002 SC (PC) 30 considered. Cases referred to: Adams v McKenna (1906) 8 F (J) 79; 5 Adam 106; 43 SLR 868; 14 SLT 305 Advocate (HM) v McDonaldSCUNK 1984 JC 94; 1984 SLT 426; 1984 SCCR 229 Aitkenhead v CuthbertSC 1962 JC 12; 196......
-
Yeudall v Sweeney. Yeudall v Lynn
...8 Edw. VII. cap. 65. 2 Kiddle v. KidstonUNK, (1883) 14 L. R., Ir. 1; Hedges v. HookerUNK (1889), 60 L. T. 882. 1 Adams v. M'Kenna, (1906) 8 F. (J.) 79, 5 Adam, 106; Howman v. Rogers, 1918 J. C. 2 Act of 1894, sec. 743. 3 Hedges v. HookerUNK, 60 L. T. 822; ‘The Hanna,’ (1866) L. R., 1 Ad. & ......
-
Hefferan v Wright
...quashed the conviction. 1 Summary Jurisdiction (Scotland) Act, 1908 (8 Edw. VII. cap. 65), sec. 75. See also Adams v. M'Kenna, (1906) 8 F. (J.) 79, 5 Adam, ...