Carson v Macpherson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 03 May 1917 |
| Date | 03 May 1917 |
| Docket Number | No. 10. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-General, Lord Mackenzie, Ld. Ormidale.
Review—Suspension—Mora—Acquiescence—Three months allowed for payment of fine—Bill of suspension not presented till after three months expired.
A woman, on 13th December 1916, was convicted of an offence under the Licensing laws, and was sentenced to pay a fine of £50, and, in default of payment within three months, to three months' imprisonment. On 12th March 1917 she applied for, and was refused, a month's extension of the time in which to pay the fine. On 14th March she brought a bill of suspension, in which she took exception to the conviction in respect of the insufficiency of the evidence, of the failure to record her objections to certain items of evidence, and of the oppressive amount of the fine.
Held that, in the circumstances, the complainer was barred by delay from insisting in the suspension; and bill refused.
On 13th December 1916 the Magistrate sitting in the Police Court at Edinburgh convicted Margaret Cavanagh or Carson of a contravention of section 65 of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, by trafficking in exciseable liquors without a certificate, and sentenced her to pay a fine of £50 or, in default of payment within three months, to three months' imprisonment.
The last day allowed for payment of the fine was 13th March 1917, and on 12th March the accused applied, through her law-agent, for one month's extension of the time allowed for payment of the fine, and, the public prosecutor having been heard, the application was refused.
On 14th March 1917 the accused presented a bill of suspension.
In the bill of suspension the complainer averred, inter alia;— (Stat. 3) ‘On 12th December 1916 the complainer appeared for trial and evidence was led. This consisted in part of evidence on the part of police officers and detectives directed to show (1) that for a considerable time before the period libelled the complainer and her premises had been watched by the police, who had suspicions that she might be trafficking; (2) that the complainer's premises had been searched on 2nd December 1916, and that several bottles labelled with whisky labels had been found therein. The complainer through her counsel took objection to said evidence on these grounds:—That the evidence was hot directed to proof of the facts libelled, and was prejudicial. The complainer after taking said objections, which were repelled, delivered them in writing...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torrance & Son v Robertson. Crown Dairy v Robertson
...114;Hall v. Macpherson, 1913 S. C. (J.) 100, 7 Adam, 173. 9 Montgomery v. Gray, 1915 S. C. (J.) 94, 7 Adam, 681;Carson v. Macpherson, 1917 J. C. 36; Low v. Rankine, 1917 J. C. 10 4 and 5 Geo. V, cap. 46. 11 60 and 61 Vict. cap. 48. 12 60 and 61 Vict. cap. 38. 13 60 and 61 Vict. cap. 48. 14 ......