Fairly v Muir
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 09 February 1951 |
| Docket Number | No. 10. |
| Date | 09 February 1951 |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Russell. Lord Keith.
Review—Suspension—Competency—Summary complaint—Admissibility of documentary evidence—Stated case or suspension—Refusal of Court to order service of bill of suspension.
A person who had two months previously been convicted on a summary complaint charging him with a contravention of a Food Rationing Order brought a suspension on the ground of illegal and oppressive admission of incompetent evidence. The evidence to which he objected consisted of various documents which, he averred, had been produced by witnesses who were not in a position to speak to their accuracy. He also averred that he had applied for a stated case, but had been advised during the adjustment of the case that the questions involved would more appropriately be dealt with in a bill of suspension.
The Court refused to pronounce any order for service of the bill on the respondent, holding that the averments raised a question of law which was peculiarly appropriate to a stated case, and that no sufficient explanation had been given either for the delay in presenting the bill or for appealing by suspension instead of by stated case.
Dictum of Lord Wark in James Y. Keanie, Limited v. Laird, 1943 J. C. 73, at p. 77, approved andapplied.
Arthur Wilson Fairley, restaurateur, trading as City Caterers, Beehive Inn, 18–20 Grassmarket, Edinburgh, was charged in the Sheriff Court at Edinburgh on a summary complaint at the instance of Thomas Greenlees Muir, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth "that you did between 20th September 1949 and 12th November 1949 in the Beehive Inn, 18–20 Grassmarket, Edinburgh, or elsewhere to the complainer unknown, obtain from a person or persons to the complainer unknown, for the purposes of the said Beehive Inn, an establishment within the meaning of the Order first after mentioned, rationed food, namely 667 lbs. of beef, 492 lbs. of mutton and lamb and 122 lbs. of pork, otherwise than under the authority and in accordance with the terms of a buying permit voucher or other authorisation issued by or on behalf of the Minister of Food: Contrary to Article 9 (1) of the Food Rationing (General Provisions) Order, 1949. …"
He pleaded not guilty, but on 30th November 1950, after evidence had been led, the Sheriff-substitute (Middleton) convicted him and fined him £100.
Nearly two months later the accused presented a bill of suspension, in which he averred that he had originally objected to the relevancy of the complaint on the ground that it did not specify whether he was charged in his capacity as proprietor of the Beehive Inn or of City Caterers but that he had withdrawn this objection after it had been stated for the complainer that evidence would be led to establish that the Beehive Inn was the catering establishment in respect of which the contravention of the Order was alleged.
The bill further stated:—"(3) The first witness for the prosecution was Miss Elizabeth Meldrum" judge=" a clerkess in the employment of the Ministry of Food, who produced what purported to be a copy of a Ministry of Food catering licence in name of Arthur W. Fairley. The complainer's agent objected to the production of the said document on the ground that it was inadmissible in evidence as the witness had not made the copy, had never seen the original licence of which her production purported to be a copy, and did...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Continued Appeal Under Section 74 By As Against Her Majesty's Advocate
...to review errors of law, being “truly appropriate ….where the circumstances are instantly or almost instantly, verifiable” – Fairley v Muir 1951 JC 56 at p 60. The unsuitability of the process to address questions of fact has led to the adoption of some rather cumbersome procedures – see fo......
-
Moffat v Skeen
...Limited v. LairdSC, 1943 J. C. 73, Lord Justice-Clerk Cooper at p. 74;Dawson v. Adair, 16th September 1941, unreported;Fairley v. MuirSC, 1951 J. C. 56, Lord Justice-General Cooper at pp. 3 Reference was made to M'Shane v. Paton, 1922 J. C. 26. 4 Reference was made to Lockwood v. Walker, 6 ......
-
James Hunnam V. Procurator Fiscal, Haddington
...that the points taken in the Bill could have been taken in the original Note of Appeal, notwithstanding the decision in Fairlie v Muir 1951 JC 56, to which reference was made by the complainer. In view of the circumstances of this case, we do not propose to deal with that argument, but we s......