Morton v Henderson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 February 1956 |
| Date | 02 February 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 12. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
HIGH COURT.
Lord Justice-General. Lord Russell. Lord Sorn.
Crime—Attempt—Proof of attempted crime—Preparation or perpetration—Attempted fraud—Request to owner of greyhound to impair its racing ability by administering drug—Whether overt act—Instigation.
Two persons were charged with attempting to defraud bookmakers accepting bets and members of the public placing bets in respect of a greyhound race by requesting the owner of a greyhound to impair its racing ability by administering a concoction before it took part in the race. It was proved that the request was made but not acceded to, that the greyhound was not interfered with, and that it ran in the race but did not win.
Held that an overt act was necessary for a conviction of attempted fraud and that no such overt act had been proved.
Observed that on the facts the accused might have been charged with and convicted of instigating the owner of the greyhound to commit a crime.
H. M. Advocate v. Camerons, (1911) 6 Adam, 456, 1911 S. C. (J.) 110, and H. M. Advocate v. Tannahill and Neilson, 1943 J. C. 150, applied.
David Morton and Matthew M'Guire were charged in the Sheriff Court at Dunfermline on a complaint at the instance of Robert Sharp Henderson, Procurator-fiscal, which set forth, inter alia,"that you, David Morton, and you, Matthew M'Guire, did on 16th August 1955…(2) at the dwelling-house at 18 Preston Street, High Valleyfield, County of Fife, occupied by Bernard Duffin, request Marjory Gunn or Duffin, wife of and residing with the said Bernard Duffin, to impair the racing ability of her greyhound known as “Nifty” by administering to it a concoction before it took part in the [first race at Brockville Greyhound Racing Track, Falkirk, on said date], and you, David Morton, and you, Matthew M'Guire, did thus attempt to defraud the bookmakers accepting bets in respect of the said race and also the members of the public placing bets in respect of the said race."
After trial, the Sheriff-substitute (S. Shaw, Q.C.) convicted the accused on the second charge only and, at their request, stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The stated case set forth that in regard to the second charge the following facts had been admitted or proved:—"(1) On 16th August 1955 Mrs Marjory Gunn or Duffin, 18 Preston Street, High Valleyfield, Fife, was the owner of a greyhound called “Nifty.” (2) Mrs Duffin had entered “Nifty” to run in the first race at Brockville Greyhound Racing Track, Falkirk, on 16th August 1955. This race was to be run about 7 p.m. (3) On said date “Nifty” was in the charge and care of Mrs Duffin and her husband Bernard Duffin at their home at 18 Preston Street aforesaid and until at least their arrival with “Nifty” at said racing track for said race. (4) The two Duffins had known William Ward, aged nineteen, since his early childhood. (5) In the course of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hanley v HM Advocate
...219; 1998 SLT 414; 1997 SCCR 437 Dalton v HM Advocate 1951 JC 76; 1951 SLT 294 Docherty v Brown 1996 JC 48; 1996 SLT 325 Morton v Henderson 1956 JC 55; 1956 SLT 365 Scott v HM Advocate 1946 JC 90; 1946 SLT 140 Textbooks etc referred to: Gordon, GH, The Criminal Law of Scotland (3rd Christie......