Russell v Paton
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 02 June 1902 |
| Date | 02 June 1902 |
| Docket Number | No. 24. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-Clerk, Lord M'Laren, Ld. Stormonth-Darling.
Public-House—Hawking Spirits—Only one act of selling spirits libelled—Public-Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862 (25 and 26 Vict. cap. 35), sec. 16.—
In a complaint charging hawking spirits contrary to the Public-Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862, sec. 16, it is sufficient to libel one act of selling spirits in a street.
Review—Suspension—Competency—Disputed facts—Proof—Interrogation of accused by Police.—
In a suspension of a conviction the complainer stated that he had while in prison been interrogated by police-constables, and that their evidence as to his answers had been illegally admitted at the trial. The prosecutor denied that the police had interrogated the complainer, but stated that the complainer had voluntarily made certain admissions to the police, and that evidence of these admissions had been led at the trial. No objection to this evidence was taken in the inferior Court.
The Court refused the bill, holding that the question was not competently raised in a suspension.
James Russell, French polisher, Tannage Close, Hawick, was charged in the Police Court, Hawick, on summary complaint at the instance of the Burgh Prosecutor, setting forth that the accused ‘did, on 8th February 1902, hawk spirits, videlicet, whisky, in the High Street in said burgh, by selling and supplying to Archibald Millar, a weaver, residing in Round Close in said burgh, one glass and a half of whisky, contrary to the provisions of the laws for the regulation of public-houses in Scotland, and particularly of the Public-Houses Acts Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1862, section 16.’*
Russell objected to the relevancy of the complaint. The Magistrates repelled the objection. Russell then pleaded not guilty. After evidence had been led Russell was, on 24th February 1902, convicted and fined £1, with the alternative of fourteen days' imprisonment.
He brought a bill of suspension, in which he stated, inter alia;—(4) ‘The Magistrates incompetently convicted the accused of “hawking,” when there was no evidence in support of such a charge before them. All that was suggested against the complainer was that being a member of the “Teribus Club,” he had gone there, purchased some whisky, and transferred the said whisky in the public street by means of a small bottle to the witness Archibald Millar. It was further suggested, but not proved, that Millar...
To continue reading
Request your trial