Slaughter & Company v Macpherson
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 26 June 1929 |
| Date | 26 June 1929 |
| Docket Number | No. 21. |
| Court | High Court of Justiciary |
Lord Justice-General, Lord Sands, Lord Blackburn.
Statutory Offences—Exhibiting unlicensed advertisements—Exception of advertisements exhibited ‘upon any wall or other property of a railway company’—Advertisements exhibited on board erected on railway property—Board belonging to advertising lessee—Edinburgh Corporation (Streets Buildings and Sewers) Order Confirmation Act, 1926 (16 and 17 Geo. V. cap. lxv.), Sched., sec. 199 (1) (2) (iv.)
The Edinburgh Corporation (Streets Buildings and Sewers) Order Confirmation Act, 1926, enacts, by subsec. (1) of sec. 199 of the Schedule, that it shall not be lawful to exhibit any advertisement except on sites, buildings, or hoardings licensed by the Corporation; and, by subsec. (2), that a licence shall not be necessary for any advertisement or site for advertisements of certain classes, one of which is:—‘(iv.) Advertisements exhibited … upon any wall or other property of a railway company … except any portion of the surface of such wall or property fronting any public street.’
Advertising lessees acquired from a railway company the sole right of exhibiting advertisements on an embankment belonging to the company adjoining a public street. There they erected advertisement boards in full view of the street, situated at right angles to it, and reaching almost to the parapet wall separating the embankment from the street. The sites and boards were not licensed by the Corporation, and the lessees were convicted of having exhibited advertisements thereon without a licence.
Held that, on a sound construction of section 199 (2) (iv.), the advertisements in question were exhibited not ‘upon … property of a railway company,’ but upon boards which were the property of the lessees, and, accordingly, that licences were necessary; and conviction sustained.
Opinions reserved as to the meaning of the expression ‘fronting any public street.’
Slaughter & Company, railway advertising lessees, were charged in the Police Court at Edinburgh on a complaint at the instance of Charles Angus Macpherson, Public Prosecutor, which set forth, inter alia, that ‘between 1st December 1928 and 14th February 1929, both dates inclusive, you did exhibit, maintain, retain, and continue on hoardings erected on sites on the embankment of the Union Canal, on the north side of Colinton Road, Edinburgh, and in the vicinity of Craiglockhart Terrace, Edinburgh, three advertisements … said sites and hoardings not being licensed for such advertisements as required by law, … contrary to said section 199 of said Act of 1926*; … whereby you are liable to penalties set forth in section 199 (4) of said Act …’
On 15th May 1929 the magistrate found the accused guilty of the portion of the charge printed supra, and, at their request, stated a case for appeal to the High Court of Justiciary.
The case set forth that a joint minute of admissions with relative plan and photographs was lodged by the parties, and that, apart from this joint minute, no evidence was adduced by either party. The facts admitted by the parties in the joint minute of admissions were as follows:—‘(1) The appellants carry on business within the city of Edinburgh as railway advertising lessees, and are occupiers of the sites on which the three advertisement boards aftermentioned are respectively erected. (2) Some years ago the appellants erected on sites on the embankment of the Union Canal, on the north side of Colinton Road, Edinburgh, at points near the junction of said Colinton Road and Craiglockhart Terrace, three advertisement boards—hereinafter referred to as A, B, and C respectively. Said embankment is the property of the London and North Eastern Railway Company, and that company has, so far as it can legally do so, granted to the appellants the sole right of exhibiting advertisements thereon. A plan of said locus, together with three photographs showing said sites and advertisement boards, all docqueted as relative hereto and marked Nos. 1, 2, and 3 respectively, are herewith produced and referred to. Said plan is accurate in its measurements, and said photographs are accurate representations of the locus and advertisement boards. Photograph No. 1 shows the advertisements exhibited as at the date when it was taken. (3) As shown in the plan and photographs, the said...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Macduff & Company v Robertson
...the embankment on which the sign was erected did not front the street and conviction accordinglyquashed. Slaughter & Co. v. Macpherson, 1929 J. C. 123,commented on. Macduff & Company, Limited, Glasgow, were charged in the Police Court at Glasgow on a complaint at the instance of James Rober......