Page images
PDF
EPUB

DECIDED IN

THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND,

AND IN

THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON APPEAL FROM SCOTLAND :

BY

[HOUSE OF LORDS, ETC.]
GEO. DINGWALL FORDYCE, Esq., ADVOCATE,

AND

JAMES PATERSON, Esq., A.M., BARRISTER-AT-Law, Middle TEMPLE, LONDON;

[COURT OF SESSION, JUSTICIARY COURT, ETC.]
JAMES MITFORD MORISON, Esq., AND THOMAS S. PATON, Esq., ADVOCATES:

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors]
[merged small][merged small][graphic]

REPORTS OF CASES

DECIDED IN

THE COURT OF SESSION, &c.

16th September 1856. JUSTICIARY CIRCUIT COURT.-JEDBORGI. ANDREW ANDERSON, Appellant, v. PETER RODGER,

Respondent. Appeal-Tweed Fisheries Act, 11 Geo. IV., c. 54—Juris.

diction- Citation - A complaint was presented to the She. riff of Selkirkshire for an alleged infraction of the Tweed Fisheries Act, commilled wilhin that county by parties de signed as inhabitants of and resident in RoxburghshireHeld, that the Sheriff of Selkirkshire had jurisdiction in the cause, and that an officer of the Sheriff-Court in Selkirkshire might

execute the warrant of citation in Roxburghshire. Sheriff-Court-Warrant of Citation-Indorsation-A warrant

for service and citation of witnesses, granted in a Sheriff-Court, was indorsed by the Sheriff-Clerk of the next county in the following terms :-“ At Jedburgh, the 28th day of April 1856. Indorsed by me, Sheriff-Clerk of Roxburghshire, in terms of the Statute. GEO. RUTHERFURD." —Held that this was sufficient, and that it was unnecessary to specify the act giving authority to indorse.

This was an appeal against a judgment of the Sheriffsubstitute of Selkirkshire, in a petition and complaint at the instance of the respondent, procurator-fiscal of Selkirk, against the appellant and others.

The parties were charged in the complaint with a contravention of the Tweed Fishing Act, 11 Geo. IV., c. 54, and they were also designed as resident within “ the county of Roxburgh.” The Sheriff-substitute of Selkirkshire, to whom the complaint had been presented, pronounced an order for service, appointing the parties to appear before him at Selkirk, upon the 8th of May 1856, and granted warrant for citing witnesses for both parties to the said time and place.

The complaint and order of service were indorsed upon 28th April by the Sheriff-clerk of Roxburghshire, “in terms of the statute,” but no reference was made to the particular statute in virtue of which the indorsation was made. The complaint was served upon the appellant, and the other parties complained against, by Alexander Campbell, Sheriff-officer of Selkirkshire, and the officer's execution bore that the service was made upon all the parties at Galasbiels, in the county of Roxburgh. At the diet of compearance before the Sheriff, objections were stated to the citation, in so

SCOTTISH JURIST,

far as the warrant for citation was against parties residing beyond the jurisdiction of the Court, and had been executed by an officer of the Sheriff of Selkirkshire instead of a Sheriff-officer of Roxburghshire.

The agents for the parties having been heard at length upon these objections, they were, upon the 28th June 1856, repelled by the Sheriff-substitute. His Lordship added the following note to his interlocutor:

" The Tweed Fishing Act provides, that offences punished with pecuniary penalties or forfeitures may be brought before the Sheriff or magistrate of auy shire or place wherein such penalty or forfeiture shall have been incurred, or where the offenders shall reside or be found; and that it shall be lawful for the Sheriff or other magistrate before whom any complaint for the recovery thereof may be brought, to proceed in a summary way, and to grant warrant for bringing the parties complained of immediately before him, or of citing them to appear before him upon previous notice or induciæ of not less than six free days served upon them, or left for them at their usual places of abode, as such magistrates shall see fit.' But while a warrant of apprehension or of citation of parties resident out of the territory of the magistrate who issues it is thus competent, the act gives no direction with regard to the officer by whom the warrant in either case may be executed. In the present case the accused were resident in the county of Roxburgh, and the warrant of citation was served upon them by a Sheriff-officer of Selkirkshire. It was objected, on their behalf, that the officer had uo authority under the statute to act beyond his own county, and, consequently, the action was inept.

"In answer to the objection, the public prosecutor relied chiefly on the 24th section of the Sheriff-Court Act, 1 and 2 Vict., c. 19, which, on the preamble that it is expedient to autho. rize citation to Sheriff-Courts, of persons in Scotland, without the necessity of having recourse to letters of supplement from the Court of Session,'cnacts,--that it shall be competent to cite all persons within Scotland as parties in any civil or criminal action or proceeding in any Sheriff-Court, who may be amenable in the jurisdiction of such Court, in respect of such action or proceeding, by the warrant of such Sheriff-Court; and also to cite witnesses and havers in like manner; and all such warrants shall bave the same force and effect in any other sheriffdom as that in which they were originally issued, the same being first indorsed by the Sheriff-clerk of such other sheriffdom, who is hereby required to make out and date such indorsation ; and such citation duly made shall be deemed to be due and regular citation. It was maintained, that under the latter clause it was plainly implied that a Sheriff's warrant to an officer of his Court gave the latter authority to act in any sheriffdom where the warrant was duly indorsed. The force

VOL. XXIX.-No. I.

« PreviousContinue »