BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Houston v. Ker and Others [1891] ScotLR 28_575 (18 July 1891) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1891/28SLR0575.html Cite as: [1891] ScotLR 28_575, [1891] SLR 28_575 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 575↓
[
Held that a magistrate who is proprietor of an inn in a burgh is not thereby disqualified from acting as a licensing magistrate in an application having reference to other premises in the burgh.
This was an action at the instance of Samuel Houston, accountant, Dumfries, proprietor of the Caledonian Inn, Annan, against Hugh Ker, builder, Annan, provost of that burgh, Campbell M'Lean, retired merchant, Annan, proprietor of the Blue Bell Inn there, John Smith Millar, residing in Annan, and Alexander Scott, solicitor, Annan, all bailies of the burghs of Annan, concluding for declarator that the defender Campbell M'Lean was on the 8th day of April 1890 disqualified from acting as a licensing magistrate in the burgh of Annan, and that the vote given by him in the application for a renewal of a public-house certificate in favour of the pursuer for the Caledonian Inn, situated in the High Street of the burgh, presented by the pursuer to the licensing magistrates of the burgh, and which came up for consideration before the defenders on the 8th day of April 1890, was null and void, and of no force and effect; and further, that a majority of the licensing magistrates then entitled to vote, and voting, voted in favour of the granting of the renewal of said public-house certificate, and that said certificate was accordingly renewed by said licensing Court in favour of the pursuer.
The pursuer averred, and the defenders admitted, that Campbell M'Lean when he voted for the refusal of the renewal of the certificate was proprietor of the Blue Bell Inn in the burgh of Annan.
The pursuer pleaded—“(1) The defender the said Campbell M'Lean being proprietor of a licensed inn in said burgh was disqualified from voting in applications for public-house certificates or licences in that burgh, and the vote given by him against the renewal of said public-house certificate for the Caledonian Inn in favour of the pursuer was null and void. (2) Said vote of the said Campbell M'Lean being null and void, and a majority of the licensing magistrates entitled to vote having thus voted for the renewal of said certificate in favour of the pursuer, the pursuer is entitled to decree of declarator as concluded for.”
“Now, the jurisdiction exercised by the magistrates was statutory. A statutory power to deal with licences is conferred on the justices and magistrates acting within certain limits, and it is provided by the 13th section of the Act that certain judges shall be disqualified from acting in the execution of the Act.
Those who are disqualified are enumerated in considerable detail, and it is provided that those justices of the peace or magistrates who shall knowingly or wilfully offend shall forfeit and pay the sum of £50, to be recovered by any person who will prosecute for the same. It appears to me to follow that every magistrate or justice, except those enumerated, must needs have the power, and that there is no authority at all for extending the list of exceptions. I apprehend that all are qualified except those who are expressly disqualified. Persons who exercise certain trades are disqualified for acting in the execution of the Act. It is not said that the owner of an inn is disqualified. The proprietor of a house is disqualified from acting in an application for a certificate for the house of which he is the proprietor, and it appears to follow directly that he is not disqualified from acting in regard to an application for a certificate for any other
Page: 576↓
It is admitted that this case does not fall within the words of section 13, and I think it is equally clear that the alleged disqualification cannot be said to be of the same kind as those mentioned in section 13. It is said that the disqualification should be extended to the owner of a house in the immediate neighbourhood of the premises for which licence is asked, and it is said that two inns in a burgh so small as Annan is must be held to be in the immediate neighbourhood of each other, but bearing in view that a magistrate is subject to a fine if he acts when he is disqualified, it is impossible to hold that the disqualification arises on a ground so vague and uncertain as the proximity of the two houses.
Various English decisions were referred to, but none support the pursuer's contention. The question appears to have been mooted but not decided in a case which was quoted from Fisher's Digest, but which is not to be found in any reports in our library— Rex v. Kent, 34 J.P. Rep. 298, Fisher's Dig. 4, 1182. In Queen v. Lee, 9 Q.B.D. 394, a magistrate was held disqualified from judging in a prosecution which he directed. In Rex v. Commissioners of Cheltenham, 1 Q.B.D. 467, an appeal was sustained in reference to rates imposed by certain justices on their own premises. These cases illustrate the sorts of interests which will disqualify a judge, but I do not think they apply, and I think it quite illegitimate when a statute which confers a jurisdiction enumerates the disqualifications of the judges in detail to add to these any other general ground of disqualification.”
The Lord Ordinary assoilzied the defenders.
Counsel for the Pursuer— Graham Stewart. Agent— Alexander Wylie, S.S.C.
Counsel for the Defenders— Vary Campbell— C. J. Guthrie. Agents— Morton, Smart, & Macdonald, W.S.
