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 £1, 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!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom House of Lords Decisions >> Charles Craigie v. J. Mill [1827] UKHL 2_WS_642 (25 June 1827)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1827/2_WS_642.html
Cite as: [1827] UKHL 2_WS_642

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

SCOTTISH_HoL_JURY_COURT

Page: 642↓

(1827) 2 W&S 642

CASES DECIDED IN THE HOUSE OF LORDS ON APPEAL FROM THE COURTS OF SCOTLAND, 1827.

1 st Division

No. 57.


Charles Craigie,     Appellant

v.

J. Mill,     Respondent

June 25, 1827.

Bill Chamber. Lord Eldin.

Subject_Jurisdiction — Suspension — Statutes 4 Geo. IV. c. 26. and 25 Geo. III. c. 51.—

A party, who was the owner of a hackney-coach, having been convicted under the above statutes, relative to the post-horse duties, by a Justice of the Peace, and it being provided that any party aggrieved “shall and may, upon finding security for the penalties and costs, appeal to the Justices of the Peace at the next quarter sessions,” and the party having, instead of so appealing, presented a bill of suspension to the Court of Session, on alleged informalities, and excess of jurisdiction, Held ex parte (affirming the judgment of the Court of Session,) that the bill was incompetent.

By the 4th of Geo. IV. c. 26, relative to the post-horse duties, it is enacted, that “every person letting for hire, or using any horse, mare, &c., for drawing any such coaches or other carriages, to be used as hackney-coaches, any distance not exceeding five miles from the general post-office of any city,” &c., shall pay a duty of 5s. per week, if the coach be drawn by two horses. And it is also provided, “that the person or persons letting for hire, or using any horse, mare, or gelding, for drawing any such coach or carriage, as, or in the nature of, a hackney-coach, shall take out a license expressly authorizing him, her, or them, so to do.” The 25th Geo. III. c. 51, had already enacted, that it “shall and may be lawful to and for any Justice

Page: 643↓

of the Peace, residing near the place where the offence shall be committed, to hear and determine any offence against this act,” and to subject the defenders to certain punishments described; but it is declared, that “if any person or persons shall find himself, herself, or themselves aggrieved by the judgment or sentence of any such Justice, then he, she, or they shall or may, upon finding security for the penalties and costs, appeal to the Justices of Peace at the next general quarter sessions for the county;” and the statute 4th Geo. IV. c. 26, declares, that “no such proceeding so to be had or taken, shall be quashed or vacated for want of form, or removed by certiorari, &c., nor shall any such proceeding before such Justice be taken or removed by certiorari, suspension, advocation, or reduction, or by any other writ, process, or proceeding, into the Court of Session, Court of Exchequer, or Court of Justiciary in Scotland, any law or statute to the contrary not-withstanding.”

Mill, farmer of the post-horse duties in Scotland, filed an information before a Justice of Peace against George Craigie of Edinburgh, hackney-coach hirer, for breach of the 4th Geo. IV., by letting for hire two horses, without having a license. Craigie had a son also a coach-hirer, of the same name, and the messenger cited the defender as “George Craigie, senior.” Craigie appeared on the day of citation, but the diet being adjourned, he was cited to a new day, and another adjournment having taken place, a fresh citation was given, to which he appeared, was convicted, and found liable in the modified statutory penalty. He presented a bill of suspension, and maintained that the bill was competent, in respect of the Justices having exceeded their powers;—1st, Because the description, ‘senior,’ (under which he had been cited,) was not in the information;—2d, Because one warrant could not support citations to three different diets; and 3d, Because he was driver of a hackney-coach, and hackney-coaches were under the regulation of the police statute of Edinburgh; and the post-horse duty statutes declare, that nothing contained in them shall be construed to extend “to coaches or carriages which are or hereafter may be subject to the provisions contained in any local act or acts of Parliament.” The Lord Ordinary, “in respect of the plea of the suspender, that the sentence complained of exceeded the power of the Justice, and that no satisfactory answer had been made to that plea, passed the bill upon caution.” But the Court, on the 11th February 1826, altered and remitted

Page: 644↓

to refuse it as incompetent, in respect the suspender had not appealed to the quarter sessions. *

Craigie appealed. Mill made no appearance.

The House of Lords (per the Lord Chief Baron,) ordered and adjudged that the interlocutor complained of be affirmed.

Appellant's Authorities.—Cook, May 17, 1823.—(2 Shaw and Dunlop, No. 295.)—Campbell, June 28, 1823.—(2 Shaw and Dunlop, No. 418.)

_________________ Footnote _________________

* See 4 Shaw and Dunlop, No. 296.
1827

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1827/2_WS_642.html