Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
Subject_1 Game Subject_2 Process Subject_3 Title to Sue Subject_4 Common Informer — Taking Partridges in Close Time — Partridges Act 1799 (39 Geo. III, c. 34), sec. 3 — Game Act 1761 (2 Geo. III, c. 19), sec. 4. Facts: A common informer with concurrence of the procurator-fiscal has no title in Scotland to recover a penalty under the Partridges Act 1799, sec. 3.
Question whether the Sheriff has jurisdiction to entertain an action to recover such penalty.
After the complaint had been read over the law agent for the accused stated, inter alia , the following objections:—“(1) Nojurisdiction. (2) No title or interest on the part of the complainer, Andrew Kenneth M'Douall, to sue.”
The Sheriff-Substitute ( Watson ) sustained the second objection for the accused and dismissed the complaint, whereupon the complainer appealed to the Court of Session by way of stated case.
Lord M'Laren —In this case my opinion may be stated in a few words. The complaint charges the defender with taking partridges in close time contrary to the Partridges Act 1799, section 3, and claims for a penalty not exceeding £5. Now, on referring to this statute we find that it prohibits the taking of partridges within a close time there defined, and prescribes that the penalty may be recovered under the powers of an earlier statute—2 Geo. III, cap. 19.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.