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.
Sect. 26. declares, That no process of review, by any superior court, of the judgments pronounced under this act by such Justices of the Peace, Quarter-Sessions, or Sheriffs, shall be competent, either by advocation, suspension, reduction, or otherwise.
Macpherson then produced an extract of this judgment to the advocator, town-clerk of Inverness, and required of him a certificate in terms thereof. This being refused, he presented a petition to the Sheriff, narrating the proceedings, and concluding that the defender should be decerned and ordained to issue the necessary certificate, that the pursuer might obtain a renewal of his licence, and to decern against him for the penalty of L.20, in terms of the 16th section of the statute, for having refused to grant the certificate as required by the act.
Macintosh then presented a bill of advocation, which passed in common form; but upon a reclaiming note from the respondent, the Court remitted to the Lord Ordinary to refuse the bill as incompetent, in respect of the 20th section of the above statute, which declares, that no process of review by any superior court shall be competent, either by advocation, suspension, reduction or otherwise.
Lord Balgray, Ordinary. For Advocator, Dean of Fac. (Hope,) Ivory. Wm. Mackenzie, W.S. Agent. Alt. Sol.-Gen. (Skene.) George Cumming, W.S. Agent. D. Clerk.
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.