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 Burgh Subject_2 Magistrates Subject_3 Powers Subject_4 Power to Issue Proclamations Prohibiting the Holding of Meetings in Streets — Act 1606, c. 17.
Held that the magistrates had no power at common law or under any statute to issue the proclamation complained of, and that, accordingly, the pursuer was not bound to obey it.
Observed per the Lord President—The magistrates as the proper custodiers of the streets have an absolute right, if they are of opinion that what is going on in the streets is likely to interfere with the paramount right of passage, or to lead to a breach of the peace, to move on, via facti , by means of the police, the people who are causing the obstruction.
Per the Lord President—“I wish most distinctly to state it as my opinion that the primary and overruling object for which streets exist is passage. The streets are public, but they are public for passage, and there is no such thing as a right in the public to hold meetings as such in the streets.”
Deakin v. Milne , October 27, 1882, 10 R. (J.) 22 , 20 S.L.R. 30 , commented on.
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.