Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
If you found BAILII useful today, could you please make a contribution?
Your donation will help us maintain and extend our databases of legal information. No contribution is too small. If every visitor this month donates, 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!
Scottish Court of Session Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Alexander Lesley v John Stuart. [1783] Hailes 916 (6 February 1783)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1783/Hailes020916-0595.html
Cite as: [1783] Hailes 916
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[1783] Hailes 916
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR DAVID DALRYMPLE, LORD HAILES.
Subject_2 PRISONER.
Subject_3 Act of Grace, whether applicable to persons imprisoned for penalties imposed for security of the Revenue?
Date: Alexander Lesley
v.
John Stuart
6 February 1783 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[Faculty Collection, IX. 140; Dictionary, 11,817.]
Braxfield. It is a malum in se to counteract a statute. This is a species of smuggling on which punishment has been inflicted; so the case falls not within the Act 1696.
President. The fine does not come in place of the license: the sum paid for the license goes to the public, the fine to the king's privy purse. The case of Burnet is nothing to the purpose: all that was found in that case was, that certain revenue preferences did not extend to Scotland. I never heard that the king was liable to pay aliment.
Justice-Clerk. The fine is merely a penalty for offence: the form of prosecution makes no difference; there are many penalties recovered before Justices of Peace, by horning and caption.
Eskgrove No aliment is due when the imprisonment is for payment of a fine; but there may, when for damages arising ex delicto.
Gardenston. In England, the imprisonment is for three months; how then can it be perpetual in Scotland?
President. That is owing to a blunder in the statute (drawn by Mr Hume Campbell;) there should not have been any distinction.
Stonefield. There is an intentional difference in the statute between the two nations, for the penalty is double in England from what it is in Scotland.
On the 6th February 1783, “The Lords found that the prisoner was not entitled to an aliment.”
For Lesley, R. H. Cay.
Alt. A. Murray. Reporter, Stonefield.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting