Gilbert Ogilvie, Collector of Excise at Aberdeen; v. George Mollyson
Date: 7 March 1798 Case No. No 343.
An appeal from an ordinary Justice of Peace Court to the Quarter Sessions, in revenue matters, is incompetent, unless where it it expressly authorised by statute.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The collector of Excise at Aberdeen brought a complaint before an ordinary meeting of the Justices of Peace of Kincardineshire, against George Mollyson, for dealing in foreign spirits without a license; and the offence being proved, they fined him L. 15 Sterling.
Mollyson offered an appeal against their sentence to the Quarter Sessions, which being refused by the clerk to the Justices as incompetent, he complained by a bill of suspension; and
Pleaded; At common law, an appeal to the Quarter Sessions is competent against every decision of the Justices, and this right is not taken away in excise questions by any statute. Indeed, the act 12th Cha. II. c. 23. declares the judgment of the Quarter Sessions, in such questions, to be final; and if it had been intended that the sentence of an ordinary meeting of the Justices should be so also, the statute would have so enacted. The 6th Geo. I. c. 21. too, expressly points out the mode in which the Quarter Sessions should conduct themselves, in a certain description of appeals from the Justices, in excise questions, which evinces that they have a general power of review in all matters of revenue.
The suspender likewise averred, that his citation before the Justices bore merely, 'for acting against the excise law;' which, he contended, rendered an appeal the more necessary, as the vague nature of the citation made it impossible to prepare defences; consequently, many circumstanses, which led to the original conviction, might be obviated on appeal.
The charger, Mr Ogilvie, on the other hand, stated, that the suspender's citation bore the express offence for which he was summoned; but that, although it had been in the general terms stated by him, it would have been sanctioned by the common practice in excise questions. And he further
Answered; The jurisdiction of the Justices, in matters of revenue, is entirely statutable; consequently, unless where a power of review is specially given to the Quarter Sessions, they cannot interfere. But the 12th Cha. II. while it expressly gives a right of appeal to them from sentences of the subcommissioners of Excise, gives no such appeal from those of the Justices. And it has accordingly been repeatedly found, that an appeal from their sentences is incompetent. Forbes, 25th January 1710, Paterson against Ramsay, No 310. p. 7594.; 3d February 1778, Macarthur against Stewart*; 20th June 1779, Connells against Campbell, Quarter Sessions of the county of Edinburgh; 15th August 1781, Harrison against Reid*; and November 1788, Harrison against M'Intyre*; K. B. Termly Reports, v. 2. p. 504.; 3d May 1788, King against Justices of Surry.
The 6th Geo. III. c. 26. merely points out the mode in which certain appeals shall be conducted which are allowed by express statutes; Hutchison's Treatise on Excise Laws, c. 18.; and therefore it in truth confirms the charger's general argument.
The Lord Ordinary refused the bill.
The Lords, on advising a reclaiming petition with answers, on the grounds stated for the charger, almost unanimously adhered.
Lord Ordinary, Armadale.For the Charger, Lord Advocate Dundas.Alt. Hay.Clerk, Colquhoun.
Fac. Col. No 67. p. 156.
