BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, 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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> M'Ghee v. Moncur [1899] ScotLR 36_420 (21 February 1899) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1899/36SLR0420.html Cite as: [1899] SLR 36_420, [1899] ScotLR 36_420 |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Page: 420↓
[Dean of Guild Court, Paisley.
Two magistrates sitting as the Dean of Guild Court of a burgh heard parties in a petition for a lining, and made avizandum of the case. They disagreed, and called in a third magistrate. Without further proceedings the three pronounced a judgment, in which one of the magistrates who heard the case did not concur. Held that the procedure was incompetent, and the judgment recalled.
Bernard M'Ghee, grocer, Paisley, petitioned the Magistrates of Police of the burgh of Paisley, as the Dean of Guild Court of the burgh, for warrant to make certain alterations on certain buildings. John William Moncur, the Master of Works of the burgh of Paisley, objected on the ground that the plan lodged did not show that the petitioner intended to comply with the provisions of the 172nd section of the Burgh Police (Scotland) Act 1892 in so far as related to the height of the ceiling of the ground floor of the building proposed to be altered.
Bailie Nicolson and Bailie Wilson, sitting in the Dean of Guild Court, having on 21st and 28th December 1898 considered the petition and relative plans, and heard parties thereon, on the latter date pronounced an interlocutor making avizandum of the cause.
The two Bailies disagreed and called in a third Magistrate—Bailie Hamilton. Without further proceedings an interlocutor was pronounced on 21st January 1899 signed by the three refusing by a majority in number to grant the warrant and authority craved by the petitioner. The note stated that Bailie Nicolson did not concur in the present judgment.
The petitioner appealed, and argued, inter alia, that the judgment was bad, as the third magistrate had been called in after the parties had been heard and the case taken to avizandum.
The Court recalled the interlocutor reclaimed against, and remitted to the Dean of Guild to proceed with the cause.
Counsel for the Petitioner— Cook. Agent— F. J. Martin, W.S.
Counsel for the Respondent— Clyde. Agents— Campbell & Smith, S.S.C.
