Glasgow City and District Railway Co. v. Hutchison and others, High Court, March 20, 1884 Glass and another v. Linton, High Court, Oct. 27, 1882, Government of Cape Colony, Carlin v., High Court, Gracie v. Stuart, High Court, Feb. 22, 1884, Sept. 30, 1884, Greenhill v. Stirling, High Court, March 19, 1885, Harvey and others, Wilsone v., High Court, Nov. 13, 1884, Hutton v. Garland, High Court, June 13, 1883, Kelly, Charles, Glasgow, Dec. 24, 1885, 722 Amend. Act, 1 and Embez., 492 Lee . Local Authority of Lasswade, High Court, Leisk and Sandison v. Galloway, High Court, Nov. 12, 1884, Lindsay, Wynn and another v., High Court, Nov. 22, 1883, Local Authority of Lasswade, Lee v., High Court, Nov. 2, 1883, Local Authority of Perthshire, Robertson v., High Court, June 13, 1883, 29, 1885, Appeal, 670 M'Gregor, David, and another, High Court, July 21, 1884, M Phee, Craig v., High Court, March 14, 1883, Milne, Deakin and others v., High Court, Oct. 27, 1882, O'Neills v. Campbell, High Court, July 18, 1883, Patrick, Mackay and another v., High Court, Oct. 25, 1882, Pyper v. Walker, High Court, July 10, 1885, Reaney v. Maddever, High Court, Nov. 22, 1883, Roberts v. Henderson, High Court, Oct. 25, 1882, Smith v. Wood, High Court, Dec. 6, 1882, Soutar, Charles, High Court, Oct. 23, 24, 1882, Speirs, Macleod v., High Court, March 18, 1884, Appeal, 186 Violating Sepulchre, 65 Susp. and Lib., 387 Appeal, 624 Stuart v. Murray, High Court, Nov. 13, 1884, Watson, Mary Ann, High Court, May 19, 1884, Wilsone v. Harvey and others, High Court, Nov. 13, 1884, Worrall, Hallam & Co. v. M'Dowall, Glasgow, Aug. Cont. of Debtors Act, 443 Appeal, Appeal, 479 Suspension, 233 Appeal, 670 Susp. and Lib., 370 Appeal, 628 ERRATA. Page 1, on first line of rubric, for "LXXII.," read "CCLXXII.' 16, on last line, for "c. 35," read "c. 101." 150, on second line of rubric, for "xxxv.," read "35;" and on seventh line of rubric, for " Act," read "Acts." 208, on second last line, for "Brand," read "R. V. Campbell." 483, on last line, for "charging," read "charged." - BROKER STATUTE 29 AND 30 Vic., c. LXXII., SECS. 172, 184, AND 200, GLASGOW POLICE ACT, 1866-LICENSE-RELEVANCYPROOF. In an Appeal by a person convicted of the offence libelled' upon a charge under sections 172, 184, and 200 of 'The Glasgow Police Act, 1866,' of having, within or near the premises occupied by him, carried on the trade of a broker within the meaning of said Act without having obtained a license so to do, by purchasing from some person or persons to the complainer unknown, second-hand articles or goods, viz., twentythree and a half or thereby potato bags which had been in use.' Held that the complaint was relevant, but 2d (dissentiente Lord Craighill), that the single act of purchase proved was not sufficient to establish that the accused carried on the trade of a broker as defined by section 200 of the Statute. 1882. No. 1. M'Mullan v. M'Phee. June 9. THIS was an Appeal at the instance of THOMPSON M'MULLAN, residing at Monteith Row, and carrying on business as a broker in Spoutmouth, both in Glasgow, against a conviction and sentence pronounced by the Stipendiary Magistrate (Gemmel) in the Central Police High Court, Court of Glasgow, upon a complaint at the instance of DONALD M'PHEE, Procurator-Fiscal, which charged the appellant with having, on or about the fifth day of December 1881 years, within or near the store or other premises occupied or possessed by him the said Thompson M'Mullan, situated in or near Spoutmouth, Glasgow, VOL. V. A Appeal. 1882. No. 1. M'Mullan v. M'Phee. June 9. carried on the trade of a broker, within the meaning of 'The Glasgow Police Act, 1866,' without having obtained a license so to do from the Magistrates' Committee of the city of Glasgow; and this the said Thompson High Court, M'Mullan did by then and there purchasing from some Appeal. person or persons to the complainer unknown, secondhand articles or goods, viz., twenty-three and a half or thereby potato bags which had been in use, in contravention of the said Act, particularly sections 172 and 184 thereof. The following was the conviction and sentence complained of: At Glasgow, the 1st day of February 1882 years, in presence of John Gemmel, Esquire, Police Magistrate of the City and Royal Burgh of Glasgow, appeared the defender the said Thompson M'Mullan; and the charge having been read over to him he pleaded not guilty, and the said Magistrate having heard the said defender in answer to said charge, and the witnesses adduced having been examined on oath in his presence, the said Magistrate, on the evidence adduced, finds the charge proven, and convicts the said defender of the offence libelled. In respect whereof finds the said defender liable in a penalty of five pounds, and in default of payment decerns and adjudges the said defender to be committed to the prison of Glasgow, and detained therein, subject to the rules thereof, for one month from this date, unless said penalty be sooner paid, and grants warrant to officers of Court to convey the said defender to said prison, and to the keeper thereof to receive and detain him accordingly. GRAHAM MURRAY, for the appellant.-The complaint is irrelevant. It charges the appellant with having, on the date and at the place libelled, carried on the trade of a broker, within the meaning of 'The Glasgow Police Act, 1866,' without having obtained a license so to do. It then proceeds: And this he did by then and there purchasing from some person or persons to the complainer unknown, second-hand articles or goods, viz., twentythree and a half or thereby potato bags which had been in use.' But it omits to add in this part of the complaint, which is the sequel of the part that precedes, that the appellant had not at the time a license. Secondly, what is set forth in the complaint does not amount to the |