HC Deb 03 April 1884 vol 286 cc1489-90
MR. BIGGAR

asked the Lord Advocate, with regard to the Skye prevarication case. If he could state whether Sheriff Substitute Speirs based his sentence on Lachlan M'Leod upon Statute Law or upon a fiction of Law; and, if upon the latter, whether he will at once introduce a measure defining the powers of the sheriffs and minor judges in dealing with and punishing those guilty of prevarication on oath or of contempt of court; and, is it a fact that Mr. Spiers does not know Gaelic, and Lachlan M'Leod does not know English?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR)

, in reply, said, he had not had time since the Question appeared on the Paper to ascertain fully all the particulars. He had no doubt that Sheriff Spiers must have given his judgment knowing well that that judgment was liable to revision by the Superior Courts. He did not see any cause to propose separate legislation on this matter defining the powers of the Sheriffs and minor Judges. He was not aware that Sheriff Spiers had acquired a knowledge of Gaelic.