HC Deb 19 August 1895 vol 36 c264
MR. J. CALDWELL (Lanark, Mid.)

I beg to ask the Lord Advocate, whether his attention has been called to the remarks of Sheriff-Substitute Gebbie, at Dumbarton, on the 5th inst. in a case under the Fatal Accidents (Scotland) Act, 1895, in which he expressed his opinion that the Act was uncalled for and unnecessary, and would not accomplish any good purpose, although it would materially add to the expenditure of the country, and cast upon the officials a very large additional amount of work, as well as causing very great inconvenience to jurymen, called from their homes and business to act upon such inquests; whether it was within the province of the Sheriff Substitute, on such an occasion, to make any such remarks or criticism upon an Act so recently passed by the Legislature, and which was only coming into operation; and, whether the Government intend to take any notice of the conduct of the Sheriff-Substitute?


I have referred to the Sheriffs remarks complained of. The statute made large alterations in procedure, and in such a case it is not unusual for a Judge to give his view of the operation of an Act. The remarks made do not suggest that the Sheriff will not loyally carry out the provisions of the Act, and they are not so clearly beyond his provision as to present a case for my interference.