§ 67. Mr. McKinlayasked the Lord Advocate why he did not proceed with the appeal against the Sheriff's decision in the case against Mrs. Mary Russell Macindoe, 6, Victoria Circus, Glasgow, W.2, who was prosecuted for obtaining excessive quantities of meat from her meat retailer and acquitted on the technical grounds that the enforcement inspectors who called on her had not cautioned her?
§ The Lord AdvocateThe Sheriff Substitute sustained an objection to the admissi-bility in evidence of answers alleged to have been given by Mrs. Macindoe to questions put to her by officers of the Ministry of Food on the ground that she had not been cautioned, and he held that on the admissible evidence the charge was not proven. In my judgment there was no such prospect of success in an appeal against this judgment as would warrant proceeding with the appeal.
§ Mr. McKinlayIs the Lord Advocate aware that the prosecution of Mrs. Macindoe did not arise from the visit of the enforcement officers, but from evidence disclosed at the trial of the Scottish farmers who were fined £200 for supplying meat in excess, and that it was from that evidence that the prosecution of the consumers took place; and is he aware that this is the second or third case where the Lord Advocate's Department have protected the Sheriff against his own folly?
§ The Lord AdvocateThe evidence to which the hon. Member referred in the first part of his Supplementary Question was put before the Sheriff. The Sheriff held that the evidence was insufficient without the statement of Mrs. Macindoe. Mrs. Macindoe's statement was ruled out as inadmissible, and the Sheriff therefore held the case not proven., There is no appeal on the facts.
§ Mr. McKinlayI beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment.