view raw text
POLICE ACTION NOT LAW IN SCOTLAND Kdinlmrgh S otland December 1ft Judgment has been given in tlie Court of Appeals lit two bet ¬ ting appeals Tlie appellants Joint Traynor and John McLauchlan two wellknown Edinburgh book ¬ makers appealed against convictions or decisions obtained against them in the local courts Traynor was fined for keeping premises occupied by him as a betting house while In the case of McLauchlan his premises were raided and unopened letters were carried off In the appeal it was contended that under common law Hie police had no right to seize letters far less open them In a case where a man had not been charged with a crime and that there was no statute law In both cases the appeals were sustained sustainedIn In giving the leading opinion on the Traynor case the lord justice clerk said there were no bets made by persons going to the place in question All the bets were made by communications and there was nothing in this to suggest a common nuisance or that the house was a resort for betting purposes purposesLord Lord Ardwall said appellant was a bookmaker but it was not a criminal offense to follow that pur ¬ suit arid the fact that a bookmaker carried on his business there did not make It a betting house within the meaning of the act Ten guineas ex ¬ penses appellantLord ivere allowed appellant Lord Salvesen giving the leading opinion in the case of McLauchlan said it was illegal at common law to grant a warrant to search the premises of any citizen who was not charged with an offense and a sealed communication delivered1 at the ad ¬ dressees house but never opened by him could not be evidence against him and could only be made so by the sworn evidence of the writer In order that the documents found might be seized they must on the face of them bear evidence of being connected with racing or betting He held that the sheriff was not entitled to authorize the opening of the letters in order that their contents should be examined with a view to being used against appellant Ten guin ¬ eas expenses were allowed in this case also
