396 LEGAL. [March 



THE STOBAGE OF EXPLOSIVES. 



AN appeal by James A. Dykes Hamilton, Procurator-Fiscal, 

 against an interlocutor of Sheriff-Substitute Birnie assoilzieing 

 WiUiam Dixon (Limited), coal and iron masters, Carfin, Botbwell, 

 from a charge of contravening the Explosives Act of 1875, was heard 

 on February 7th, before the Justiciary Appeal Court at Edinburgh. 

 The presiding judges were Lords Young, Craighill, and Adam. It 

 was alleged that during the period between I7th April 1884 and 

 26th July 1884, the respondents failed to take all due precautions 

 for preventing unauthorized persons from having access to their gun- 

 powder and dynamite store at Carfin, and in particular that they 

 failed to have a person constantly to guard the store. The store had 

 been previously broken into in ISTovember 1879 and August 1882 ; 

 and on the 24th July it was entered by unauthorized persons, who 

 stole a quantity of dynamite, weighing 70 lb. The alleged offence 

 rendered the respondents liable to a penalty not exceeding ^10. 

 After proof, the Sheriff found that the store was constructed as 

 required by the statute and Orders of Council, and was inspected 

 several times yearly since 1875 ; that the present inspector could 

 suggest no mode of sti-engthening it ; that the store had been 

 strengthened after being broken into in 1882 ; and that the 

 respondents, prior to the present complaint, were not directed or 

 required to have a guard. He therefore held that the respondents 

 had taken all precautions obligatory or considered practicable at the 

 time, and found the complaint not jiroven. 



Lord Young said the only practical question involved was whether 

 the police to guard such stores were to be paid liy the occupier or 

 by the ratepayers. There was no case in which a watcli had been 

 provided by the occupier of the premises. It appeared, in point of 

 fact, that the premises in question had been twice broken into, 

 aud if it was said to be the law of Scotland that the owner of such 

 premises, whicli had been once or tM'ice broken into, should provide 

 a guard, the Sheriffs judgment would be erroneous ; but it was very 

 obvious that such a proposition could not be maintained without 

 going a step further, aud holding that due precautions were not pro- 

 vided anywhere where the premises were not structurally sufficient 

 to prevent successful invasion by violence, and that, in point of 

 form, there must be a watch. He could not assent to that proposi- 

 tion. His Lordship therefore proposed that the ajtpeal be dismissed, 

 with expenses. Lords Craighill and Adam took a similar view, and 

 the appeal was dismissed accordingly. 



