54 THE HIGHLAND CLEARANCES. 



while he was actually in the execution of his duty as an 

 officer, or in actu proximo to its execution. There was 

 nothing in the libel to show that the officers in this case 

 were in the execution of their duty, or on the point of 

 executing it, or even near any of the places where their duty 

 fell to be executed, indeed, the presumption was, from the 

 terms of the libel and this presumption was strengthened by 

 the amendments just made by the Public Prosecutor that 

 they had not reached the place when they were met by the 

 people. 



As to the alternative charge of violently resisting and 

 obstructing an officer of the law in the execution of his 

 duty, that was simply an unsuccessful attempt at deforcement, 

 and would only be committed in circumstances which, had 

 the resistance been successful, would have amounted to 

 deforcement. In short, here also the officer must be 

 executing, or on the point of executing, his duty, otherwise 

 the crime would not be committed. If, therefore, the libel 

 was irrelevant as regarded the charge of deforcement it was 

 necessarily so as regards the less serious charge of 

 obstructing also. 



The Procurator- Fiscal, in reply, quoted from Alison and 

 Macdonald to show that it was unquestionably deforcement 

 if when a messenger had come near to the debtor's house 

 he was met by a host of people who drove him off on notice 

 or suspicion of his purpose. In this case the officer was in 

 the immediate neighbourhood of the place where he in- 

 tended to serve his warrants, as stated in the libel ; and 

 therefore the act charged amounted to deforcement. 



The Sheriff, after full consideration, said The objection 

 taken to the complaint is one of very great importance, 

 and if sustained detracts very materially from the gravity 

 of the offence with which they are charged. The offence 



