quod ejus est auferri ab eà nequit sine consensu suo 5 o. Tochers are oft times augmented in consideration of the Coniunct-fie and therefore its most unreasonable and illegal that what was given her for an onerous cause should be taken from her and applyed to the behove of one who represents the Contracter who was bound to warrand her Life-rent and who got good deed upon that account And it is unjust that the Husband by spending his Estate should burden her or that his Heir should not rather want than she 6 o. Whatever may be said to oblidge a Mother jure naturae to entertain her own Children and I think this Aliment has been at first founded on that Principle of Justice whereby Donatores Patroni Parentes were only lyable in quantum facere potuerunt called by Lawyers Exceptio competentiae yet there is no reason that a Life-rentrix should be oblidged to entertain an appearand Heir who is a meer stranger and this jus naturae oblidges the Mother not only to entertain the appearand Heir but all her Children as was found in the case of the Countess of Buchan And albeit the Act of Parliament speaks only of Heirs yet by our Law even appearand Heirs will get an Aliment allow'd them though thereafter they renounce but it is less clear if it will be allow'd them after they have renounced July 16. 1667. Hamilton contra Symington And yet in this case they are but meer strangers and can no more be called Heirs or appearand Heirs after Renunciation as also though this Act mentions only Ward Lands yet it is ex praxi extended to others who have no Ward Lands the 22 Feb. 1673. Finnay contra Oliphant And though both the Rubrick and the words of the Act provide only Aliment for Minors yet it is extended to appearand Heirs who are Majors as in the case of Rig contra the Lady Carberrie nor will it be sufficient that the Life-rentrix offer to entertain the appearand Heir in the Family with her as Durie observes the 14. Feb. 1627. Noble contra his Mother nor is this only extended where the Mother Liferents all but it is even extended to the case where all the Minors Estate beside what is Life-rented is not sufficient to pay the debt and is affected by legal diligences as was found 13 Feb. 1662. Antonia Brown contra her Mother but it may be very well doubted whether this last Decision may be extended where the debt is only personal and I find the Lords did refuse to decide this point in a case debated 1667. betwixt the Lady Staniehill and her Son though the Son there alleadg'd that he sold his Land to hinder Comprising and if it had been Comprized she would have been lyable And this Action for Alimenting the Heirs was still sustained against both the Grand-Fathers Relict and the Fathers Relict pro rata of their Life-rents which they had of the appearand Heir albeit it was alleadg'd that the Mother having a nearer relation and being the Wise of him who spent the Estate should be only lyable or at least first lyable 12. Decemb. 1677. Laird Airdrie contra the two Ladies but yet I find the Grand-Father was found lyable in no proportion with the Mother where he had only reserv'd a mean proportion to himself when he did Infest the appearand Heirs Father 7. July 1629. It may be doubted whether a Husband marrying the Life-rentrix having given her a provision in contemplation of this Joynture will be lyable to Aliment since he is a meer stranger to which all that can be answer'd is that he was oblidg'd to know it was lyable to this burden and if he will be found lyable it may be doubted if he will not be free from the provision given in contemplation thereof tanquam causa data causa non sequuta As also it may be doubted whether the pursuing such an Action as this will infer a Passive Title seing the appearand Heir is thus lucratus but yet I think it will not since he reaps thereby no advantage which would have accresced to the Creditors to whom no part of his Aliment would have belong'd and even appearand Heirs renuncing will have right to an Aliment as is observed before The Civilians think that a Mother is oblig'd to Aliment her Child till it be past three years of age l. 3. C. de Patr. Pot. ibid. gloss and even after three years of age if the Father be not able to Aliment the Child the Mother is because the Child is oblig'd to Aliment and reverence the Mother vid. Surd. de Aliment quaest 14 tit 1. But they make no mention of such an alimentary action as this which we allow THough buyers of Land be obliged to keep the Tacks set by their Predecessors yet the Superior is not obliged to keep them when the Land falls to him in Ward during which time he is Proprietar nor are Life-renters nor Conjunct-fiars oblig'd to keep them during their temporary Rights but when these Rights expire the Tacks revive and yet by this Act the Superior or Life-renter cannot remove them till the next Whitsunday after the Ward or Life-rents fall the Tennents paying the Maills and Duties to the Superiors or Life-renters but it may be doubted whether this will hold when the Duty is only a simulate Duty and not near the Rent of the Land for this was design'd to secure the Tennents reasonably but not to prejudge the Superior or Life-renter but certainly this Act will not defend these Tennents who have payed their Duties to their Masters before hand THough particular pains be set down as to Law-burrows in Civil cases by former Acts yet in Criminal cases because of the importance and danger it is left Arbitrary to the Judges to cause the Parties find Caution under what sums they please and before the Council likewise the sum under which Caution is to be found is de praxi Arbitrary Since this Act sayes that the Party complainand shall be harmless it would seem by this Act the Council can oblige no party to keep another harmless except where the party himself complains in which case he must give his Oath he dreads bodily harm conform to the 129 Act Par. 9. Ja. 1. vid. observ on that Act. But yet the Council is in use to cause men find Caution to keep others skaithless even where the parties do not crave it but this is only in cases where there have been previous breaches of the peace amongst them so that either a party does complain and then he must give his Oath and if he complain not there must be a previous breach of the peace and in that case there is no need of an Oath or a Complaint that he does fear bodily harm Though the Council or Justices may by this Act exact Law-burrows yet by this Act it is only ordain'd where Complaints are rais'd before them and by Complaints here is not to be
an Act of Sederunt 16 December 1612. It is declared that ten years possession before the Reformation or 30 after the Reformation should be a sufficient right either to Church-men or to the King 's coming in their place by vertue of this Act and conform thereto the Lords decided July 5 1626. Laird of Kerss against Reid Observ. 4. That because the Romish Clergy were put from their Benefices therefore they are by this Act freed from any warrandice they had given for Church Lands dispon'd by them and by the 110 Act of the same Parliament what is here Statuted as to the warrandice of Lands is there extended to Tacks Pensions and Assignations and so these two Acts are not absolutely co-incident and the last unnecessary as they would seem to be and though this was done in majorem cautelam yet by the common Law they would not have been liable in warrandice since no man is liable in warrandice where the eviction proceeded upon a supervenient Statute for no man can warrand against a supervenient Law Observ. 5. That notwithstanding that the Church-Lands are annexed yet there is a dissolution in the same Act warranding his Majesty to Feu any of the saids Church-Lands during his own time Observ. 6. That though by this Act all prior Dispositions made of Church-Lands by his Majesty to Lords of Erection are excepted from the Annexation yet the Superiority of all the Erections both before and after that Act are annexed to the Crown by the 10 Act Par. Ch. 1. Observ. 7. That the Spirituality of Benefices viz. their right to the Teinds is expresly declared not to be annexed but to remain with Church-men as formerly for though by the 149 Act Par. 13 Ja. 6. it be said that the Teinds of Dumfermiâ—â—g are annexed to the Crown after the form of the Act of Annexation 1587. by which all the Teinds of the remanent Kirk-Lands and Prelacies of the Kingdome are annexed yet that Clause is only insert by mistake in my judgement for that is not the design of the Act. Where Stock and Teind are promiscuously Feued it is declared by this Act that his Majesty remains Superior both as to Stock and Teind the Church-men having only right to the tenth penny of the Feu-duty the other nine belonging to his Majesty for the temporality being only annex'd to the Crown and the Teinds being reserv'd to the Church it was very just that where a duty was payable out of Church-Lands cum decimis inclusis the King should only have right to a ninth part of that duty and the tenth should belong to the Church-man or Titular in contemplation of the Teinds but still decimae inclusae are so fully exempted from all Ecclesiastick payments that though there be not sufficiency of Teinds in the Paroch yet decimae inclusae are never burden'd with the payment of Ministers Stipends though Ministers Stipends be the constant burden of all Teinds and for the same reason it was found 21 January 1633. that no Valuation could be led of Land Feued cum decimis inclusis and not confirmed before this Act and that Laicks might prescrive a right to them but not to other Teinds which shews that decimae inclusae are never lookt upon as Teinds For understanding the origine and nature of decimae inclusae with us it is fit to know that by the Canon Law the Parson or Incumbent and the Paroch Church were founded in the right of all the greater Tithes called decimae praediales and that it was not lawful for any man to abstract their Teinds from it cap. de decimis 16. Quest. 1. And albeit the Popes did pretend that since the Bishops had the management of the Teinds they as universal Bishops might by their supereminent transcendent right appropriat them to the use of Monastries Monks being the best of the poor and Teinds being naturally burden'd with the maintainance of the poor yet our King's who in all the tract of our Parliaments own'd their own Regalia and the Episcopal Order against the invasions of the Popes did by the 7 Act Par. 2. Ja. 4. declare it a point of Dittay that is to say Criminal for any man to take a right of Teinds from any save the Parson Vicar or their farmers so far they acknowledg'd the Parochial Churches to be founded in their right to the Predial Teinds Notwithstanding whereof the Popes to get the Monks to depend immediatly upon them did grant to those Monks exemptions from payment of Tiths for they as well as others paid to the Parson or Incumbent till Pope Paschal the 2 d granted those exemptions but these exemptions did thereafter so far diminish the provision of the Parson very many Lands being either mortifi'd to them or bought in by them that Theodosius and other Emperours were forc'd to make Laws against exorbitant Mortifications and Pope Adrian was forc'd to limit the exemptions to four Religious Orders Cistertians Hospitalers Templars and Knights of St. John still allowing all of them Exemptions for their Novalia or Lands first cultivated by themselves But Pope Innocent the third in the Lateran Council thereafter ordain'd that even these four Orders should pay Tiths for what Lands they should acquire after that time which I the rather observe because it has been decided by our Session July 15. 1664 Thomas Crawford contra Prestoun Grange that Lords of Erection succeeding in place of the Cistertian Monks should be free from Tiths as the Monks were without adverting whether these Lands for which exemption was pleaded were bestow'd on their Monastries after the year 1120. and it seems that this Exemption should not be allow'd to these Monastries since they were not allow'd to the Temple-lands with us and that such priviledges are due to neither because this was a personal priviledge given to the Monks as the Poor and so should not descend to the Lords of Erection The Monks being thus Masters of many Tiths feu'd out their Lands and Tiths promiscuously for the encouragement of the Labourers who have alwayes thought it a loss and a slavery to wait till their Tiths be drawn Laicks also enjoy'd Tiths and alienated them as their own Heretage for many ages together it being generally believ'd as Selden contends that the Tiths were not due to Church-men they having Right only to a Maintainance jure divino though others ascrive these Laical Infeudations to a corruption begun by Charles Martel King of France who to gratifie and pay such as were to assist him in the Holy War Dispon'd to them the Tiths consentientibus Episcopis who knew that if the Saracens prevail'd Religion would be destroy'd and he promising to restore them But after this time it is undenyable that de facto Teinds were Dispon'd to and by Laicks till the Lateran Council 1169. in which the Canon was made prohibemus ne laici decimas cum animarum suarum periculo detinentes in alios laicos possint aliquo modo transferre Si quis vero
made Work and yet to encourage our own Work-men there is double Custom laid upon all Forraign made Work by the Book of Rates and ten per cent by a late Proclamation which being joyn'd with the Sea-risk that those run who bring home made Work and the Exchange pay'd for the price of it is a sufficient encouragement to our own Trades-men who because they may live cheaper may likewise work cheaper than those abroad even beside these other Encouragements THis Act in favours of Sope-work seems needless because it was comprehended under the general Act concerning Manufactories being the 40 Act of this Parliament but probably it has been thought necessary for clearing the time for which the priviledge of Manufactories was to endure as has been observ'd upon that Act. THough by this Act it be Declar'd that upon the bringing down the annualrent to six of the hundred that six is declar'd to be free of all Retention or other publick Burdens Yet subsequent Parliaments have Burdened even the annualrents with Retention and otherwise expresly contrary to this Act upon pretext that the Impositions were voluntar offers and not formally Impositions Nota. It may be doubted if the Kings Officers may not lawfully ingage for more than six per cent to get Money for publick use BY this Act it is Declar'd that all sums whereupon no Infeftments have follow'd may be arrested though they be Heretable otherwise of their own Nature and because regulariter Heretable sums are not arrestable therefore this Dispensation was necessary Albeit this Act bear only that sums whereupon no Infeftments have follow'd be arrestable and determines not if arrestments may be us'd at his instance to whom such sums are due Yet a paritate rationis this may follow THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the Act 7 Par. 1 Ja. 6. THis Act is only a Ratification of the 10 Act of the 1 Par. of Ch. 1. Save only that it is here declar'd That notwithstanding of this Act any who have gotten or shall get any new Infeftment of Superiority of Kirk-lands the same shall stand good as to such Vassals who have given their consent to the said Right of Superiority In regard that such a consent as to His Majesty is of the Nature of a Resignation of their property in favours of the said Superiour to be holden of the King But prejudice nevertheless to His Majesty of His Highness Right of Reversion of the Feu-ferm-duties and Casualities conform to the foresaid Act of Parliament 1633. The design of which Clause was to secure such Lords of Erection as had got Bonds from their Vassals holding kirk-Kirk-lands of them to continue their Vassals and not to hold of the King notwithstanding of the Act of Parliament 1633. Declaring the King to be the Superiour of all Kirk-lands and albeit the Lords did not think that the single taking of an Infeftment from a Lord of Erection did infer the consent mentioned in this Act after giving of which consent the Vassal could not return to be the Kings Vassal Yet upon the 28. of July 1669. in a case betwixt the Duke of Hamilton and Weir of Blackwood The Lords found that such a consent as this might be infer'd by presumptions shewing that the Vassal design'd to oblige himself to hold of the Lord of Erection and not of the King and in that case they found that Blackwoods Father having granted a Bond that so soon as the Duke should obtain the Superiority his Son should become his Vassal and though the Duke had not then obtain'd it yet he has since the Lands being lately dissolv'd from the Crown and though the Father was but a Tutor yet he was the person who was instrumental to settle his Son in the Right and the rest of the Vassals of that Abbacy did take their Lands expresly holden of the Duke only But in my Opinion no consent can be founded upon by this Clause of the Act of Parliament except it be a clear and express consent to hold only of the Lords of Erection and not of the King it being so much the Interest both of King and People that the Subjects should hold of the King and the Parliament 1633. having so clearly introduc'd in the favours of Vassals of Erected church-Church-lands that they may hold of the King it were hard to take that benefit from them without their express consent FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that because Tiâ—â—lars of Prebendaries Chaplanries and Alterages cannot be Infest and that there is nothing standing in any Register to shew who is Titular therefore singular Successors who are Vassals could not know by whom to enter to supply which this Act provides that the Vassals of the saids Provestries Chaplanries and Alterages and others of that nature may be Infeft by the Laick Patrons holding immediatly of the King because it is easie to discover by the Registers who is Laick Patron of the Benefice since it passes by Infeftment but yet the Laick Patron is to have no advantage and so the Liferent-escheat will not fall to him as Superiour but will belong to the Titular who is true Superiour nor can the Laick Patron pursue Reduction But yet it seems that since the Vassal did Enter by him that therefore he is bound both to produce to him and that he will have right to the Emoluments of the Superiority except the Vassal can show who is the true Superiour Nota. That when the Patron presents in such Cases he needs not the consent of the Chapter or Convent of the saids Prebendaries and the Provost and Baillies are Declar'd the only undoubted Superiours where such Benefices ly within their Towns they having formerly been Patrons of these Chaplanries which ablativi absolute positi seem to import a condition and so they must prove that they were formerly Patrons ALbeit by this Act it be appointed that there shall be a Cocquet for every Ship and that there shall be fourty shilling pay'd for it Yet it was alleadg'd that a general Cocquet for a Ship was not sufficient but that every Merchant should have a special Cocquet containing specially his Goods and enumerating particularly all the kinds of these Goods Because First The design of Cocquets was to know whether the Goods belonged to Free-Traders which could not be done if the Goods and Merchants Names were not condescended on particularly Nor could it be known if His Majesties Dues were pay'd for the Goods for which the Cocquets were granted 2. It were unjust that a great Ship with Rich Wares should pay no more than a small one with courser Goods 3. By the Customs of England and other Countreys there were for these Reasons special Cocquets given for proportional Dues 4. By the 255 256 257 Acts of the 15 Par Ja. 6. The Cocquets are to contain the particular quantities of the Goods vid. observ on these Acts. THis Act is Explain'd in the 11 Act Par. 18 Ja. 6.
caducitatis comminatione legali certus terminus statui si â—â—tra eum instrumenta non edat This Commination is our Certifiâ—ation and this Terminus is our Term in Improbations Rosenthal cap. 8. concl 33. num 13. and 14. In these Actions the King needs produce nothing to prove that he is Superior for the King is presum'd to be general Superior and is Infeft Jure Coronae in all the Lands of Scotlaâ—d but though other Superiors must produce a Seasing of the Lands yet they need produce nothing to prove that the Dâ—fender is Vassal who is oblidg'd to produce upon his hazard or else to disclaim and yet if the Superior Libel only that he is Infeft in such an Earldom and that the Defenders Lands are part and pertinent of the Earldom without producing any thing to instruct that he stands expresly Infeft in these Lands as a part of his Earldom the Lords would not put the Defender in that case to produce Simpliciter but allowed the same day to the Pursuer to prove that they were Part and Pertinent of the Lands wherein the Pursuer stands Infeft and to the Defender to produce if that were proved for the Lords thought it hard to force Heretors to propale and lay open the secrets of their Coveyances where it was not certain if the Pursuer had any Interest albeit it was alleadged that this would occasion two Litiâ—-contestations in one Cause viz. One whither the Pursuer had Right and another whether the Defender had sufficient Interest to seclude the Pursuite for the Lords thought that this being an Act before answer did solve this difficulty and the ordinar Maxime that the Vassal must disclaim upon his hazard and the Argument that either the Pursuer was Superior and would be found to be so and then there was no wrong done or else he was not and in that case the Defender was in no danger by disclaiming were both found only to take place where the Pursuer produc'd a special Right to the Lands Libell'd but not where he pretended only that the Land possest by the Vassal was part and pertinent of his Land which any Pursuer might alledge The third and old way of forcing the Vassal to exhibit his Evidents was by a Feudal Tryal per pares curiae that is to say before an Inquest for of old the King summoned his Vassals to appear before an Inquest to bring with them any Right they pretended to such or such Lands and that way is exprest in this Act as well as the other and in Statut. 36. Rob. 3. num 3. but is now in Desuetude The Lords of Session being come in place of the Inquest The Earl of Rothes as Donator to the Ward of the Countess of Buâ—cleugh having pursued the Tutors for inspection of the Charter-Chist that he might know what Lands held Ward The Lords ordained one of their own number to take inspection and to shew to the Donator what Papers could prove the Ward-holding because it is presumed that all Lands hold Ward Decem. 20. 1661. FRom this and the subsequent Acts It s observable that the Parliament may without citing parties discharge priviledges contained in private mens Rights though they cannot without citation casâ—e and annul privat Rights FOR understanding this Act It is fit to know that the distance betwixt the Hecks of Cruivs should be 3. inches wide which is renew'd by the 74. Act Parl. 10. Jac. 3. and should not be 5. inches conform to the 15. Act. Parl. 2. Jac. 4. which the Lords found 29 July 1665. to be ane error in the Printing They there also found that the Mid-stream was in Desuetude notwithstanding that it was reviv'd in all these Statutes but that the Saturndays Slop was to be observ'd in all Cruivs which was to continue by pulling up all the Hecks to the breadth of an ell in every Cruive from Saturnday at six a clock till Sunday at Sun-rising THough Mines of Gold and Silver be by this Act declar'd to belong to the King yet by the 27 Act. Parl. 4. Sess. 2. Car. 1. they were declared to belong to the Heretor he paying to the King the tenth Penny which was the Canon Metallious that was only due out of Mines found in private Fields l. 2. C. de Metal But that Act is resâ—inded in the general Act Rescissory and this Act is conform to the Feudal Law Feud lib. 2. tit quae sunt Regalia 56. It has been doubted whether Lead Copper or Tin belong to the King or the Heretor but the King is in possession of disponing upon these also and when He dispones them in a novo damus even to the Heretor He reserves a tenth part to be payed in to His Exchequer and His Majesty has granted general Gifts of all Copper-Mines and Craig tells us lib. 1. dieg 14. that omnium gentium omniumque aetatum consensu â—odinâ—s omnes auri argenti stanni aris similium in patrimonio principis numerari but yet they are not enumerate in the foresaid Text of the Feudal Law otherwise than by being comprehended under the word argentaria frequens est in jure sub majoribus minora comprehendi and yet I think that if His Majesty dispon'd Land with all the Silver-Mines this would not comprehend Copper Tin c. So that this Rule holds not in all Cases nor doth it hold in any Case where things require special Dispositions as omnia regalia do Nota From this Act to the 23. the Acts are either in desuetude of no import or explained in the Observations upon other Acts. BY this Act it is ordain'd that our Coyn be of the weight and fynness of England which was formerly ordain'd by the Ch. 38. Stat. Dav. 2. and though by the 17. Act. Parl. 1. Ja. 6. It is declar'd that Our Soveraign Lord cause Print and ConÈie Gold and Silver of sick fynness as other Countries doe yet after King James succeeded to the Crown of England He past a Contract betwixt the Mints of both Nations wherein they oblige themselves to keep the same Standart and though the denominations be different now yet the Standart is now the same For the English Denomination is 11. vnces 2. deniers fine which is call'd Sterling fyne ours is 11. deniers and 2. graine and albeit upon a very subtile inquirie It is alleadg'd that the Denominations cannot be adjusted without some difference yet it is so small a fraction as is not to be regarded and there are four indented Pieces two of Gold and two of Silver made of the same fynness and out of the same Essay-pot two whereof are sent to Scotland the one of which is kept by the Thesaurer and the other in the Mint and two are retain'd in England the Denominations are Printed upon these Pieces and in the Lord Hattons case it was found that this common Standart was to be the Rule Vid. Observation on the 249. Act 15. Parl. Ja. 6.
The last Act of this first Parliament in the Black Impression is an Inhibition made by King James the First to the Bishop of St. Andrews delegated by the Pope to proceed upon the Dismembration of a Benefice purchased at Rome Nota There are many Acts omitted out of Skeens Impression which were in that Impression because Skeen judg'd them Temporary as this Act and a Taxation impos'd for the Kings Ransome by this Parliament wherein so much was put not only upon every Boll of Victual but upon every Beast of Cattel Some Acts are also to be found in Skeen which are not in that Black Impression as the 80. Act. Parl. 10. Ja. 3. in the old Impression it is Act 79. concerning Purprision As also some Acts which were there only temporary are made by Skeen constant and perpetual Laws as the 29. Act of the 2. Parl. of this King â—uns thus in Skeen It is statute and ordain'd that the breakers of the Acts of Parliament be punish'd after the form and ordinance thereof whereas that Act runs thus in the Black Impression Item that it be enquired by the Kings Ministers gif the Statutes made in his first Parliament be kept and if they be broken in any of their pâ—nctilio's that the breakers of them be punisht after the form and ordinance of the said Parliament The Rubricks also of the Acts of that Black Impression differ almost every where and very much from this Impression which proves that Argumentum à rubro ad nigrum is of no great weight with us the Rubrick being an Inscription made by the Clerk Register and no part of the Act of Parliament King JAMES the First Parl. 2 IN the Inscription of this Parliament it is said and of his Kinrick the 19. year by which word Kinrick is meant his Reign for Kinrick in the Saxon Tongue signifies Reign and sometime Kinrick signifies Kingdome with us as in the 145. Act Parl. 13. Ja. 1. In the Inscription of this Parliament according to the Black Impression it is said that to the three Estates of the Realm there gatherit were propon'd sundry Articles to which was answer'd in manner as after-follows by the Inscription of the first Parliament according to that Impression it is said Electae fuerunt certae personae ad Articulos datos per Dominum Regem determinandos data caeteris licentia recedendi By which it appears that the Lords of Articles being nam'd the Parliament Adjourn'd and the custome was that they never mett again till the last day of the Parliament when the resolution of the Articles was voted 2. The resolution of the Articles is said to be Per Dominum Regem because he is only Law-giver and the Parliament only consents It is said in the Inscription of the third Parliament that these Articles were put to certain persons chosen by the three Estates which insinuats that the Lords of Articles were chosen by the three Estates whereas now the way of choosing the Articles is prescrib'd by the 1. Act 1. Parl Sess 3 Ch 2. BY this Act it is ordain'd that if any Lands or Possessions of Haly Kirk be wrongously annaly'd they should be restor'd by Process of Law For understanding whereof It is fit to know that Regularly the Lands and Goods of the Church are not Annaliable and Church-men are not Proprieters of them but Administrators and Liâ—renters praecarij possessores quibus tanquam commendatis non tanquam proprijs uti debent Salv. lib. 1. And this is clear by the Canon Law Canon sine exceptione 12. Quest. 2. can ult Quest. 1. and the Civil Law l. Jubemus 14. C. de sacro-sanctis Ecclesijs But yet there are three cases excepted in which it is permitted to alienat them exprest in Gloss. causae 12. Quest. 2. viz. 1. In causa necessitatis if the Churches Debts require the same as for maintainig its Fabrick or to maintain the Christian Religion against Infidels or Hereticks 2 do Causa pietatis as to maintain the Poor when starving or to redeem Prisoners from Infidels 3 tio Causa damni vitandi when the Lands are not otherwise improvable for which last there is an Act in the Lateran Council under Alexander the 3 d. Cap. ad aures Extr. de Reb. Eccles non alienand By our Law all Ecclesiastical Persons are discharg'd to lessen the Rental of their Benefices by setting Feues Tacks conversion of Victual for Money or any other Disposition By the 5 th Act. Parl. 22. Jac. 6. Bishops are discharg'd to set in Tacks their Quots and Casualities and though this last Act seems unnecessary because of the former yet it was made least it might have been debaitable whether Casualities fell under the former Prohibition since Tutors may transact for these as we see in Francies Montgomeries case against the Earl of Liven where it was found that Tutors who cannot alienat may transact for Casualities as to give a Liferent to the Husband of the Heretrix in place of the Courtesie and though Prelats aswel as Barrons were allowed to Feu their Ward Lands for the better improvement of them Act. 71. I. c. 2. Parl. 14. Act. 91. Jac. 4. Parl. 6. Yet these Acts are only to be understood of Lands to be Feu'd out for the equivalent Rent when at first they were Barren but they are no warrand to Bishops to Tax their Wards for a certain Dutie for this is contrarie to the Interest of the Church and is so far from being warranted by any Law that there is an express Act. viz. 9. Parl 23. Ja. 6. allowing them only to few out their Ward Lands by a Temporary Statute to endure for three years allanerly which shews that Regularly it was not lawful and this did prejudge the King also who might have right to the Ward and Marriage sede vacante from which he would be debarr'd by Taxing these Casualities And therefore Sharp Arch-bishop of St. Andrews having Taxt the Ward-holdings of the Lands of Blebo that Right was reduced by his Successor 12. March 1684 Though it was alleadg'd that though Church-men cannot alienat Teynds which are the Spiritualities of the Church yet they are domini and not administratores tantum as to the Temporalitie which was said to be also Craigs opinion and Taxing was a more constant Rent to the Church and as a Bishop might Gift a Ward which could not be quarelled by his Successors even for years after his Death or Removal so might he Tax Nota Though by the 41. Act Parl. 10 Ja. 2. The King may resume the annext Property unlawfully Dispon'd but any Process of Law yet in this Act Kirk-men are not to resume the Lands wrongfully annalÈied by them otherwayes than by lawful Process of Law BY this Act Hospitals founded by the King are to be visited by the Chancellor but Hospitals founded by Bishops or other Subjects are to be visited by the Bishop and ordinary which Act is renew'd by the 63. Act Parl. 5. Ja. 6. But by the
Tacks-man should retaine the Tack-dutie for Reparations was not sustained in so far as concerned the Reparations though the Reparations were necessary nor is there any tacite Hypothetick in our Law for Reparations as in the Civil Law but if the Singular Successor had known of such a Clause in the Tack the Lords inclined to think that the same had been obligator against him and yet a Singular Successor is not obliged to consider a prior Seasine except it be Registrated or a prior Disposition nor any Assigney a prior Assignation 5. February 1680. Rae contra Finlason By the Civil Law Tacks were not valid against Singular Successors l. 9. C. de locato but the Law of Holland agrees with this Statute Neolstad decis 30. THis Act was thought to have been in Desuetude till it revived by a Decision Feb. 1666. Lord Lee contra Mark Porthouse but it is yet so to be understood as that the Land set in Tack must be valued according to what it was worth when the Land was Wodset for if the Land be improved by the Wodsetter it were unjust that the Wodsetter should lose thereby and therefore a Wodsetter improving Land will not lose his Tack though the Land become worth more than twice the Tack-dutie and though it would seem that there is a contradiction in this Act because it sayes in the first Part That if any man has Wodset Lands and syne takes them for long time after the Land be quit out for half Mail or near thereby that these Tacks shall not be keeped but if they beset for the very Mail or near thereby yet the answer is that this Law was so worded to show that the Parliament designed that Tacks after Wodset should not be keeped after Wodsets are Redeemed except they be set for a Tack-dutie somewhat proportionable to the worth of Land and because this could not precisely be determined therefore by comparing these two expressions It is clear that such Tacks after Wodsets are to be sustained if they be set for more than the half of the Real-dutie though they be not for the full Dutie This Act is in effect but an exception from the former Act which having appointed all Tacks to be valid against singular Successors This Act begins But if Lands be Wodset and the Hereâ—or Granter of the Wodset be obliged to grant long Tacks for an unconsiderable Duty after the Lands are Redeemed these Tacks shall not be kept and therefore it may be argued that this Act should only defend against the Setter but not against singular Successors because the preceeding Act from which it is an exception was only conceiv'd to secure against singular Successors But to this it is answer'd that the former Act needed not secure against the Granters for they were ever and still are Sufficient against them and this Act runs not against singular Successors but in general declares such Tacks null as Exorbitant and Usurary and so should be null against all but if there be a valuable consideration to clear that they are not Forc'd and Exorbitant they will be sustain'd as in the case Polwart contra Hume January 21. 1662. where it was found that a Tack for a Dewty far within the worth to be granted after Redemption was valid because it was by one Brother to another who might have given it for a Patrimony and the Brother who got the Wodset was excluded by a Liferenter thirty six years Thir Tacks who are to begin after the Redemption of Lands Wodset are valid against singular Successors though they be not cloathed with Possession prior to the singular Successors Right because they are a part of the Reversion and not because they could not begin till the Lands were Redeem'd for if that were a good reason then a Tack whereof the Entry is deferr'd for several years should be valid against the singular Successor who had got a Disposition of the Lands long after the setting of the Tack though before the Tack was cloathed with Possession which is not true and if it were true since Tacks are not to be registrated no man should know with what Tacks Lands are burdened for this can be known no otherwise but by Possession These Tacks which are to follow Redemption are valid though they be not contained in the Wodset if they be of the same Date with the Wodset and Reversion as Hadingtoun Observes but in this case it may be doubted whether these Tacks ought not to be Registrated since all eeks to Reversion are to be Registrated or else how can a singular Successor know them and yet it is otherwise in Tacks which are to follow Redemption of Annualrents for as an Annualrent is different from the Land it being but a Servitude upon the Land so the Possession of the one cannot in Law be constructed to be the Possession of the other VId. Stat. 2 d Rob. 1. c. 12. But now SpuilÈies are pursu'd before the Lords or Sheriffs as other Civil Actions There are many severe Acts in this Kings Parliaments against SpuilÈies because there were many then committed by the Douglasses and others FEinÈied Fools and Bards and Sornars and such like Runners are by this Act to be Imprison'd and have their Ears nailed to the Trone for the first Fault and to be Hang'd for the next and such as feinÈie themselves to be Dumb are punishable by the general words of this Act or others such like Runners But it may be doubted if such punishments infer'd argumento legis can be extended beyond an arbitrary punishment and yet the feinzing ones self Dumb thereby to draw Money from the people is species falsi THe buying and keeping of Victual to a Dearth is a Crime in all Nations and is punish'd with us as Regrating by this Act it is punish'd as Usury and by Escheating the Victual and yet this punishment has never been practis'd but the ordinary course to prevent this Crime is that either the secret Council sets prices in cases of foreseen Dearth or else the Magistrates use in their respective Towns to cause break open the Doors where such Victual is kept and sell it at convenient prices which is Warranted by the 29 Act 4 Parl. Ja. 5. Vid. crim pract tit Forestallers THe escheating of old Corn-stacks that are kept longer than Èœuil was found to be in Desuetude at the Justice-air in Jedburgh 1669. and the first part of the Act ordaining all Victual bought by private persons more than will entertain their Families for that Cropt to be therefore Escheat is also in Desuetude this was punish'd in the Civil Law per. l. Jul. de annonâ and is punish'd tanquam crimen extraordinarium l. 6. ff de extraor crim and such as are guilty of it were called Dardanarij or revenditores Tholos cap 135. num 10. NOt only such as keep out their Houses upon publick accounts are punishable as Traitors but even these who keep out their Houses for
did fall under the Forefalture of the Vassal though it was not Confirm'd in the Person of the Sub-vassal and it was alleadg'd that the Sub-feu could not be quarrell'd because the King by this Act having invited men to take Sub-feus it was not just that the Invitation given by a publick Law should become a snare and having promis'd to ratifie and approve the Sub-feu that promise being insert in this publick Law was equivalent to a Confirmation and therefore should defend against a Forefalture as well as a Confirmation could have done and though these Words were alleadg'd only to import a promise to Ratifie which did imply that application should have been made for a Confirmation Yet to this it was answer'd that this was an Invitation and the Words subjoyn'd thereto must therefore be considered as a present Approbation especially seing there is no time prefixt for craving of a Confirmation nor any irritancy annex'd to the not craving thereof It was likewise urg'd that by the 91 Act Parl. 6. Ja. 4. This Sub-feuing should be no cause of Forefalture and that since this Act would defend against Ward and Recognition it should much more defend against Forefalture upon Treason for that being a most personal crime of which not only the Sub-vassal is innocent but oft-times concurs with the King against his own Supeâ—iour the poor Sub-vassal ought therefore to be less troubled upon it than upon Recognition to which the Sub-vaâ—sal himself is somewhat accessory because he receives the Right upon which the Recognition is infer'd And whereas it was urg'd that by the 37 Act Parl. 2 Ja. 6. The Sub-vassals of the Kings Vassals who were Forefalted at that time are secured if themselves were innocent which Act had been unnecessary if this Act had secured them and that Act is declar'd to have been only Temporary pro eâ vice by the 201 Act Parl. 14 Ja. 6. To this it was answer'd that by this Act such Sub-feus are only allow'd as are set for the just avail and all other Feus might have been quarrell'd and therefore that Act was made to secure the Sub-vassals of Forefalted Persons whose Rights might have been quarrell'd upon that head or else that Act has been made ad majorem cautelam and to prevent all debate which is most usual Upon this Debate the Lords found that this Sub-feu fell not under the Forefalture this general Law being equivalent to a Confirmation February 12. 1674. Marquess of Huntly contra Cairuburrow It has also been Debated whether Wodsets Feu'd out are secur'd against this Act as well as Lands irredeemably Dispon'd and I think they are since a Wodset Right is as properly a Feu as an irredeemable Right What is meant in this Act by the competent avail for which Ward Lands may be feu'd is dubious but the just avail for which the Kings proper Lands may be feu'd is by several Acts of Parliament declar'd to be the Retour-dewty or new extent and therefore I think that the competent avail here must also be interpreted to be the Retour-dewty and in January 1680. betwixt the same parties it was found that though the competent avail be the Retour-dewty exprest in his Service yet the Sub-vassal getting a part of the Lands feu'd to him he ought to pay no more for the competent avail but his proportion of his Superiours Retour-dewty and that if a Charter was given him blank by his Superiour which he fill'd up himself with a special Reddendo the Charter was not therefore null and he was only lyable in his just proportion of the said Retour'd-dewty and the Vassal if he pleases may by a Process against his Superiour get this competent avail to which his share should extend determin'd and that being specifi'd in his Service will thereafter become his Retour-dewty though ordinarly the Sub-vassal to prevent expence or by mistake uses to Retour the Dewty that was payable by his Superiour especially if the difference be not great THe punishment of such as abuse the power of their Jurisdiction of Regality is left arbitrary by this Act. vid. c. 14. Stat. Rob. 2. THis Act is Explain'd in the 96 Act 6 Parl. Ja. 4. BY this Act all Remissions are null except the Party injur'd be Assythed and he who produces the Remission must either find sufficient Caution to pay the Assythment within fourty days or to stay in Prison till the payment and by the 155 Act 12 Parl. Ja. 6. and 136 Act 8 Parl. Ja. 6. It is provided that if the Remiâ—sion contain not an Assythment expresly in the body of it the Remission shall be null but because these Acts were Temporary therefore by the 174 Act Parl 13 Ja. 6. If any Remission or Respit be granted before the Party injur'd be first satisfi'd the Remission is to be null and though by that last Act it would seem that an Assythment subsequent to the Remission would not make the Remission to convalesce because that Act requires that the Remission shall be null as said is yet the meaning of that Act seems only to be that without an Assythment the Remission shall be null From the same Act exception is made of Remissions granted for quieting the Highlands or Borders which may be valid without Assythment Gratiâ factâ a principâ— nocenti non valet nisi pax sit prius habita ab haeredibus offensi which we call a Letter of Slains vel nisi fiat reparatio damnorum Plot. concil 78. Clar. Quest. 58. num 40. ubi traditur posse Regem tamen gratiare nocentem sine pace privati quando damnandus elaborasset pro bono reipublicae vid. l. non omnes § fin ff de re milit The second part of this Act relates to Remissions for SpuilÈieâ— or Theft as to which the Lords of the Session may restore the Party and Assyth him notwithstanding of the Remission By this Act no Free-holder can be forc'd to come to Parliament except he hold a twenty pound Land of the King but none can be now compell'd and this was only in the time when all Free-holders were oblig'd to compear in Parliament as the Kings Head-Court nor can any now Vot in the election of the Commissioners except they hold a 40 shilling Land of the King immediatly or hold ten Chalders of Victual or a 1000 pound Feu-dewty all deducted off a Bishop or Abbot formerly and hold the same now of the King Act 35 Par. 1 Ch. 2. But now again since the restitution of Bishops the Bishops represent their own Land in particular and so their Vassals are not allow'd to sit in Parliament vid. Act 21 Par. 3 Ch. 2. THe negligence so severely punish'd in Judges by this Act must be negligentia dolosa supina and the distinction here observ'd betwixt the punishment of Heretable Officers and others is ordinary amongst the Doctors Bald. ad l. 1. ff de serv. fugitiv where he says that pro negligentia Judex
dwelling therein and yet I think they should not be Sanctuaries if they dwell not there except that allowance be granted them either by express Concession or Prescription but these gave not Protection to such as were notorious Criminals Novel Justin. 17. cap. 5. verb. Neque homicidis neque adulteris neque Virginum Raptoribus delinquentibus terminorum custodies cautelam sed etiam inde extrahes supplicium iis inferes non enim talia delinquentibus parcere convenit c. And now I find not that any of the Kings Palaces are Sanctuaries as to Cryms with us and in no case should they be a Sanctuary against searching for and apprehending Malefactors as is clear l. 3. ff de fugitiv Div. Marcus facultatem dedit ingrediendi tam Caesaris quam Senatorum praedia volentibus fugitivos inquerere The ConÈie-house pretends also to be a Sanctuary with us This priviledge of a Sanctuary was only granted to Holy and Consecrated Places and amongst Protestants no Consecrations are in use but yet according to the Canon-Law Churches even before Consecration are generally thought by Lawyers to have that immunitie vid. Covar variar resolut cap. 20. num 4. And albeit this Priviledge be properly a Canonical Priviledge yet it cannot be denyed but that the very Churches of the Gentiles had this Priviledge as is clear by Tâ—â—ucid lib. 7. and was approved of by Councils and Fathers who are cited cap. 17. Quest. 4. Praesertim cap. Miror cap. pen. fin de Immunitate Ecclesiâ—st vid num cap. 35. Iâ—sua cap. 20. Deuter. cap. 19. Exod. cap. 21. But though by the Canon Law 40. Paces about the Mother-Church and 30 about other Churches had the same Priviledge of Immunitie albeit Skeen speaks only of the 30. paces in his Annotations ad cap. 6. Statut. Alex. 2 d. Yet I read of no such Priviledge to either the 30. or the 40. paces nor to the Palaces of Bishops nor to Hospitals vid. Covar ibid. BEfore this Act the Tennent might have been Poynded by the Brief of Distres for all the personal Debt owing by his Master but by the first part of this Act it is appointed that the Tennents shall be poynded only for as much as they owe their Master which did hold only in poynding for moveable Debts for in Decreets of poynding the Ground the Creditor might have poynded all he found upon the Ground and all invecta illata though the Tennent owed not so much to the Master yea though he owed him nothing as was found 11. July 1628. And though the Tennents Term of payment were not come if the Term of payment of the Annualrent were by-past and they who were so poynded had their relief of the Heretor for whose Debt they were poynded but now the Lords extends this Act so as to defend Tennents against poynding upon Infertments of Annualrent granted by the Master so that execution cannot passe against them for more than they owe their Master as to which only they can be personally lyable and their Goods or invecta illata can bâ— only poynded but yet this was not properly an Extension for debita fundi are the Heretors or Lords Debt since the Heretor is personally and the Land is really lyable therefore This Act extends only to Tennents of Lands but not to Tennents of Teinds who cannot be poynded for their Masters Debt 14. January 1556. The second part of this Statute prescribes the way of Appryzing Lands from Debitors and it is the Original Statute whereupon Apprysings are founded in our Law and it seems strange that so material a part of our Law should not have an entire Statute but should have been brought in at the close of another and less important case The form prescribed to Compryzings by this Statute is that if the Creditor cannot recover payment by poynding the Moveables the Sheriff shall cause sell the Land to the avail of the Debt and from this Act it is that to this day the Moveables must first be fought and though the Appryzing will be null for want of this Solemnitie yet the offering to prove that there were as many Moveables upon the Lands as might pay the Debt will not reduce the Compryzing except these Moveables were offered to the Messenger when he was executing the appryzing and when the Scheduls of appryzing were laid on upon the ground of the Lands tantum creditur nuncio referenti se fecisse executionem in stabilibus quia non â—â—tâ—bant bona mobilia debitoris quod non auditur volens probare contrarium ad annullandam executionem Surd. Concil num 1. lib. 1. This Solemnitie descends from l. 15. § 2. de re Jud. by which Moveables were first to be poynded and then Immoveables failÈing of these and was formerly introduc'd into this Nation by the cap. 9. Stat. 2 d. Rob. 1. By this Act it is appointed that the Lands be appryzed to the avail of the Debt this proportion was long observed and much was referred to the arbitriment of the Judge and Inquest Balfour who collects the oldest Decisions and such as were about the time of the Institution of the Colledge of Justice in his title of Comprizings chap. 3. gives this for a Rule that ilk twenty shilling Land of old extent was comprized to twenty Merks 4 July 1533. James Heren contra Henrie Livel and ilk Mark Land of yearly profit was to be Comprized to twenty Merks of Stock which answered to five for the hundred penult May 1589. Adam Dickson contra John Carhattel penult March 1539. But I have seen diverse old Comprizing led about this time at the instance of George Lord Seaton and Lady Jean Hepburn his Mother against some Vassals and Wodsetters in the Barony of West-niddery in Linlithgow Shire where more then five of the hundred was allowed as will appear by computation one of these Comprizings dated 18. March 1523. bears 21. Aikers with 12. shilling Scots per aiker to have been appryzed in payment of two hundred and fourty pounds of principal due to the said Lord George and a second Comprizing also led at his instance dated 17. December 1541. bears 25 Aikers and two parts of an Aiker of infield land to have been appryzed in payment of two hundred and fourty pounds of principal due to the said Lord George and a 〈◊〉 Compryzing also led at his instance dated 17. December 1541. bears 25. Aikers and two parts of an aiker of infield to have been apprized for payment of three hundred and fourty two pounds of principle each aiker being valued to a merk of yearly Rent a third Appryzing at his instance dated 6. Feb. 1544. bears 20. Aikers and a half to have been appryzed for 244. lib of principal ilk aiker being valued to 15. shilâ—ing of yearly Rent and a fourth Comprizing dated 5 th May 1547. bears 18. Aikers to have been apprized in payment of two hundred and twenty merks principal and the Rent of an aiker to be valued
aestimatio rei creditae creverit aut decreverit yet in Money perpetua est aestimatio l. 1. ff de contra hend Empt. For clearing of which Question Vid. Vin. Quest. Select lib. 1. cap. 39. and so this Act is in Desuetude Vid. Act 19 Ja. 3 Par. 3. But though Debts upon privat Obligations were to be paid with Money at the same avail that the Money was at the time of the Contract and not the time of the payment Yet the Kings Taxations and publick Dues were by the Kings own Concession to be paid according to the value of the Money at the time of the payment and are not to be exacted in Money according as the Money was worth before it was cry'd up Vid. last Act Par. 3 Ja. 3. It has been much doubted whether it was true Policie to cry up Money for though this seems to be an encouragement to forraigners to Export our Commodity of which we have too much and to Import Money of which we have too little Yet it is urg'd on the other hand that in crying up Money we do but undervalue our own Commoditie and our own Land and raise the value of Money which is the Commodity of a forraign Countrey such as Spain and other places who have Mines as for instance if we have use for carrying our Money abroad Forraigners will only give us Commodities conform to the intrinsick value for they will not consider our raising of it and so he who got the Money which was so rais'â— is cheated in as much as the Money is rais'd above the intrinsick value 2 o. As to our own Commodities at home either they are rais'd to the same proportion with the Money and then forraign Merchants will not bring in Money for our Commoditie because they can gain nothing by bringing it in and so we lose the design of raising our Money or else the Commodities are not rais'd in value to the Money and so the forraign Merchant does only cheat us as for instance if our Money be rais'd a tenth part the forraign Merchant gives us only nine Pieces for ten 3 o. This raises the Exchange to our great loss for he who draws the Bills upon London or Paris considering that our ten Pieces are but nine there he will add the value of a tenth Piece to the Exchange 4 o. If forraign Princes find we have advantage by this raising of our Money they will either raise their own to the same proportion and then we shall have no gain or to a higher and then we shall have loss and at best diâ—ferent raisings of Money will occasion but great variation and uncertainty in Coyns COurts of Guerra here forbidden seem to have been Courts holden upon Neighbour-feid and Riots and Skeen founds them upon § ult tit 17. de pac tenend lib. 2. de feud Si ministeriales alicujus domini inter se Guerram habuerint comes sive judex in cujus regimine eam fecerint per leges judicia ex ratione prosequatur King IAMES the third Parliament 9. THis Act is Ratifi'd by the Act 30 Par. 11 Ja. 6. Vid. Observ. on that Act. King JAMES the third Parl. 10. THough all men be allow'd to bring in Victual from forraign Countries by this Act yet the Importation of Victual from Ireland is Prohibited by Act 3 Sess. 3 Par. 2. Ch. 2. THe Act concerning Cruives is explain'd in the Act 11 Par. 1 Ja. 1. Which is the Act here related to THis Act appointed the taking more than just â—raught to be a point of Dittay because it was oppression and irregular exaction and this is still taken up as dittay in Circuit Courts yet the Council does also punish it and I think the Master of the Ground where the Ferry is may punish such irregular Exactions THe unlaw of such as burn Muires is by this Act five pounds which is renew'd Act 71 Par. 6 Ja. 4. but by the 11 Act Par. 4 Ja. 5. The punishment is five pounds for the first time ten for the second and twenty for the third time and these penalties are Ratifi'd Act 84 Par. 6 Ja. 6. THe using other Barrels than the Hamburg Measure is made point of Dittay because other Barrels were lookt on as false Measure but our Barrel now is ten gallons for Salmond and eight and an half for Herring THe Act here related to is Act 7 Par. 1 Ja. 1. Where this Act is Explain'd PVrprusion is the usurping and appropriating our Superiours Lands or High-wayes and Purpresture is much now in Desuetude The ordinary Remedy now being actions of Molestation or Declarators of Property but Purprâ—sion is not absolutely in Desuetude For by the 5 Act 16 Par Ja. 6. It is ordain'd that such as Till the Kings Parks or Commonties shall be lyable in Purprusion and punish'd according to the old â—aws the same being Try'd either by way of Molestation or before the Lords of Session and the old Punishment was an arbitrary Punishment and the loss of his Lands which he held of the King and the reason why that Act did appoint the Tryal to be by Molestation before the Lords was because of old it was only Try'd by an Assize before the Justices Vid. lib. 1. cap. 5. num 4. lib. 2. cap. 74. R. M. It is doubted whether Vassals of Regalities Building upon the Streets of Burghs of Regalitie may be punish'd for Purpresture or whether the Building a Foot or two furder than formerly even in Burghs Royal would infer that punishment From these words of the Act That nae Vassal nor Sub-vassal or other Tennent under the Baron has Power or Jurisdiction to hold a Court. It is fit to observe that this holds not only in Purprusion though that be the case mention'd in this Act but generally Vassals nor Sub-vassals cannot hold Courts except they be Infest cum curiis and even then they have only power to hold Courts for payment of their own Rents or such other things as necessarly follow the labouring of Land except the Vassal be a Baron in which case he has power to jâ—dge ryots and unlaw for Bloodwits as Sheriffs do This Act is not â—o be found in the black Impression There is an Act omitted by Skeen which is the last in the black Impression whereby the Parliament delegats their full Parliamentary power to some of their Number for hearing some Ambaciâ—itors and deciding some Causes licet delegatus non potest delegare and such Delegations of the Supream Power may be dangerous King JAMES the third Parliament 11. THough this Act appoints Barons and Lords who led their own Men or Vassals at that time to the Host to be lyable for the skaith they do in coming to the KINGS Host Yet this Act is now upon the parity of Reason extended to all Officers who are now come in place of these It may be alleadg'd from this Act that it is not lawful for such
their advice in which case nemo tenetur de concilio nisi doloso aut fraudulento But it may be infer'd from this Act that regulariter Counsellours are not lyable for what they do else this Act had been needless obliging them to be lyable only till the next Parliament But it is also observable that this Act was made by these who had risen in rebellion against King James the third under pretext of his Sons Command though in effect they forced him when he was a Child to head them against his Father and in this Act they force him to make use of their Counsel and yet the Act bears only that the King humbled himself to abide at their Counsel the same persons made an Act declaring that Rebellion lawful which is yet extant amongst the black Acts but was Expung'd as most abominable and Rebellious THough this Act appoints that our Gold and Silver shall be of the fineness of Brudges yet by the 96 Act 13 Par. Ja. 3. and 56 Act 6 Par. Q. M. the Silver is to be eleven penny fine and the Gold twenty two Carret fine so that the best Money being but twelve penny fine and the best Gold twenty four Carret fine there is a twelfth part of alley allow'd in either and so our Silver-work and our Coyn should be of the same fineness but this Act has been in Desuetude as to Silver-work for which the Gold-smiths alleadge that the people are to be blam'd and not they since the people will not go to the price and they do the people no wrong since they proportion the price to the intrinsick value We observe both in our Plate and Coyn the same Standart with England but the Standart of the French Plate is finer than their Coyn to discourage their Subjects from having much Plate and encouraging them to bring it to the Mint for current Money The reason that is alleadg'd why this alley is allow'd to both Gold and Silver is commonly said to be because they are not malliable without some mixture of Copper but the contrary will appear to these who use to refine Silver with Lead and Gold with Antimony by which Gold and Silver may be brought to the exactest fineness without all mixture and they are then most malliable and soft but the true reason why the Copper is added is because without it both Gold and Silver would be too soft and so too much subject to wearing and loss as appears in the English Rose-nobles and the double of Hungarian Ducats and the Venetian Cequins for which cause the Emperor now adds more Copper to his Ducats and the English make no more Rose-nobles or any other Gold so fine IS formerly Explain'd in the 11 Act Par. 1 Ja. 1. THe Prince of Scotland was Earl of Cumberland whilst that Countrey belong'd to this Crown but when the Steuarts came to the Crown which was in the Reign of Rob. the 2. Their Heretage which was Renfrew c. was Erected in a Principality That there was such an Erection is clear from the Revocations made by K. Ja. 5. and K. Ja. 6. Where all Dispositions of Lands annex'd to the principality are Revocked but the Erection it self is lost However to supply that the Rights made by the King bear still to be as Prince when there is no Prince and as Administrator to the Prince when there is a Prince and the Revenue of the Principality is manag'd in cumulo with the rest of the Kings Revenue when there is no Prince but when there is a Prince he has a Chamberlain who receives and compts for the principality a part It was debated January 1680. whether when there was no Prince existing the Vassals who held of the Prince were to be repute Vassals holding of the King immediatly or as Vassals holding still of the Principality and so holding of a Subject the Principality being still a distinct See whereof the King had only the Administration But it was found by the Lords that when there was no Prince they held of the King and therefore they found that the Laird of Lusses Marriage fell to the Kings Donator though it was alledg'd that his Marriage of these Lands could not fall to the King since he held other Lands Taxt Ward of the King and he who holds Lands of the King is not lyable in a Marriage for Lands holden of a Subject and consequently he being content to pay the Taxt Marriage to the King the ordinary avail of his Marriage could not be crav'd for Lands which he held of the Prince who was but a Subject The reasons of which Decision were 1 o. That Appanages given to Children do in their own nature imply to be only Temporary and whilst the Child exists to whom it is provided for an Appanage and therefore since we have not the foundation of the Principality it self we must construct it to have been thus erected 2 o. By this Act it is ordain'd that when there is no Prince the Vassals of the Principality shall come to Parliament and none can come to Parliament 〈◊〉 such as hold of the King and that same Act says till the King have a Son who shall be immediat betwixt the King and them which clearly demonstrats that till there be a Son they hold immediatly of the King 3 o. This is yet more clear by the 16 Act 1 Par. Ch. 1. and the 58 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. Whereby Lands holding of the King and Prince are aequiparate quoad all legal effects 4 o. When the Kings comes to any Estate jure privato by Succession or Forefalture these Lands alter their nature and the Vassals hold of the King as King and are not consider'd as holding of a Subject as formerly and therefore the same should hold when the principality by the not existing of a Prince returns to the Crown 5 o. By an express Decision observ'd by Dury It is found that whilst there is a Prince the Lands of the Principality hold of the Prince but when there is no Prince they hold of the King 6 o When there is no Prince the King Dispones the Casualties and sometimes the Lands as he does these of his own Property and it were absurd to assert that when there is no Prince the King Dispones as Administrator for else he behov'd to be comptable nor can there be an Administrator where there is no Pupil but the King is term'd sometimes an Administrator ex errore stili or ad majorem cautelam or else the King is truly made to Dispone both as King and Prince to keep up the Principality as a distinct Fee and Erection lest otherwise the knowledge of the Lands might perish the Erection being lost 7 o. This is clear by the practice of forraign Nations Perez ad tit 1. lib. 10. cod num 10. Terrae quae in Appanagium dantur penes domanium semper manent solo usufructu provisionaliâ—er concesso alias contingeret Regium Domanium
consultum in iis quae usu consumuntur § 3. just de usufruct l. 1. ff de usufructu earum rer quae usu consum But all this matter is learnedly Treated by Christin ad Consuetud Mechliâ— tit 14. where he determines that the lesser and temporary expences are to be bestow'd by the Liferenter but that she will get 〈◊〉 from the Heretor of these expences quae perpetuam rei utilita tem concernunt if she advertise the Heretor that they were necessary and first desir'd him to repair but that she cannot by her Reparation alter the form of the thing though for the better nor use it otherways than the Proprietar himself did By the former Act Ja. 4 Par. 3 cap. 25. to which this relates the Liferenters are to find Caution that they shall not destroy the Orch-yards Woods c. From which it may be observ'd that where Woods are upon Liferented Lands the Liferenter as well as the Conjunct-fiar may make use of as much of the Wood or Coal as is necessary for her own use since she is only restrain'd by this Act from wasting and by the custom of some Countreys she cannot pretend Right to Trees fallen by Winds or accidents if the Trees be such as are fit for sale in sylvâ caedua ita inâ—isionem facere potest ut ad fructum pertineat non vere ad destructionem vid. l. ex sylva 10. ff de usufruct which agrees with our Law by which the Liferentrix has only right to as much of the Coals or Trees as are necessary for her own use but even this Right is only due to her whilst the Land is the Fiars but does not hinder the Fiar to sell his own Land Craig pag. 189. FOrestallers are these who buy Goods before they come to an open Mercat and Regraters are properly only these who buy up all Goods that they may sell them again at dearer rates But our Law has us'd these two words promiscuously though by this Act such as buy any thing before it be presented to the Mercat or who buy it in the Mercat but before the Mercat be proclaim'd which is call'd here the time of day of the Mercat are punish'd as Forestallers yet there must be something of design proven as if they should stand in the way upon a Mercat day or should every day cause buy up what were going to such a Town to hinder the Traffick of that Town for it were hard to make generally all who buy things going to a Town or a Mercat Forstalling for that may be done either ignorantly or necessarly Though the punishment here be Imprisonment and escheating of the Defenders Moveables yet by the 148 Act Par. 12 Ja. 6. The punishment is ordain'd to be fourty pounds for the first fault a hundred for the second and escheating of Moveables for the third and though severals have been found guilty of Forstalling as particularly upon the 9. of June 1596. and the 6. of August that year yet I find no punishment follow'd The Chamberlain of old was the only Judge in his Chamberland-air cap. 35 Stat. Will. Reg. But now the Justices are only competent Judges to this Crime they were call'd Dardanarii by the Civil Law and were punish'd poenâ extraordinariâ l. 6. ff de extraor crim THis Act is innovated and enlarg'd by the Act i6 Sess. 3 Ch. 2 Par. 1. ALL Officers within Burgh are discharg'd to purchase Lordships out of Burgh least they give dreadure to their Neighbours by which they are as I conceive discharg'd to be Lords of Session or Lord Barons or at least they lose their Offices how soon they attain to these Each Burgh does to this day compt in Exchequer for their Feu-dewty yearly conform to this and other Acts. It was thought that a pursuit against the Magistrats of Edinburgh for compting for their Common good upon this Act was not competent at the Instance of a privat Burgess or of any save the Lord Thesaurer of the Kingdom who comes in place of the Chamberlain Air though it was said to be actio popularis and a species of suspectae tutelae but this would have given too great occasion to Faction and would have discourag'd Magistracy too much nor are such popular actions in matters of Government to be easily allow'd under Monarchy though they are necessary in privat Rights THough this Act appoint such as trouble Burrows in using their Liberties to be punish'd in Justice Courts as common oppressors yet this is in Desuetude except the oppression be very attrocious but the ordinary remedy is now either by actions of Molestation or declarator of Property before the Session or by actions of Ryot before the Privy Council COlonel Borthwick having gotten a Gift of this penal Statute pursu'd the Malt-men criminally thereupon which Pursuit was discharg'd by the Council 1672. upon a Bill and these Statutes found to be in Desuetude and impracticable in this age wherein Malt cannot be sold for two shilling more than the price of the Boll of Bear as this Act appoints BY our Law all single Escheats fall to the King for bona mobilia sunt allodialia and hold not of the ordinary Superior who has no Right jure proprio to the Escheats of such as dwell within his Territory and thus Lords of Regality have only right to such Escheats by their Erection from the King But the Liferent-escheats which fall either for civil or criminal Causes belong to immediat Superiors respective so that if a Vassal who is at the Horn have Lands holden of many Superiors each Superior will have right to the Land which holds of himself for Feus being given for service and the Vassal being nullus in jure by his Rebellion the Feu returns to the Superior except in the case of Treason in which it falls to the King Observe from this Act that the Lords of Articles are Judges to Processes in the first instance but the Debate must be resum'd to the Parliament BY this Act Justice-airs and Courts are peremptor at the second Diet but by the Act 79 Par. 11 Ja. 6. they are peremptor at the first Diet and parties not appearing now are unlaw'd if pursuers and are declar'd Fugitive if Defenders at the first Diet. Vid. observ on Act 39 Par. 5 Ja. 3. supra This Act relates to another Act of Parliament dated the 10. of July 1625. but there is no Parliament amongst our Printed Laws of that date THough by this Act Depredations Reiffs and SpuilÈies are ordain'd to be first civily pursu'd yet the Justices use to sustain Criminal Pursuits for these causes in the first instance except a defence be propon'd upon matter of Right as if the Defender alleadg'd he had a Disposition or other Right and in these cases the Justices superceed to give answer to the Criminal Pursuit till the Civil Right and Title be first discust and this the Privy Council uses to do in
Rob. 1. They who take Lands to Champart are to be in the Kings will and lose their employment for all their life-time Champart is a â—rench word signifying a part of the Land controverted so that whosoever takes part of the thing controverted per pactum de quotâ litis falls under that Law By this Act whoever takes Rewards or Buds are punishable by tinsel of Honour Fame and Dignity and by the 93 Act 6 Par. Ja. 6. the taking by their Wives and Servants which was here omitted is punishable by Infamy Deprivation and Confiscation of all the Defenders Moveables By this Act giving of partial counsel that is to say consulting is declared a species of Bribing though nothing be taken at least it is punishable as bribing so that it seems a Judge may not consult albeit he abstain from judging in that cause These words That he shall take no further Rewards nor Buds than is permitted of the Law are set down to shew that Judges may lawfully take the Quota allowed by Law to Judges which we call Sentence-money and the Civil Law Sportulae The taking Bribes was in the Civil Law punish'd per l. Jul. repetundarum l. 1 3 6. d. t. And the punishment was death if Money was taken to pronounce a Capital Sentence or Confiscation of Goods and Banishment in other cases l. 7. § 3. eod tit but by the Doctors and in our Law this Crime is called Barratrie Such as defame Judges as Bribers are punished here as Bribers but besides the poena talionis which is inflicted upon all such as murmure against Judges there is likewise an Arbitrary punishment adjected and either the King or his Council are Judges competent to the cognition of this Crime by this Act. Nota That if a Spiritual Man murmure against any Judge he has the priviledge to be called before his own Judge ordinar by this Act but this revocatio sori is not now in use since the Reformation BAse Infeftments are these which are given to be holden of the Disponer which are valid Rights in themselves though they never attain possession for else they could not give good Interest to reduce the Rights that may hinder them to attain possession These base Infeftments are introduced with us contrary to the principles of the Feudal Law which allows no Feudal conveyance without the Superiors consent and were introduc'd rather by accident than upon design This Act upon which they are founded being introduc'd rather to suppress simulate Infeftments than to strengthen base Infeftments and the great priviledges arising to them now did insensibly grow from the favour which our Law shewed alwayes to lawful Creditors even as the priviledge of necessitating Superiors to receive Comprizers did Base Infeftments though yet wanting possession are preferable to posterior Arrestments but they are not preferred to posterior Life-rent Escheats except they attained possession in cursu rebellionis Feb 21. 1667. Miln contra Clerkson and before this Act of Parliament 1540. they were still preferr'd to posterior publick Infeftments But by this Act it is statuted that publick Infeftments cloathed with Possession for year and day shall be preferr'd to base Infeftments not cloathed with possession though prior which praesumptione juris de jure are by this declared to be simulate Rights But though this Act requires that the publick posterior Infeftment be granted for onerous Causes yet a publick posterior Infeftment though gratuitous will be preferr'd 3 March 1626. Law con Balgownie But this may be doubted because of this Act and in that Decision the publick Infeftment was preferr'd because Inhibition had follow'd thereupon for any Act that can take off the presumption of simulation and which will make the Infeftment any way to be known doth fortifie the Infeftment as well as if possession had follow'd and so an Inhibition following upon the debt for which the base Infeftment was granted will prefer that Infeftment to a posterior publick Infeftment without necessity to reduce ex capite Inhibitionis and an Infeftment following upon an Appryzing was without reduction ex capite Inhibitionis preferr'd to a prior base Infeftment though clad with possession because the Appryzing follow'd upon a debt whereupon Inhibition was serv'd before that base Infeftment the said 3 of March 1626. And likewise if other diligence was done or the time was so short that a years possession could not be attain'd then a Terms possession was sustain'd or though there followed no possession at all the base Infeftment will be preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment interveening before the possession could be acquir'd 13 Feb. 1624. Possession likewise of a part of the Land sustains the Infeftment for all but this should hold only in Lands erected in a Barony or such wherein one Seasing may serve 5 Feb. 1668. Ker contra Ker. Hope in his lesser Practiques is of opinion that in the concourse of two base Infeftments the prior will be preferr'd in petitorio though no possession follow'd thereupon which seems to be reasonable because before this Act of Parliament jus illud obtinebat and by this Act Nihil quoad hoc est innovatum yet de practicâ a base Infeftment is as null till it be cloathed with possession as an Infeftment à me is before it be confirmed If neither of the two base Infeftments be cloathed with possession prior in tempore est prior in jure The Husbands possession was alledg'd to be the Wifes possession as to her principal but not quoad her additional Joynture 7 Decemb. 1664. Lady Craig contra Lord Loure and in our Law the Husbands possession is accounted the Wifes possession whether the Husband possest by himself or by Wod-setters or Comprizers deriving right from him though it was alledg'd that this was not the Husbands possession they having possest proprio jure which priviledge is not only introduc'd ob savorem detis but because she could not possess for which reason likewise a base Infeftment for relief is preferr'd to a posterior publick Infeftment upon a Comprizing albeit the Cautioner was only charged to make payment which was found a sufficient distress 28 July 1625. As also after a solemn dispute the Lords did prefer a prior base Infeftment for warrandice though not cloathed with natural possession to a posterior publick Infeftment 9 January 1666. Brown contra Scot. But here the Infeftment of warrandice was given simul semel with the Infeftment of the principal Lands so that there remains still a doubt as to Infeftments of warrandice given ex intervallo but Infeftments for relief were not found sufficiently cloath'd with possession by payment of the Sums for which they were granted as Infeftments of warrandice are by possession of the principal Lands because it was alledg'd that it was more natural that the possession of one Land should cloath the Infeftment of another than that possession of Annualrents should cloath an Infeftment of Land and that there might be greater collusion in payment
bound to pay the Debt in the Horning by his Gift THough this Act requires that Seasins within Burgh should be subscrived by the Clerk and given by the Bailie of the Burgh yet the Lords sustain'd a Seasine of Lands within Burgh given by the Sheriff and Sheriff-Clerk where there were no Magistrats or Town Clerk in Office at the time that the Seasine was given 21 July 1666. Thomson contra Mackitrick This is one of the instances that necessitas non habet legem vid. 11 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. THis Act was but temporary and so is useless now THis Act is Ratified by the 15 Act 2 Par. Ch. 2. and the reason why Maltmen are discharg'd to have a Deacon is because at their meetings they might easily conspire to set a price upon the Victual and upon the Ale and Beer at their pleasure and force the Gentlemen to sell at any rates IT may seem strange that this Act made by Q. Mary should be insert here but that Parliament holden upon the 19 day of April 1567. is not at all Printed and therefore it has been thought fit to insert this Act in favours of the reform'd Religion amongst her Sons Acts and to let it continue in her name because it might clear that her Majesty had consented thereto in her own Reign This Act bears an acknowledgment of the Queens deriving her Authority Royal from God which has been insert by our Reformers to show their abhorrency of their opinion who think that our Monarchs derive their power from the people THere is no such Parliament as that here mention'd to be held upon the 29 of December 1567. and therefore the 33 Act is here renew'd but it was needless to have made a special Act for allowing this to be Printed for both these Acts 32 and 33 might and should have been one vid. obs on this Act in my Crim. Tit. Treason King JAMES the sixth Parliament 2. BY this Act it is clear that Commissions for Regents of the Kingdom were then subscrived whereas they are now superscrived and were then past under the Privy Seal as all Factories Assignations or other private Rights granted by the King are as yet but now all such publick Trusts are past under the Great Seal Nota What was then a Regent is now a Commissioner which word is but late and the Regent was then called Protector The first Commissioner mention'd in our Laws is the Earl of Montrose for the Parliament 1604. but that Inscription speaks nothing of a Commission under the Great Seal as all subsequent Inscriptions do from the year 1607. and downwards Many Acts in this and the ensuing Parliament bear With advice of the Regent three Estates and hail Body of the Parliament which words the hail Parliament seems superfluous for the King and the three Estates are the hail Parliament But this was probably inserted either to show the unanimity of the Parliament or to include the Officers of State because they are not comprehended under any of the three Estates and this may be adduc'd to redargue their opinion who think that the Officers of State did not sit in Parliament till the Parliament 1633. nor do they yet sit as such in the Parliament of England For I find them marked in the Sederunts very anciently but differently for though now they are called and are also marked down in the Sederunts after the Lord Barons and are therefore called Lords yet sometimes the Sederunt adds after the Burghs Together with the Officers of State and the Sederunt of the Par. 15 bear That the Kings Majesty and Officers of State declare the Parliament to run and ordain the Articles to meet IT is fit to know that all Alienations and Dispositions made by persons who were thereafter forfeited for Crimes of Treason are null if they be made post commissum crimen though they be made before Sentence or Declarator and that though it may be pretended that in some latent Crimes of Treason such as where Treason is inferr'd for concealing and not revealing Treason the Subjects could not know the Committers guilt and so might bargain with them or take rights from them but yet such Heretable Rights are declar'd null because the King having Feued out his Lands he is not obliged to acknowledge any singular Successors except their Rights were confirm'd sibi imputent who did not confirm This Act is ratified by the 65 Act 5 Par. Ja. 6. and all former practiques contrary thereto are rescinded which clause in that Ratification was necessary because as Sinclair observes in his old Practiques there had been several Decisions past in favours of the Earl of Mortouns Creditors sustaining Rights made by the Earl of Mortoun who was after 20 years latent guilt convict for concealing the design of murthering the Earl of Lennox Queen Maries Husband As these Acts strike against Heretable Rights made by forfeited persons so by the 202 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. all Bonds Obligations Factories Pensions and Assignations granted by forfeited persons are declared null except these Rights be confirmed by the King or authorized by a Decreet of the Judge before the citing of the persons forfeited from which Act it may be inferr'd Arg. legis that such Rights granted post commissum crimen but before citation are valid though not confirmed by a Decreet if they were granted for true debts prior to the committing of the Crime since this Act runs only against fraudulent Dispositions as also for the same reason it may be urg'd that where such personal Rights are granted meerly to defraud the Fisk they would be null though confirmed as said is for else a man being to commit the Crime of Treason might purposely dispone his Moveables to prejudge the Fisk. Nota That such Moveable Rights Confirmed as said is will only be a ground for diligence against the forefaulted persons Moveables even as if the saids Moveables had fallen to the King by single Escheat but they will not be a ground of diligence against a forefaulted persons real Estate Nota That as Gifts of forefaulted Lands can only be past under the great Seal so the forefaulted persons Moveables should be regularly Gifted under the Privy Seal being as to the King the same way of Transmission that an Assignation is to a privat party but in the Earl of Argil's case it was found that the Moveables of the forefaulted person might be likewise transmitted under the Great Seals THough by this Act the Superiors forefaulture does not prejudge the Vassals who are innocent yet this Act is expresly abrogated by the 201 Act 14 Par. Ja. 6. and by our Law the Vassals Rights are null except they be Confirmed or unless he has originally consented to them or unless the Feus be set in the Terms of the Act 71 Par. 14 Ja. 2. From this Act it may be urg'd that since by a special Law Vassals of persons forefaulted in this Parliament are
Grant contra Grant Nor was for the same cause the breaking up the Tennents House and taking some Goods out of his Chest found a Contravention February 9. 1633. Lindsay contra Denniston But since it was not a Contravention because the Master was not concerned in the Injury as these Decisions bear I see not how the Tennents concourse could have altered the case quoad the Contravention though in both cases the Tennent may pursue damnage and interest All Lawyers are clear that there must be clear grounds of Injury alleadg'd and therefore feeding bestial upon controverted Lands is not sufficient December 20. 1592. But in mutual Contraventions upon that head The Lords allow'd both parties to turn their Libel in a Molestation and granted Commission to Examine Witnesses hinc inde January 24. 1663. Rouchlay contra Wood. Nor would the Lords find that pasturing upon waste High-land-ground should infer contravention except it had been done by the Masters Command or frequent herding to his knowledge July 8. 1664. Earl of Airly contra M cintosh But yet if Deeds of Violence be done even upon debateable Lands that will infer Contravention such as the hoching of Oxen. This animus injuriandi is so necessary that Deeds done by drunken-men are by many Lawyers thought not to infer a Contravention Christin Tit. 4. Art 8. and the adulterating the pursuers Wife will not infer a Contravention because this is not done animo injuriandi but animo libidinoso Christin Art 7. He likewise thinks that threatning real injuries is sufficient and threatning is a great breach of the Peace especially when it is by a man who uses minas prosequi but verbal injuries per se are not thought sufficient by Lawyers nor have we any Decision sustaining a Contravention on that head Since by this Act the King and the Party have different interests therefore Imprisonment or paying of a Fine to the King by prior Sentence will not exclude a pursuit of Contravention at the parties instance March 20. 1623. Futhie contra Carmichael and January penult 1622. Johnston contra Laird of Westnisbit And certainly that Decision related by Hope tit contravention Forrest contra Turnbul Where it was found that the Kings Advocat could not insist alone in a Contravention if the party injur'd discharged the Deed though after the intenting of the Cause is an illegal Decision for seing the King is injur'd crimine fractae pacis and that by this Act the King has right to the half of the penalty and had formerly right to all by the 5 Act Par. 1 Ja. 3. The party cannot Discharge the Kings part Contravention is a penal action even at the privat parties instance and therefore titulus coloratus will defend against it and thus a Contravention being libelled as infer'd from the casting of a Ditch whereby the pursuers Land was overflow'd The Lords found that a consent from the pursuers Father though he was but Liferenter did defend against that action January last 1633. L. Weyms contra L. Gairntilly Without prejudice to pursue an Action of Damnage and Interest to which the Lords turned this Libel without necessity of a new Process And this action is likewise elided for the same reason by subsequent Dissimulation and therefore a pursuit of Contravention founded upon cutting of Trees in the pursuers Wood was elided by the same pursuers granting Licence thereafter to the same Defenders to cut in the same Wood which posterior Licence the Lords found did infer a presumptive Remission January 11. 1633. Denniston contra Lindsay Nor is this Contravention infer'd by Injuries done upon provocation or self-defence but though provocation seems to be good against the provocker yet it seems not to be good against the King and it may be doubted whether the penalties of the Acts of Parliament may be sought by and attour the damnage and interest or if the damnage is to be a part of the penalty HOpe observes from the Narrative of this Act that as only Landed men can be Judges in Perambulations so Landed men ought only to be received Witnesses in Heretable Debates but this Observation holds not in our Practique which allows any habile Witnesses in perambulations and all other Heretable Debates BY this Act all Heretable Obligations or Writs of importance are to be subscriv'd and seal'd before two famous Witnesses if the parties can Write or by two famous Notars before four famous Witnesses if they cannot write Observ. 1 o. That Sealing is not necessary but Subscription is sufficient in parties and is not necessary in witnesses by this Act though it be requisit by the 5 Act 3 Par. Ch. 2. even in Witnesses also and though the Sealing be only remitted in Papers to be Registrated by the 4 Act 9 Par. Ja. 6. Yet it is not necessary in any Writ by our present Custom Observ. 2 o. That in our practice all Writs exceeding an hundred pounds are Interpreted to be Writs of importance and so to need Witnesses January ult 1623. But if any sum be to be annually pay'd that Writ whereby it is to be pay'd requires Witnesses though never so small because yearly Prestations may arise to a considerable sum July 4. 1632. and though sums above 100 pounds require Writ Yet Intromission with Victual or any thing else probable by witnesses as all other things consisting in facto are as also intromission with uncoyn'd Money or Silver in mass is probable by Witnesses though exceeding 100 pounds But promises nuda emissio verborum though for less sums than 100 pounds are only probable by Writ because By standers may mistake the position and force of Words January 19. 1672. Douchar con Brown Observ. 3 o. This Act is only to be extended to such things as require Writ ex sua natura and to which Writ uses to be adhibit for Merchant-bargains made in Mercats do not require Wâ—â—t and so are probable by Witnesses for men use not nor cannot adhibit Writ in such cases nor are Witnesses requisit in Discharges granted to Tennents by the Masters because of their Rusticity and the smalness of the sums Nor are Witnesses requisit in Contracts of Marriage upon which marriage has followed nam notorietas facti habetur pro testibus July 1. 1662. Breidie contra Breidie But it may be doubted whether this holds in Strangers such as are third parties and I think they are not oblig'd to pay the Tocher though it certainly holds in the Man and Wife themselves who Contract and though it hold not in third parties who are meer Strangers yet it should hold in the Father when he obligeth himself to pay the Tocher where there is a tripartite Contract subscriv'd by many parties they are in place of Witnesses to one another all parties having subscriv'd July 19. 1676. Forret contra Veitch And a Writ having the Substantials filled up with the Granters own hand is equivalent to its being Subscriv'd by Witnesses January 23. 1675. Vans contra Malloch Observ. 4
were not null though not Confirm'd and January 20. 1666. Rentoun contra Feuers of Coldinghame The Lords found that Gifts of an Office of Forrestry granted by Kirkmen needed not be Confirmed these not being properly Feus of kirk-Kirk-lands ibid. THis Act Appoints that all Money and Victual assign'd to the Captains of the Kings Castles and whereof they have been in possession for five years shall remain with them unquestionably and this is like the Quinquennial Possession given to the King in cases of Forefalture Nota That the King has a Duty paid to him in Exchequer called The Castle Wards so call'd because they are paid in forwarding or keeping His Castles and he has no Right to them but constant payment conform to the Exchequer Rolls and therefore yearly the Sheriffs are charg'd with them and they get Letters of Relief and it was found in a case betwixt the Sheriff of Haddingtoun and Sir John Nisbet January 11. 1678. That the said Sir John had not prescriv'd an exemption as to these Castle Wards neither against the King nor Sheriff though he had paid none for fourty years since there were Letters of Relief yearly granted 2 o. It was alleadg'd that his Lands of Dirletoun having come once in the Kings hands by Forefalture and His Majesty having of new given them out that Servitude was thereby extinguish'd since res sua nemini servit but was repell'd because the King did of new only Dispone the said Lands as when they fall in his hands by the Forefalture King IAMES sixth Parliament 10. MR. Nicol Dalgleish and some other Presbyterian Ministers having reproached the King and His Government this Act declaring slanderous Speeches and Writs punishable by Death as Sedition was made and is more fully explain'd in the Act 134 Par. 8 Ja. 6. and in my crim pract tit Injuries Observ. 1 o. Sedition is a Name that receives different punishments according to its different Degrees of guilt and therefore where it is destructive of the Kings Authority immediatly and designedly it is punishable by Death as here though l. 3. C. de seditiosis the punishment of these qui ejusmodi voces emiserunt is more moderat and as that Law well observes words spoke in civitatibus tumultuosis clamoribus are more punishable than the same expressions would be if spoken in private places or without tumult but yet by this Act such seditious Speeches whether spoken privately or publickly are punishable by Death Observ. 2 o That when His Majesties Advocat designs not to pursue the Authors of such Speeches to the Death he Libels only that the Pannel did speak or write what tends to Reproach or Slander His Majesties Person or to misconstruct his Proceedings but not that they actually did so and in that case the guilt infers only an arbitrary punishment according to the circumstances that attend the same Observ. 3 o. That though by this Act the Depraving His Majesties Laws and Acts of Parliament is declared punishable by Death as Sedition yet all misconstructing Acts of Parliament is not so punishable and thus though a Sheriff or other Judge would misinterpret a Law so as to make it infer a higher mulct or penalty than the Law design'd that could not infer Sedition or Death though it be likewise punishable but the design of this Act is to declare the depraving and misconstructing of Laws so as thereby to reproach the King or Government to be Sedition and Spotswood tells us pag. 243. That this Act was made for punishing these Ministers who had declaim'd against the Acts of the former immediat Parliament as destructive to their Discipline Upon this Act the Lord Balmerino was found guilty in December 1634. for having dispersed a Petition that reflected upon the Government in which Process it being fully Debated that dolus malus should be found in such cases where the design of defaming makes only the Crime this was repelled because where the words may of their own nature move dislike of and Sedition against the Government the design needs not be proved for if the people be irritate the Author ought to be punished and this Law considers the effect and not the design and he ought to blame himself who meddles in matters of Government without his Sphere It was likewise alledged in this Process that a Petition to the King Himself could not be interpret a misconstructing but this was also repell'd because both by the Common Law and ours it has been found that great affronts have been put upon the Government by way of Supplication Upon this Act also Francis Tennent was found guilty in anno 1680. and Mr. Thomas Ross in anno 1618. and the Earl of Argile both in the Year 1662. and 1681. Observ. 4 o. That in this Act mention is made of raising dislike betwixt His Highness His Nobility and loving Subjects which word Nobility was expresly put in by the Lord Hamilton and other Noblemen who then turned out Captain James Steuart against whom this Act was partly designed whereas in the Act 134 Par. 8 Ja. 6. made the year before by the said Captain James's influence against slanderers there is no mention made of the Nobility as is observed by Mr. Robert Macgil in Balmerino's Process THis Act discharging all Dilapidations of Benefices runs only in the words of the Act against such as dilapidat Benefices that are at His Majesties presentation but yet de praxi no Benefices that are even at the presentation of Laick Patrons or Ecclesiastick Subjects can be dilapidated Dilapidations of Benefices were formerly discharg'd by the 101 Act Par. 7 Ja. 6. but to elude that Act Benefic'd persons us'd not to give down any of the Bolls payable to the Benefice but to convert these Bolls in Money and to make these who were lyable in payment only lyable in very small prices and therefore such Conversions are discharg'd by this Act But it may be alleadg'd that where the Conversion is for less than the present price as Victual now gives it is unlawful since that Conversion was unnecessary and the Benefic'd person is prejudg'd because if no such Conversion had been made he had got the Bolls presently which could have maintained him better than the small prices which these Bolls were worth the time of the Conversion and yet by our Decisions the price that the Bolls gave the time of the Conversion are only considered because both parties took their hazard and the price mentioned in the Conversion is presum'd to be the full price except it could be proven that the Victual gave then greater prices for in antiquis there can be no other probation Vid. observ upon the said 101 Act 7 Par. Ja. 6. BY this Act all Leagues and Bonds made amongst His Majesties Subjects without his consent are discharg'd Observ. 1 o. That though the Rubrick bears that all such Bonds and Leagues are null yet they are not expresly annulled in the body of this Act but they
perceperit Ecclesiae non reddiderit Christiana Sepultura privetur But yet before that time Laical Infeudations were Discharg'd per Concilium Turon 1096. Though we in this Nation consider only the Discharge in the Lateran Council It remains clear from these Informations that our decimae inclusae are in effect the same with the decimae infeudatae in the Canon Law and these are call'd decimae inclusae where the Stock and Teinds were never separated but were feu'd joyntly before the Lateran Council but yet it seems that all decimae infeudatae are not esteem'd inclusae with us for in a Case betwixt Monimusk and Pitfoddels Teinds were found not to have the priviledge of decimae inclusae though Transmitted by Infestments and call'd decimae inclusae because there was separat a Reddendo paid for the Teind and Stock and so it could be known to be different from the Stock albeit it was contended that decimae inclusae and infeudatae were pares termini and a different Reddendo did not evince that the Teinds had ever been separated from the Stock but only that there was a different Duty as is in Lands of the same holding oftimes and it may in general seem strange why we should add since the Lateran Council for that Council did find that Laicks before that time were incapable of any Right to Teinds and therefore all Feus of Teinds whether before the Lateran Council or after should be null and this Error it seems has been occasion'd by our concluding that because Laicks were declar'd uncapable of them by that Act therefore they were capable of them before it and yet with us a Laick cannot prescrive Teinds because he is not capable of them and Balsour tells us a Decision wherein not only alienations of Teinds but even Tacks of Teinds for three nineteen years were accounted alienations and so null for else Discharging alienations might have been eluded by setting long Tacks But now Teinds pass by Infestments as the Stocks does since the Surrender and His Majesties Decreet thereupon wherein every man may buy his own Teinds and so may set as long Tacks of them as he pleases or Feu them out cum decimis inclusis But it may be alledg'd this tenth part payable to the Ecclesiastick person for Teinds may be made liable to Ministers Stipends since this tenth part must be constructed as Teinds and so should be lyable to all the burdens of Teinds but to this it is answer'd that these decimae inclusae are consider'd as a part of the Stock and so no more liable to Ministers Stipends than the Stock is this division of the Feu-Duty doth not alter the nature of the decimae inclusae but is only insert to regulate the way of payment of the Feu-Duty even as if after a Feu granted of Stock and Teind promiscuously for a Feu-Duty the Church-man should dispone nine parts of the Feu-Duty and reserve only the tenth to himself that tenth part could not be liable to Ministers Stipends 2. Since this Act by the death of the Titular both Temporality and Spirituality came in his Majesties hands and so were dispon'd to the Lords of Erection and return'd to them without this distinction of nine or tenth parts Though by this Act Teinds are declared the Spirituality of Benefices yet they may be sold and are appointed now to be sold by the Parliament 1633. and the Heretors are to be infest in them as in their other Lands which seems inconsistent with their being the Spirituality of Benefices and the Patrimony of the Church but it may be answer'd that they are even in that case burden'd with payment of Ministers Stipends till they be competently provided Observ. 8. By this Act all Lands and others mortified to Colledges are excepted from the Annexation and the reason is because Kirk-Lands remain still to be such albeit they be mortifi'd to Colledges 12 Feb. 2635. Tock contra the Parochiners of Achtergoven and therefore it was necessary to except them Maisons Dieu or Hospitals are also excepted and Maisons Dieu are Hospitals dedicated to the honour of GOD it is a French word signifying the House of God the Canon Law calls them Domus Dei and makes them Hospitals Observ. 9. Pensions likewise out of Church-Benefices are excepted if they be authorized either by Decreets or Possession but possession of a part is repute possession of the whole and by the 137 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. this Act is ratified and it is declared that all Pensions out of the Spirituality or Temporality neither clad with Decreet nor Possession in the Prelats lifetime who dispon'd the same before this Act of Annnexation shall be null but if they be clad with possession in manner foresaid they are valid against singular Successors though Pensions granted by Laicks are not valid albeit they be clad with possession prior to the singular Successors right as was found the 11 of December 1662. Clappertoun con the Lady Ednem but by the Act 140 Par. 12 Ja. 6. Pensions granted by Church-men should contain the particular names of Tennents and Duties vid. observ on the 62 Act of this Parl. Observ. 10. By this Act it is declared that the Bailie or Steward of the Regality shall have the same power he had before to repledge from the Sheriff or Justice-general in case he hath prevented the Justice-general by apprehending or citing the person before he be apprehended or cited by the Justices but if the Justices have prevented as said is then the Bailie of the Regality or Steward shall not have power to repledge but he may sit with the Justice-general if he pleases so that in effect by this Act there is this difference betwixt the Ecclesiastick and Laick Regalities that there is a right of repledging competent to the Laick Regalities whereas Ecclesiastick Regalities have not this priviledge except they prevent the Justices but otherwise the Bailie of Regality may only sit with them the reason of which difference is that the Regalities having been only granted in favours of the Religious Houses which were supprest the Regalities became extinguish'd with them and his Majesty having ex gratia only reserved their Offices to the Lords of Erection he thought that they were abundantly gratified by this new Concession without allowing them the power to exclude his own Justices in case of prevention and this was also a favour to the Lieges in not troubling them with two Courts nor were the Lords of Regality much prejudg'd for by this same Act they retain the whole right to the Escheats and Fines even of these who are condemned by the Justices Observ. 11. That the Parliament has been so careful of the Vassals and Feuers of kirk-Kirk-Lands that because the King who is declared Superior by this Act of all these Lands was a more powerful opposite Therefore by a Clause in this Act it is provided that the King shall not quarrel their Rights to these Kirk-lands save by Improbation or by
a Reduction only for a diminution of the old Penny-mail de liquido ad liquidum that is to say that though such rights may be quarrelled as granted with diminution of the Rental or by unlawful conversion yet no diminution shall reduce their Feus except where the diminution is of old Rentals because about the time of the Reformation Feus were granted for high Feu-duties and these being renewed again for less than were once payed the Feu might have been question'd because though the Feu-duty was less than was once payed yet it was not below the old Rental de liquido in liquidum as if five Merks were taken when ten was of old payed without consideration of Conversions so that though ten Merks were taken in the Feu quarrelled in place of ten Bolls that would be no relevant reason of Reduction and since by the Act of Parliament 1633. Erections are annex't to the Crown The Lords found that the Lords of Erection cannot now pursue Reductions or Improbations of their Vassals kirk-Kirk-lands and that his Majesties Advocat could not insist in any such actions except he had an express warrand from the King though it would appear that this Act is a sufficient warrand to pursue Improbations or Reductions for diminution in the terms of this Act 24 of June 1664. Laird of Prestoun contra Nathaniel Ebred Observ. 12. That Lands belonging to the Benefices of Laick Patronages are excepted also from this Annexation by which are meant only such Laick Patronages as were lawfully establisht before the Reformation and not such as were Dispon'd by the King to Laicks and to which he had Right as coming in place of the Pope who was Universal Patron in dubio before the Reformation for these are still accounted Ecclesiastick Patronages since they were so originally and so ought not to have been excepted from this Act but whether all the other Patronages which belonged formerly to Monasteries were annexed to the Crown by this Act was fully Debated November 1677. in the Case of Steuart contra the Laird of Watertoun and that they were annexed was urg'd because by the first words of this Act the Abbacies c. and all Profits Emoluments whatsoever belonging to them were annexed and there being nothing that the King and Parliament was more concerned in than to have the Patronages depend upon the Crown thereby to prevent the influence that Schismatick privat Patrons might have It was most reasonable to think that when all things belonging to Monasteries were annex'd these should have been annex'd Likeas Sir Thomas Hope among other Rights crav'd to be reduc'd crav'd likewise that all the Rights made to the Lords of Erection of the Patronages belonging formerly to Monasteries should be reduc'd as contrary to this Act upon which Reduction the Lords of Erection did submit their Rights to these Patronages and in the Kings determimination upon that Submission His Majesty determined that the Lords of Erection should have only Right to the converted prices of their own feu Mails and feu Ferms of their Superiorities c. It was likewise there contended that the saids Patronages were likewise annexed by the 13 and 14 Acts of the first Parliament Ch. 1. To which it was answered That Patronages were never annexed as parts and pendicles but where it was design'd they should be annexed they were still annexed per expressum as in the annexation of the Abbacy of Dumfermling Act 189 Par. 13 Ja. 6. and it were absurd to think that since the foresaid general Clause did annex things of the meanest consequence such as Service of Tennents c. that it would have omitted things of so great consequence as were the Patronages of many Monasteries nor did any of the Leiges who had Right to such Ecclesiastick Patronages from the King crave ever a Dissolution of them in Parliament which certainly they would have done if they had looked upon them as annex'd nor were they annexed by the 13 and 14 Acts Par. 1 Ch. 1. Because these Acts do not mention Patronages per expressum nor can they be comprehended under the general word pertinents exprest in these Acts for the reasons foresaids and to evidence that His Majesty had determined nothing as to the Patronages belonging to the Lords of Erection His Majesty does in the 1 Parliament 12 Act Ch. 2. express these words Likeas also the the remanent points of our said Commission anent the patronage of Kirks c. are not yet begun to be Treated therefore c. This Debate came not to a Decision What the condition of our Teinds is since this Act shal be Treated fully in my Treatise of Teinds as also whether the Obligation of paying Teinds proceeds from the Moral Judicial or Common Law is not agreed to but the most ordinary opinion is that they are due to Church men before any positive Law and the quota of Tenths proceeds from positive Law and D. Thomas part 3. Quaest. 6. makes the Tenth to be due because as all Digits under ten are imperfect and do tend to ten as their perfection so man being naturally lost we pay our Tiths to these Ministers by whom our perfection comes and thus some School-men conclude that Tiths flow from the Moral Law in so far as they are a necessary Maintainance for Ministers from the Judicial Law in so far as concerns the number of ten and Cerimonial in so far as concerns the foresaid Typicals nor can it be deny'd that Abraham paid Teinds before any positive Law to Melchisedeck though the Learned Selden Interprets this place only to be the Tenths of what was taken by the War and that from Josephus and from Heb. cap. 7. v. 2. and the Greek word there us'd does properly signifie spoils call'd by Sulpitius Severus decimam praedae but yet I see not why that alleadg'd Custom among the Jews of giving the Tithes of their Spoils could have proceeded from any other ground than that which was common to all Tithes nor can I believe Selden who asserts that Tithes were not paid in the primitive Church till the days of St. Augustin and S. Ambrose for if we do not controvert the Truth of all Authority we will find the payment of Tithes much older Teinds were likewise accounted Spirituality by the Canonists vid. Rebuff Quaest. 2. num 9. How these Teinds came to belong to Monastries may be doubted since naturally the Curats of the respective Parochs are founded in jure communi quoad the Right to their predial Teinds so that they need not prove their Right thereto and this was very just because they having the Cure of Souls ought likewise to have had that which was given as an encouragement of that Cure and though to this the ordinary answer be that the Pope who had only Right to alienat such Teinds did use to give them to Monastries nam licet ille jus divinum tollere non potest tamen modificare potest yet I conceive that our Kings and even
but to the end each distinct Estate might have a special Habit and yet Barons nor Burgesses have as yet no distinct Habit for Parliament FOr understanding this Act appointing the number of the Lords of Articles in every State to be equal and that the most shall not exceed ten nor the least be fewer nor six it is fit to know that by the 1 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1. Ch. 2. The Lords of the Articles are ordained to be elected and constitute in manner following viz. the Clergy choose 8 of the Nobility the Nobility 8 of the Clergy and these sixteen so elected or such of them as are present do choose 8 Barons and 8 Burgesses to whom are added the Officers of Estate and the Chancellor Presides And the Articles being so constitute do prepare Laws Acts and Overtures and orders all things remitted to them by the Parliament BY the 135 Act Par. 7. Ja. 6. no Advocat could plead in Reductions of Forfaulters without a licence which is abrogated by this Act but because this Act gave leave only to persons accused before the Parliament to have Advocats without licence therefore by the 90 Act of this Parliament Advocats are ordained to plead in all Criminal Cases and they do so upon Supplications This craving a Licence was founded upon 98 Act 14 Par. Ja. 3· vid. crim observ tit Advocats THis Act is fully cleared crim observ Tit. Jurisdiction of the Parliament IN this Act the King promises to do nothing that may prejudge the liberty of Voting and reasoning but yet if any person should offer to argue what is down-right Treason this Act would not defend him for by voting and reasoning jointly may be inferred that that reasoning is only allowed which relates to a stated case and to be put to the Vote and nothing that is treasonable will be allowed to be stated in order to a Vote THis Act discharging all contention for priority of place relates only to Parliament and the disturbance thereof but by a Decreet of Ranking in anno 1606. his Majesty having ranked the Nobility has commanded them to observe the Precedency there assigned in all places and that under the pain of being punishable as contemners of his Authority THough by this Act all actions of molestations are ordained to be pursued before inferiour Judges as being naturally but actions for cognoscing of Marches where the controversie being facti can best be understood upon the place yet now such actions are ordinarlie pursued before the Lords because there is a Declarator joyned with the molestation for the Pursuer Libels that though such Lands be his Property yet he is molested in the possession thereof and the reason of this Invasion is because Declarators of Property as all other actions concerning double Rights can only be pursued before the Lords of Session The form prescribed to molestations by this Act is that the Lords shall direct Letters to the inferiour Judges upon 15 dayes warning who shall continue their Courts from 8 dayes to 8 dayes and these inferiour Judges having discust the points of Law they shall choose an Assize the most part whereof shall have 4 Ploughs of Land or 300 Merks of yearly Rent in the same or Neighbouring Parochs if there be mutual pursuits the Judge shall discuss both together and choose an Assize out of the Assizes cited by either party equally and the Odd-man to be choos'd by Cavil if the Judge ordinar be suspect the Lords shall grant Commission by their own Act or by a Commission under the testimony of the Great Seal to unsuspect Judges This form is still almost in observance only the Lords in dubious cases grant Advocations to themselves where the Judge is suspect and after the Cause is debated the Lords ordain the Ground to be visited by some of their own number or grant Commissions to others if the Lands ly very remote but these Commissions under the testimony of the Great Seal are absolutely in Desuetude If the most part of the Inquest be not clear the Lords find that in that case the Cause should be Advocat to them as the Supream Court and they will judge according to the probation already taken or will grant warrand to cite new Witnesses as they did 21 July 1675. Walstoun contra Cheislie Though this Act appoints the Inquest to be chosen of Landed-men having 4 Ploughs or 300 Merks and that in or near the Paroch where the contraverted Land lies yet the verdict will be sustained though they have not so much and though they dwell not in that Paroch albeit there be such in the Paroch This was formerly appointed §· 14. c. 74. lib. 2. R. M. where such cognitions are appointed to be per fideles homines de viceneto And Skeen there observes that Perambulations differ from Molestations in that Perambulations are petitory Judgements and concern Property but Molestations are only possessory Judgements though both tend to the tryal of Marches Nota That by the last Clause of this Act the Members of the Colledge of Justice are exeemed from Tryal before Inferiour Courts which was formerly granted in Removings p. 6. c. 39. Queen M. and is here extended to all Causes according to old accustomed use and though it was alleadg'd that thir last words were restrictive and so the Members of the Colledge of Justice could not Advocat their Causes from Inferiour Courts except in such Cases only as they could prove old use and wont yet these words are found Exegetick and to be equivalent as if the Act had said because of old accustomed use granting them that priviledge and this was very reasonable for since they are oblig'd to attend the Lords and their Clients the Citing them before Inferiour Courts had been inconsistent with both The Action of Molestation is the same with us that finium regundorum was by the Civil Law and what can stop Perambulations in our Law are set down Statut. David 2. cap. 20. where amongst other things it is observ'd that a Minor is not oblig'd to Defend in Perambulations and this is the only place in our written Law where that old Maxime is to be found minor non tenetur placitare de hareditate paternâ and yet it seems that a Molestation being declar'd by this Act to be judicium possessorium a Minor should be oblig'd to Defend in this as he is in all other possessory Judgements but the reason of this Exception in Molestations seems to be because ordinarly Molestations resolve in Declarators of property or are joyn'd with them BY this Act the Defender is indefinitly to pay the Expence of the Obtainer of the Decreet at the modification of the Judge vid. Act 110 Par. 7. Ja. 5. But though this Act be general yet statutum quod disponit simpliciter ut victus victori in expensas sit condemnandus hunc sensum admittit si non habuerit justam litigandi causam hic quippe sensus juri communi est
the insufficiency of the Victual of these Countreys and so the greatness of the Measure does only equal the intrinsick value This Act having fallen in Desuetude as to the Linlithgow Measure is again renewed by the 16 Act Par. 23 Ja. 6. And many wish that Corn were now sold by the weight and not by measure weight being the only sure rule of the intrinsick worth of Corn but this being propon'd in the Par. 1681. the overture was rejected by a Vote Vide observ on Act 96 Par. 6. K. Ja. 4. supra King James the sixth Parliament 12. FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that upon the 22 of May 1592. The Presbyterian party taking advantage of the Kings being engag'd against Bothwel and in other difficulties they held a General Assembly at Edinburgh wherein they drew up several Articles to be presented to the King and Parliament whereof Spotswood names only four 1. That the Acts 1584. against the Discipline of the Church should be abrogated and the present Discipline establish'd 2. That the Act of Annexation should be abrogated and the Patrimony of the Church restor'd 3. That Abbots and Priors c. nor none having Commission from them should Vote in Parliament as Representing the Church 4. That the Land should be purg'd of Blood The King rejected the second and third but in complyance with the first Article he did because of his present difficulties as Spotswood observes allow the present Church Discipline by General Assemblies Synods and Presbyteries but yet he does not here expresly abrogat Episcopacy only the Presentations are not ordain'd to be directed to them but to Presbyteries which Presentations are again restor'd to Arch-bishops and Bishops by the 1 Act Par. 21 Ja. 6. And Spotswood tells us that severals of the Bishops possest even then by their Titulars Episcopacy war again restor'd so that the Bishops did sit in Parliament by the 231 Act Par. 15 Ja. 6. but they were not fully restor'd to their Spiritual Jurisdiction till the 2 Act 18 Par. Ja. 6. but in that Act this Act is not abrogated as it would certainly have been if this Act had abrogated Episcopacy but this Act is abrogated by the Act 1 Par. 21 Ja. 6. By this Act the Collation and Deprivation of Ministers is declared to belong to the Church jure divino but these words or any siklike essential Censures having warrand from the Word of God are too general and may be abused This Act is now abrogated totally in all its Heads Clauses and Articles by the 1 Act 2 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. which seems too general for though this Act establishes Presbytery yet there are many Clauses in it in favours of the Protestant Religion and to which no answer can be made but that what this Act has establish'd in favours of the Protestant Religion was formerly establish'd by other Acts but the truth is these Acts are not so full as this PEttie in his History tells us that by the seventh Article of the foresaid Assembly it was desired that Tacks set by the Depos'd Ministers should not stand But by this Act it is only declar'd that when Ministers are depriv'd their deprivation excludes them tam ab officio quam beneficio which has been doubted because Suspensions are only ab officio By this Act though the persons be depriv'd yet it is declar'd that their deprivation shall not be prejudicial to Tacks lawfully set by them before their deprivation and the Lords do expone the word lawfully so as to extend to the Setter himself so that his Successors can only quarrel these Rights upon such reasons as the Setter himself could have quarrelled them Vid. Hopes Major Pract. Tit. Kirk THis Act is explain'd by the 48 Act 3 Par. Ja. 6. BY this Act the Woman Divorc'd for the Crime of Adultery committed by her cannot Dispone her Estate to her Adulterer if she Marry him or to the Children procreat of that pretended Marriage which has been introduc'd not only as a punishment of the Adultery when committed but to discourage any from committing Adultery upon hopes that their Children might succeed to their Estates with whom they committed Adultery which is conform to the Canon Law by which non licet eam ducere in uxorem quam quis polluit adulterio and by the Civil Law that woman could not Institute that Servant her Heir with whom she had committed Adultery Inst. de haered instit in princip These Marriages are likewise declar'd null by the 20. Act 16 Par. Ja. 6. Vid. crim pract Tit. Adultery pag. 1â—2 THough regularly Liferent-Escheats do not fall while after year and day yet such as commit Slaughter within Kirks or Kirk-yards and the Resetters of them lose their Liferent-escheat immediatly after Declarator and this Liferent falls to the King though in other cases Liferents fall to the Superiour of whom the respective Lands hold IT was usual to mortifie to Abbacies formal and established Patronages of Kirks which were formally erected in Parsonages and to these the Monks presented Parsons and were only in place of Patrons at other times Tiends were Mortified and given to them and after the Reformation though Tiends were declared the Patrimony of the Church by the Act of Annexation yet thereafter the Lords of Erection did prevail by their importunity with the King to erect these Tiends in Rectories or Parsonages whereof the Patronage was given to the Lord of Erection but there can be nothing so unjust or illegal as these Patronages were and therefore by this Act the Parliament finding this abuse was growing did declare that all Erections of kirk-Kirk-lands and Teinds in Temporal Lordships and Livings to the prejudice of the Kirk and hurt of His Majesties Estate and priviledge of his Crown were null which is founded upon excellent Reason for such Erections of Tiends were extreamly to the prejudice of the Church Tiends being clearly by former Laws declared to be the Spirituality and so the Patrimony of the Church 2. Laicks having power to present whom they pleased such Erections did much hurt the Church since it gave to Laicks the power of presenting 3. It is too well known that such as are presented by these Patrons do ordinarly grant Tacks in favours of the Patron and to his behove which has been always lookt upon as not only Simony but as most prejudicial to the interest of the Church making the Ministry despicable and tempting them to ill shifts and discouraging worthy and honest men from seeking such slavish Benefices and therefore the Church has been always an enemy to such Impropriations even when made in favours of Religious Monasteries for Pope Alexander anno 1170 cap. Avaritiae extra de Praebendis says Intelleximus quod in Ecclesiis vestris pensiones percipere consuevistis antiquos reditus Minorastis ideo mandamus ut antiquos reditus cum consensu Archiepiscopi ad integritatem pristinam revocetis and therefore the same
did write such a hand and for proving of this must produce the Hand-writs of all these Servants at that time February 7. 1672. Kirk-hill contra Ketlestoun IT was Debated upon this Act whether the Lands of Duncow though here annexed by a publick Law were sufficiently annexed so as to exclude the Earl of Nithisdale who pretended that a year before this Act he had a valid Right under the Great-Seal from the King and so could not be prejudg'd by a posterior annexation which behov'd to be salvo jure quoad him To which it was Reply'd that this annexation being by a publick Law was not of the nature of Ratifications which were salvo jure and such Acts of annexation were in effect the Kings Charter and being granted by a publick Act of Parliament in favours both of King and People they could not be taken away but by another Act of Parliament sibi imputet he who had the prior Right and compeared not at the time of this publick Law and objected it but now after so many years the King had at least prescrived a Right by vertue of this Act this case was not decided but the Lords inclined to think that there was a great difference betwixt original annexations where special Lands were annexed as falling in the Kings Hands by a special Forefalture or other cause which they thought could not be quarrelled by the Session or other Inferiour Judicatory and general Acts where Lands formerly annext are only repeated such as this is in which Lands belonging to privat parties may be by mistake repeated Nota The Lands of Duncow annexed by this Act came to the King upon Forefalture of Robert Lord Boyd anno 1477. BEfore this Act Decreets pronunced by Magistrates within Towns could not be the ground of a Charge of Horning till a Decreet conform had been first obtained before the Lords but by this Act Letters of Horning are summarly appointed to be granted upon such Decreets It is observable that though this Act says That Letters of Horning shall be granted upon the Decreets of Burrows in the same way as upon the Commissars Precepts yet it would seem that Commissars had no such priviledge at the time of granting this Act for that priviledge is only granted them by the 7 Act 21 Par. Ja. 6. To which nothing can be answered but that Commissars had that priviledge even at the time of this Act de praxi though de jure it was only granted them by that Act for their further Security VId. Act 155. 12 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act giving the King twenty shilling of Custom of every Tunn of imported Beer is Explained in the Observations upon the 2 Act 4 Sess. Par. 2 Ch. 2. IT is observable that by this Act the Dean of Gild is founded in the power of judging all Cases betwixt Merchant and Merchant and is here declar'd to be the most competent Judge because the most knowing Judge in such cases and declar'd to have the same power that the like Judges have in France and Flanders and in France such Cases are Judg'd by these who are call'd les consuls des marchants The Lords have found that according to this Act the Dean of Gilds Court is a Soveraign Court in suo genere and not subordinat to the Towns Court July 21. 1631. and they use to Advocat Causes from the Admiral to the Dean of Gild's Court upon this Act it being declar'd that he is Judge to all actions betwixt Merchant and Mariner though it be alleadg'd by the Admiral that these general words should be restricted by the nature of the respective Jurisdictions and so the Dean of Gild should be only Judge competent betwixt Merchant and Mariner in cases which fall out at Land but not at Sea THe Act related to here is the 36 Act 3 Parl. Ja. 4. IT is observable from this Act that it is there declar'd in geneneral that Acts of Parliament should only in reason and equity extend ad futura for regulating future cases for though Declaratory Acts may oft-times extend ad praeterita yet Statutory Acts should only extend ad futura THis Act differs not one word from the 170 Act of this same Parliament and has been only repeated here by mistake BEfore this Act such as were at seid with one another us'd ordinarly to fight together upon the Street of Edinburgh and us'd to beat the Magistrates or their Officers when they came to red them and that truly gave rise to this Act though the Narrative here bears only that several persons used to Deforce the Magistrates in their Execution of their own or the Councils Decreets By the Act it is declar'd That whosoever disobeys or opposes the Command of the Provost and Baillies of Edinburgh when they are Executing the Kings Commands or Letters from the Secret Council or Session or the Ordinances of their own Burgh shall be punished as Committers of Deforcement as Seditious and Perturbers of the Common well It has been found that naked assistance at such Tumults without Arms is not punishable by Death though a person be killed in the Tumult December 1666. But Convocation at all such Tumults with Arms is punishable by Death if a person be Murdered as was found September 11. 1678. And the acting any thing either by word or deed was found to infer Death Observ. That the using Fire-weapons within Town is discharged by this Act and long weapons that is to say Halbards Picks c. are only allow'd lest innocent persons passing on the Street might be kill'd but yet if Souldiers shoot in defence of their Prisoners on the Streets they are not punishable and this Act was found not to militat against the Kings granting Commissions to the Magistrates of Edinburgh to raise a Company with Fire-locks within Town for the Act discharges only Fire-locks without the Kings consent and a Commission implys his consent THe Act here related to is the 159 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. THis Act is Explain'd in the 7 Act 9 Par. Ja. 6. VId. Obs. on the 29 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. THe Abbacy of Dumsermling was Dispon'd by Ja. 6. in a morning Gift to Queen Ann. This Lawyers call Morganeticum and King Charles the First was Infeft in these Lands as heir to His Mother Observ. That this Confirmation was under the Great Seal and under the Seals and Subscriptions of the States King IAMES the sixth Parl. 14. THis Act seems very ill conceived for it appears that wilful hearers of Mass shall be executed to the death how soon they shall be found guilty or declared Fugitive since no man by our Law dies upon his being Denunced Fugitive except in the case of Treason and wilful hearing of Mass is not Treason even by this Act. Observ. 2. That as this Act is conceiv'd the wilful hearing or concealing is punishable by death either by Conviction or being denunced Fugitive before
appoint four for them and four for the Town for valuing the Lands that the price may be pay'd accordingly But to prevent all such Debates it is appointed by the 6 Act 3 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. That the Magistrats of Burghs Royal shall cause cite all such as pretend Right to any such Waste or Ruinous Lands as have not been inhabited for three years or shall be waste and not inhabited for other three years to Repair the saids Lands with Certification to them that if they do not the Magistrats will cause value the same by certain persons to be chosen for that effect and to sell the same which sale shall never thereafter be quarrelled So that it appears that after this Act the Privy Council can grant no Warrand to sell except in the Terms of this Act at the least they cannot grant any such warrand to build or sell upon any privat account or even for beautifying the Town but the Privy Council has since this Act granted a Warrand to force privat Heretors to sell and accept their price for making the Entry to the Parliament-House more large and convenient though it it was alleadg'd that this could not otherwise be done than after three years and in the way prescriv'd by the Act of Parliament which has made no exception of any such case as this and if the Council could do this they might as well have made the Act of Parliament it self for the power granted to Magistrats by Act of Parliament proceeds upon the same motive of publick Good It might likewise have been alleadged that whatever the Council might have done in cases of absolute necessity as if the Parliament-House had wanted an Entry altogether yet they could not invert Property meerly for the conveniency of enlarging the Entry beyond what formerly serv'd in our Predecessors time BY this Act Chiefs of Clans are not made lyable but all Land-lords and Bailies are oblig'd to make their Men-tennents and Servants answerable to Justice and to redress the party skaithed which Obligation is not alternative and therefore the Council in the case of Leith and Grant August 1680. did find that the Land-lord was lyable for the Skaith though he should present his men King JAMES the sixth Parliament 15. BY this Act Bishops are in effect restored to sit in Parliament though the Act is cautiously conceived in favours of Ministers who shall be provided to Bishopricks by the King but yet the Bishops themselves were not restored to their Jurisdictions in spiritualibus till the 2 Act 18 Par. Ja. 6. in anno 1606. This Act gave occasion of calling a General Assembly at Dundee to whom the King proposed several Overtures and it was condescended on that fifteen Ministers should sit in Parliament because so many Re-presented the Church in time of Popery but remitted to a Committee to consider what Revenue each Church-man should have for defraying that expence and who should be elected In this Act likewise it is declar'd That this Restitution shall be without prejudice to the General and Provincial Assemblies and Presbyteries and the Act of Parliament here related to Establishing these is the 114 Act 12 Par Ja. 6. IT is observable that Kirk-yeards have in many things in our Law the same priviledge as Kirks and therefore the killing or wounding of men within Kirks and Kirk-yeards are punishable in the same way 118 Act 12 Par. Ja. 6. and the Raisers of Frays in Kirks and Kirk-yards are punished in the same way 27 Act 11 Par. Ja. 6. and by the 83 Act 6 Par. Ja. 4. Fairs and Mercats are prohibited to be kept within Kirk-yards as well as within the Kirk as also by the 86 Act Quon Attach Courts Civil or Criminal within Kirks or Kirk-yards are forbidden all which is conform to the Canon Law cap. 5. de immunitate ecclesiarum cap. 2 h. t. in sexto decretal By this Act Letters of Horning are to be directed by the Lords of the Session for bigging of Kirk-yard-dykes and for making Stiles and Entries to Kirks and Kirk-yards By which last Clause it would seem also that Heretors would get Letters of Horning against any Heretor who lyes betwixt him and the Kirk to give him a sufficient way to the Kirk through his Land albeit the words bear only That there shall be sufficient Stiles and Entries in the saids Kirk-yard-dykes But when any thing is allowed in Law all is understood to be allowed without which that which is expresly allow'd cannot be useful Yet I find by a Decision June 27. 1623. betwixt Neilsâ—n of Carcassiâ— and the Sheriff of Gallâ—wâ—y that the Lords refus'd to grant a Servitude through a privat Mans Lands even for a way to the Church except the Pursuer could prove immemorial Possession and to reconcile this Difference it seems that every man must have some way to the Church but that he will not have Right to any special way if he seek the same upon the account of nearness except he can prove immemorial Possession Mornatius ad l. penult ss de just jur shews that this Law is observ'd in France Quaeritur to whom a Coal found in a Church-yard or Trees growing there will belong whether to the Heretor the Poor or the Patron or if the Trees will belong to the Minister THis Act declares all Alienations of the annexed Property to be null except where they are set with augmentation of the Rental and therefore to this day there is still some small augmentation made but it has been doubted whether if the Charter bear an augmentation but yet it can be proven by the Exchequer Rolls that the Lands pay'd more formerly than is exprest in the new Charter if in that case the alienation will be null and I conceive it should for though the Feuer may alleadge that he was in bona fide because of the former Charters yet seeing the hazard by this Act of Parliament he ought to have looked to the Exchequer Rolls I find the 233 and the following Acts till 240. of this 15 Parliament of King Ja. 6 were at first Statutes of Session inserted in the Books of Sederunt upon the 14 of March 1594. and here in 1597. they are turn'd in Acts of Parliament without mentioning that they had been Acts of Sederunt formerly as uses to be done when the Parliament Ratifies such Acts it seems that it was rather the Exchequers part than the Sessions to have Regulated the Kings Revenue and Property whereunto all the above cited Acts relate but about this time I find in the Sederunt Book several Acts ingrossed bearing to have been made by the Lords of Secret Council Session and Exchequer met together which is like the several Chambers whereof the Parliaments of France consist who conveen all together when any solemn arrest or Decision is to be pronunced in purpuris as they call it and these Acts being Declarations of what was Law in relation to the Kings
be lyable thereafter to do exact Diligence Observ. 3. By this Act it is Declar'd that upon payment of the principal Sum and Annualrent and the Expence bestow'd by the Compriser in passing and obtaining Infestment together with the Annualrent of the said sums and the necessary Expences bestow'd in leading the Comprising that then the Comprising shall expire ipso facto that is to say by way of exception without Declarator though ordinarly an order of Redemption be us'd and not only does payment or intromission with the Mails extinguish the Comprising and prove against singular Successors but even any acknowledgement of payment by the Leader of the Comprising will extinguish the Comprising against those singular Successors July 23 1662. Observ. 4. That the Comprizer is to get allowance of a years Duty as due to the Superiour by this Act and though he get himself entered for less by the Superiour than the years Duty yet he will get allowance of the full years Duty that was due to the Superiour whose gratuity will be of no advantage to the Debitor July 2. 1625. Observ. 5. That by this Act what is pay'd to the Superiour bears Annualrent as do the necessary Expences but it may be doubted if Annualrent be due for Sheriff-fees Observ. 6. That Comprisings are not to run against Minors but that it is lawful for the Minor at any time within the age of twenty five years to Redeem which priviledge was found not only to be due to Minors when the Comprising is led against themselves but even when a Minor has right to the legal Reversion he being himself a second Compriser for even in that case a Minor having led a Comprising may be prejudged as well as the Minor against whom the Comprising is led there being the same parity of reason in both and though this be not clear by the first words of the Exception Yet it is clear by these words And that notwithstanding of the preceeding Laws and Practiques of this Kingdom by the which the Legal Reversion of the Comprised Lands expired within seven years after the leading of the Comprising from the which His Majestie and Estates hath by this present Act and Statute excepted Minors in all time coming declaring the same no wayes to run against them Observ. 7. That because this Act appointed only the superplus of the Mails and Duties which exceeded the annualrent to be imputed in the payment of the principal sum during the seven years of the Legal but did not expresly extend this to the case of Minority Therefore it was found that Minors not Redeeming within the seven years the Compriser had from the expiring of the seven years the whole Rent of the Land for payment of his Annualrent without imputing the superplus in payment of the principal sum because the Act Corrected only that Custom quoad the Legal leges correctiâ—â—â— non extendi debent ultra verba directa expressa February 22 1639. and therefore by the 10 Act Par. 1 Sess. 3 Ch. 2. This Decision was Corrected and it was by that Act ordain'd that Comprisers should impute the superplus of the Rent beyond the Annualrent for payment of the Principal sum not only during the Legal but during the whole course of the Minority THis Act extends all the priviledges granted to Minors in Comprisings to Minors against whom Adjudications are led And from this it would seem to follow argumento hujus legis that whatsoever is competent in Adjudications is not Competent in Comprisings for else this Act had been needless and the Lords would not extend the priviledges of the one to the other in many other cases and so would not allow the Superiour to get a years Duty because the immediat preceeding Act did allow Comprisd Lands to be Redeemable upon the payment of the sums Compris'd for and a years Rent for their Entry But in this Act of Adjudication there is no mention of a years Duty and which therefore was thought to be of purpose omited and so needed a new Law notwithstanding of the parity of Reason whereupon a new Law was made viz. the Act 18 Par. 2 Ch. 2. Whereby not only the Superiour is ordain'd to have a years Duty but it s expresly Declar'd That in all Cases relating to Superiours Adjudications shall be in the same condition with Comprisings and consequentially to this last Act it was found that the Superiour might at his option either Enter the Adjudger or pay the Sums for which the Adjudication was led since the Act of Par. Ja. 3 Par. 5 and Act 37. Appoints this in Comprisings June 10. 1671. Scot of Thirlestoun contra the Lord Drumlanrig As also upon the same Reason the Lords found that the Superiour was bound to receive the Adjudger though he could not produce his Authors Rights Debitors abstracting their Writs because Comprisers are not bound to produce February 9. 1667. Ramsay contra Ker. Nota That Comprisers intrometting are lyable for their intromissions with the Victual according to the Sheriffs Fiars and not according to the Commissars not only because the Commissars Fiars are made only to Regulat Prices betwixt Tutors and Pupils and in other Consistorial Cases but because this Act sayes as the samine were commonly Sold between Yuil and Candlmas in the Sheriffdom where the Lands ly THough regularly Infeftments upon Comprisings and Adjudications ought to be perfected by appending the Great-Seal yet an Extract of the Debitors Infeftment under the Privy-seal is here Declar'd equivalent in so far as concerns the Debitors Heirs because it is presumable that the Debitor has destroy'd or Abstracted the Writs of the Lands Compris'd from him Quaritur Whether this Act should be extended to Adjudications since they are not mention'd here in the very next Act to the Act anent Adjudications THis Act allowing Bishops to Feu out their Ward-Lands is but Temporary for three years and so is expir'd because not renew'd and consequently Bishops have not leave to Feu out their Ward-lands now AS Ministers Gleibs were to be Tiend-free so ought the Soums Grass that is allow'd to Ministers in place of Gleibs be Tiend-free The Reason given by this Act is because the same is dedicated and appointed ad pios usus which is no adequat and sufficient Reason since Lands mortifi'd to Hospitals are destinat ad pios usus and yet are not Tiend-free that being a special priviledge only granted by the Pope to the Coelestines or Cistertians and some few other Orders but ordinarly Hospitals and others are free from Taxations as Act 1 and Act 15 Par. 1 Ch. 1. BY the 2 Act Par. 22 Ja. 6. Deans and Chapters were Restored but by this Act all the Offices and Dignities of the Chapter are likewise Restor'd and it is declar'd That all Deeds done since the date of that Act or to be done thereafter whereby any Member of a Cathedral Kirk being an Office or Dignitie hath or shall be supprest or any
seq THis Act is fully Explain'd in Act 200. Parl. 14. Ja. 6. THis Act is fully Explain'd in the 114 Act Par. 11 Ja. 6. THis Act Discharging that a Peck should be taken to the Boll though with consent of Parties was made to prevent extortion upon the same Ground that Usury is Discharg'd but yet it not having been observ'd for a long time the Council stopt a Gift that was granted thereof as to bygones till His Majesty should be acquainted THis Act concerning Dispositions made by Bankrupts is fully Explained by me in a Treatise a-part already Printed upon this single Act. THis Act Regulating the Prices of all Writs and Seals is for the most part either in Desuetude or is innovated by the 16 Act Sess. 3 Par. 2 Ch. 2. Wherein new Regulations are set down and from this Act it is observable that the Secret Council may make prices in all such Cases for this Act Ratifies only their Act and though the Act Ratifi'd bear this Act to have been made by the Secret Council and Session yet the Act of Parliament which does Ratifie that Act Ratifies it only as an Act of Privy Council and so insinuats that the Privy Council hath power to Regulate both the price of Session and Exchequer These Regulations of Prices in our Law are like to the notitiâ—â— mentioned Cod. de ann cap. lib. 1. Tit. 52. quae singulis offiâ—iis delegabantur quibus continebatur quantum singuli pro dignitate â—fficio pro libellis mandatis codicillis accipiendis vel insinuandis pendere quantum pro annona capite accipere deberent FOr understanding this Act it is fit to know that Annualrents are only due by our Law either by Statute or Paction so that regularly they are not due otherwise They are due by Statute either by the Act of Sederunt 1613. appointing That where Cautioners are distressed and forced to pay they shall have Annualrent from the Term that they pay though the Bond wherein they are Cautioners bear none yet this is in effect ex pacto because it arises from the Clause of Relief this being a Damnage incur'd by them or by this Act of Parliament by which Annualrents are due after the Party is Denunc'd though the Bond whereupon he is Denunc'd bear no Annualrent upon the same ground that in the Civil Law usurae debentur ex mora in bonae fidei contractibus l. 32. § 2. ss de usuris So that as by the Civil Law they were due ex pacto vel ex mora they are due only with us ex pacto vel ex lege which is the same thing almost since lex in hoc casu apud nos sundatur in mora for though there may be mora sine usuris yet by this Act there are never usurae sine mora But this Denunciation must be at the Head Burgh of the Shire where the Debitor lives Denunciations at the Mercat Cross of Edinburgh being a Warrand only for Caption but not inferring Annualrent which may seem strange since Annualrents are by this Act infer'd after Denunciation because of the Debitors negligence but the reason of the Decision is that the Lords thought the Debitors did not know exactly when they were Denunc'd at Edinburgh but it has been found that the Debitor is lyable in Annualrent after he is Denunced at the Head Burgh of the Shire though the Horning be not Registrated since the Act only appointed Denunciation and yet there can be no Caption till the Horning and Executions be Registrated and thus it is clear that Caption and Payment of Annualrents are very different effects of a Horning since sometimes Caption will follow where Annualrent cannot and sometimes Annualrent will follow where Caption cannot February 11. 1673. Smith contra Wauch Annualrents are sometimes due without either express Law or Paction because of the tacite and presumable consent of the Party as if a Party pay Annualrent for one Term or if he promise to pay bygone Annualrents though he promise not for the future yet January 13. 1669. Hume contra Seaton The Lords found that he ought to pay constantly Annualrent for the future though the obligation did bear no Annualrent or from the Principles of Natural Equity as in the price of Lands which pay Annualrent though none be pactioned because the Buyer has the Rents of the Lands Or in Tochers because they are given ad sustinenda onera matrimonii and the Husband intertains the Wife Or where the sum is ordain'd to bear Annualrent after her Marriage to whom it is left quo casu before Marriage the Lords found that Annualrent was due since matrimonia debent esse libera but yet regulariter annualrent is not due in cases alimentary And a Father providing his Daughter to a Sum for her Portion without mentioning any thing of annualrent the Lords would not decern annualrent though annualrent was only said to be omitted there through the ignorance of the Notar but because of the presum'd will of the Father they modifi'd the aliment equal to the annualrent But so unfavourable are usurae usurarum call'd usurae judaicae by the Doctors of the Civil Law that an obligation to pay annualrent for annualrent if it were not pay'd at the Term was not sustain'd though it was alleadg'd that here pactum mora were joyn'd with Equity the Woman to whom they were due being a poor Widow who behov'd to borrow Money to live upon if her annualrent were not pay'd and to pay annualrent for that Money which she so borrow'd January 26. 1669. Lady Braid contra the Earl of Kinghorn It is fit to know that the Statute 2. Robert 3. appointing annualrents not to run against Minors is now in Desuetude though it would seem reasonable that their mora should not prejudge them but Minors Money do still bear annualrent by our Law The King uses to pay Annualrents for the ballance of his accounts de facto but is not oblig'd thereto by Law THis Act is Explain'd Crim. pract tit Falshood NOta That Usury is excepted from this Commission to uplift Money due by penal Statutes c. Ergo Acts against Usury seem penal Statutes It is observable that though by this Act it be Declar'd That Commissions for penal Statutes be not put to Execution till they be authoriz'd by the Lords of Secret Council yet this is too much in Desuetude but the Lords of Secret Council do use to Discharge them till they acquaint the King THe Laws of the twelve Tables contain'd several Sumptuary Laws though there was then little Luxury and particularly at Burials and Saint Chrisostom condemns feign'd Mourners whom we call Saulies because they pray for the Souls of the Dead Vid. 14 Act Par. 3 Ch. 2. THis Act appointing Houses in Edinburgh to be Sklated and Letters of Horning to be direct to that effect shews that the Parliament may Dispose upon privat Estates ob bonum
November 1682. Sir William Ker contra Grubet and others Interruption being thus made by the King does last for fourty years so that no Prescription can run against the King till fourty years after the date of this Act and that though the Executions and publication required by this Act of Parliament cannot be found for every particular Shire It may be likewise doubted whether Prescription should run against the King whilst he was out of the Countrey For which vid. observ on the Act of Prescription 1617. BY this Act the Parliament Rescinds all Rights of Regality made by King Charles King James or Queen Mary belonging to Abbots Priors or any Benefic'd person reserving alwise to the Heretable Baillies and Stewarts of the saids Regalities and Stewartries their Rights granted to them prior to the saids Erections for ordinarly even when these Regalities were in Benefic'd persons own hands they made Heretable Baillies but I confess I understand not what is mean'd by the Stewart of a Regality for Stewartries and Regalities are distinct and inconsistent Jurisdictions a Stewart being a Judge in the Kings Property only having the same power that a Lord of Regality has of the Lands Erected in the Regality holding of himself and the Lands holding of him But this Act has in this follow'd the words of the Act of Annexation 1587. By the Act of Annexation 1587. Act 29. All Regalities belonging to Arch-bishops and Bishops were thereby Annex'd because their whole Lands and Temporalities were then Annex'd but being restor'd in anno 1606. their Regalities are hereby reserv'd to them UPon the Submission and Surrender made by the Lords of Erection and other Titulars it is condescended to by this Act That His Majesty shall remain not only Superiour to the Lords of Erection but even to all the Vassals who held formerly of any Abbacy Priory or other Benefice Erected and therefore by vertue of this Act they may hold of the King if they please but according to an express condition in the surrender it self there is by this Act reserv'd to the Lords and Titulars of Erection who subscrived this Surrender the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms due by their Vassals ay and till the King pay to the saids Lords and Titulars of Erection a thousand merks for ilk Chalder or an hundreth merks of Feu-duty payable to them for there is nothing allow'd to them for the Service of Tennents Though the Lords of Erection did not expresly reserve to themselves the Casualities that might fall to them by their Vassals during the not Redemption for they reserv'd only their Feu-mails and Feu-ferms since inclusio unâ—us seems to be exclusio alterius and the Superiority being by this Act declar'd to belong to the King the Casuality should follow the Superiority yet by a Decision the 24 of July 1632. The Lords found that the Lords and Titulars of Erection had Right to the Casualities of these Superiorities ay and till they be Redeem'd but by the 30 Act Par. 1 Ch. 2. It is declared That the Feuars shall be bound to make payment of their Feu-ferms and Duties contained in their Infestments to the Lords of Erection ay and till they be Redeemed but it is not clear whether Escheat and Non-entry will belong to the King or Feuars except it be comprehended under the general word Duties Though the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms be reserv'd to such Lords and Titulars of Erection as subscriv'd the Surrender so that it may seem necessary to prove that these who seek Feu-duties did subscrive or else that these should belong to the King yet because the Surrender cannot be found the Lords found it sufficient that the Titular acknowledg'd the Kings Right conform to this Act But they found that they had not Right to the Arrages and Carrages of these kirk-Kirk-lands because by this Act all the Rents and Duties are Declar'd to belong to the King and the Reservation in favours of the Superiour is only of Feu-duties if they found no abatement of the Feu-duty in respect of Vastations since the Feu-duties were small and the Feuar might have gain'd by prior and subsequent years June 27. 1662. Watson contra Elleis Because the Superiorities of these Kirk-lands is by Act declar'd to belong to the King therefore the Lords of Erection cannot pursue a Reduction of these Feus nor is the concourse of His Majesties Advocat sufficient except there be an express Warrand under the Kings Hand for that effect Albeit it be uncontroverted by this Act that the King has no right to the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms due by the Vassals of Erection until he redeem the same as said is yet it may be doubted whether the King has Right to the Feu-mails and Feu-ferms of the Lands which pertain'd in property to the Lords of Erection before the said Surrender and which were mentioned in the old Infestments before the date of the Erection and that without paying for the saids Feu-ferms and redeeming them as said is as he is oblig'd to do in the case of the Feu-ferms due by the Vassals of Erection and it may be urg'd for the Lords of Erection that the King has not right to the Feu-ferms of their proper Lands except he Redeem them And that because 1. The Act of Parliament is relative to the Submission made by the Lords of Erection whereupon the Act proceeds but so it is that by the Submission they resign the Superiorities reserving only to themselves the Feu-duties till they receive satisfaction but it is expresly provided that under this Resignation their proper Lands should not be comprehended but that they should hold the same of His Majesty as the same was holden before the date of the Erection and so the meaning is that though they should hold the same in Feu yet they should not be oblig'd to pay the Feu-duties till they receive satisfaction 2. It were absurd that the Lords of Erection should not quite the Feu-duties of their Vassals till they receiv'd satisfaction and yet they should be oblig'd to quite the Feu-duties of their own proportion in which they had far more interest than in the Lands of their Vassals without any satisfaction 3. Custom is the best Interpreter of Law and by the general Custom of the Nation the Lords of Erection have never counted for the Feu-duties of their proper Lands 4. There being a Reservation made in the first part of the Act of the Feu-duties only in case of payment The Reservation in the second part of the Act must in Annalogie of Law be constructed to be burden'd with the same quality except the contrary were expresly declar'd in the Act. but on the other side it may be more strongly urg'd for the King that he has Right to the Feu-ferms of these their proper Lands immediatly without any satisfaction and that for these reasons 1. Because by the Act of Parliament they are expresly to hold their proper Lands of the King and to pay him the Feu-duties mentioned in
the old Infestments without any Clause obliging the King to make satisfaction Ergo The King is not oblig'd 2. The Parliament having had that Reservation of making satisfaction under their view in the case of the Vassals they had certainly renew'd it in the immediat subsequent case of the property if they had not expresly design'd the contrary 3. By the Charters granted under the Great Seal to the saids Lords of Erection since the Surrender and this Act of Parliament they are expresly by different reddendo's made lyable both to the general blench Duty due for the whole Lands of the Erection both Property and Superiority and for the Feu-dutie of their own proper Lands Ergo This Feu-duty of their proper Lands is due by their Charter which is a Feudal Contract and that without any Reservation of payment 4. The blench-duty of the Erection and this Feu-duty is due upon different accounts Ergo The payment of the Blench-duty is not sufficient for the Blench-duty is due by the Lords of Erection for the interest that they have in the Vassals Lands and for the Tiends and for the property that was Feu'd the time of the Erection Whereas this Feu-duty is due only for their own proper Lands Feu'd out before the Erection And to the contrary Objections it may be answered That Acts of Parliament are not to be extended de casu in casum especially in such favourable Cases as this which tends most ungrately to take from the King a part of that which himself gave freely 2. There was very good Reason why they should be lyable to pay the Feu-duties of their proper Lands without any satisfaction because the King having rais'd a Reduction of all the saids Erections The Lords of Erection did Redeem themselves from the hazard of this Plea by this surrender and the reason why the quality of satisfaction was adjected as to the Vassals and not as to the property was because the Lords of Erection had no interest in their Vassals Lands but the Feu-duties and so it was fit they should get a satisfaction for these though the satisfaction was made easie for the King But as to their proper Lands it was just because of the great advantage they had by them and that they were by this Act secur'd in the property of them It was just that the King should get the Feu-duties without any acknowledgement and without this the King had got nothing for securing them when he might have with Success quarrell'd their Rights And the pretence of the Vassals not having pay'd these Feu-duties for their proper Lands formerly is of no import since the negligence of the Kings Officers cannot prejudge him and the Times were Rebellious since the year 1633. Nor is this true though it were Relevant for the Earls of Roxburgh and others have pay'd Because these Arguments and Difficulties gave some Colour to the Lords of Erection to think that they were not lyable therefore they us'd to get ease as to bygones but they are made lyable still for the future in the payment of these Feu-duties The Superiorities belonging to Bishops and their Chapters is reserv'd to secure them against the Annexation 1597. and their Superiorities are likewise reserv'd from the Annexation mention'd in the tenth Act of this Parliament Some think it fit for His Majesties Interest that these Superiorities should be Redeem'd for he might thereby have a great and sure Revenue and a great dependence of Vassals and it seems also fit for the interest of the poor Vassals HIs Majesty having oblig'd so far the Heretors as to get them the leading of their own Teinds It was thought fit by this Act to give him some small interest in the Teinds viz. Out of every Teind-boll of the best Wheat ten shilling of the best Tiend-bear eight shilling of the Teind-meal Oats Pease and Ry six shilling and where the Oats will not render half Meal three shilling Where the Victual was of inferiour goodness power is granted to the Commissioners to modifie accordingly and in order thereto they did proportion the price on the several Shires which stands as a rule in the payment of Annuity to this day Though it be said in this Act that the Annuities shall be pay'd out of all Teinds except the Teinds pay'd to Bishops Ministers Colledges Hospitals and other pious uses yet it was thought January 3 1632. Renton contra Ker. Though there was no formal Decision that decimae inclusae are lyable in payment of no Annuity for they did not belong to the Titular nor needed the Heretor buy them in contemplation of which Liberty this Annuity is granted and in effect they are likewise lookt upon as incorporat with the Stock and participating of its Nature This Annuity was found to be made debitum fundi by this Act of Parliament and so to oblige all singular Successors because the Act says generally that the King shall have Right to all the Annuity bypast and to come though it be not expresly declared that singular Successors shall be obliged as our Law ordinarly uses to do when it resolves to make any thing debitum fundi It is Declar'd by this Act That Annuity shall not be annex'd to the Crown whereby the Crown got a great prejudice since thereby the King would have oblig'd every man to a Dependance upon him whereas Commissions having been granted to sell to every man his own Annuity the King made no advantage thereby THis Act is formerly Explain'd in Act 71 Par. 14 Ja. 2. BY this Act it is Declar'd That every man shall have the leading of his own Teind the Teinds being first valued and all Teinds in Scotland may be valu'd except 1. Where the Lands are Feu'd cumdecimis inclusis and Confirm'd before the year 1589. as was found January 21. 1631 2. Teinds belonging to Ecclesiastick Persons and whereof they were in possession the time of the Submission as is clear by the foresaid Determination upon their Submission conform to which by the 9 Act 2 Sess. 1 Par. Ch. 2. All Valuations led against the Bishops or Benefic'd Persons being Ministers since the year 1637. of any Teinds Parsonage and Viccarage wherein they were in possession by Leading or drawing of Rental-bolls are declar'd null but by a Letter the 13. of May 1634. It is declar'd that where such Teinds are set by Bishops or Benefic'd persons to Tacks-men that eo casu the Heretors shall have the buying of their own Teinds but prejudice to the Bishop c. to enjoy the same after expiration of the Tacks as they were accustomed the benefic'd persons always having the prerogative of buying if he pleas'd and this to be extended to the Heretors and Tacks-man of the Teinds of Laick-patrons And conform to this the Lords of the Commission decided February 1679. Hamilton contra Earl of Roxburgh though it was there alleadg'd that this would prejudge Church-men since it would discourage Laicks to take Tacks from them
THis Act Discharges the Custom of two and a half per cent and all raising of His Majesties Customs directly or indirectly without consent of Parliament and so though by the 27 Act of the 3 Sess. of this Parliament asserting His Majesties Royal Prerogative in the Ordering of Trade with Forraigners It seems that His Majesty may lay what Restraints and Impositions He pleases upon Forraign Imported Commodities and as He pleases yet it seems the Customs by this Act cannot be rais'd for though that Act be posteriour yet this is special and is not particularly abrogated albeit by that Act all Acts and Statutes contrary to that Act are abrogated By this Act likewise His Majesty Discharges the taking Masters Merchants and Mariners Oaths in the matters of Customs but since their Oaths are taken in the matters of Excise this priviledge signifies nothing Vide Observations on the Act 12 Par. 2. Ch. 2. THis Act is Explain'd in the Observations upon the 18 Act Par. 1. Ch. 1. THis Act allows any of His Majesties ordinary Officers to whose Charge the same belongs to Docquet signatures and by ordinary Officers I think are only mean'd Officers of State and this was formerly Established by the 20 Act Par. 10. Ja. 6. But by this Act is added That these who do Docquet shall send a double of the Docquet to the Secretary to be Registrated But yet the Deed is not annull'd though this be omitted and therefore the Deed I think would subsist but the Omitters would be punish'd The Reason why a double is to be Registrated is because by this His Majesty may know what is formerly granted which will prevent double Gifts of the same thing THis Act is formerly Explain'd in the former Commissions for Plantation of Kirks viz. Ja. 6 P. 22 Act 3 Ch. 1 P. 1 Acts 8 19. THis Act for the most part is but Temporary and was made to give some ease to the poor Debitor whose Lands had been so wasted and burdened in the late Rebellion that he could neither pay Annualrent nor Redeem Comprisings or Wodsets as formerly being founded upon the same Reason by which the novae tabula were Introduced in Rome by Julius Caesar after the Civil Wars betwixt Pompey and him But the chief things observable in it are first That the Legal Reversion of all Comprisings to be led or that were led since January 1652. whereof the Legals are Expired and all Comprisings whereof the Legals were not expired before that Moneth shall endure for ten years and though it might have been pretended that this Act does not prorogat the Reversion but only makes the Lands to be Redeemable and so the Rents of the last three years above the seven which was the ordinary Legal was not to be Restored but that the Compriser had Right to them as fructus bona fide percepti consumpti Yet the Lords found that the Compriser was countable for his Intromission even for these three years since in effect these three years are added to the Reversion and so the Compryser is lyable for these three years as he would have been for the other seven January 20. 1666. Clapperton contra Torsonce Albeit by our former Law the Compriser could have possess'd the whole â—ents of the Comprised Lands during the Legal Yet in respect the Rents do often exceed very far the Annualrents Therefore by this Law allowance is given to the Lords of Session to Restrict the Compriser to such part of the Land as will pay him the annualrent of his Sum and Expense The Debitor from whom the Lands were Comprised Ratifying the Apprysers Possession of the rest but it is still to be remembred that after the Legal is expired the Compryser has undoubted Right and cannot be limited Upon this Clause of the Act the Lords upon the 27 of June 1662. Restricted Wilson who had Comprised Sir William Murays Estate to medle with any part of the Estate Comprys'd that he pleas'd esseâ—ring to eight per cent he counting for the superplus above this annualrent and for the publick burdens but thereafter in February 1684. in a case betwixt Wilson and Sir Alexander Hume It was contended that this Clause was a part of the Temporary Regulation past in favours only of such Debitors as had taken the benefit of this Act by payment of their annualrents and was only ill plac'd here amongst the Clauses relating in general to Comprysings for it was against the whole current of our Laws that during the Legal the Creditor who was forc'd to want his Money should be forc'd during the long legal of ten years to accept of naked annualrent especially seing oft-times they got Land at last that they could not nor car'd not for the Possession of it Nor would this ever spur and excite Creditors to pay the sums Comprys'd for and this was a very universal prejudice most part of Rights being now founded on Comprysings and the Practique being single and not upon Debate was not to be respected To which it was answered That the Clause was oppon'd and it was dangerous to alleadge that Clauses were Transplac'd by mistake nor could any thing Gloss a Law better than a Decision past so Recently after the Act made at the making of which Decision many eminent persons were present who had been the very Penners of the Act and the Restriction was most reasonable for since great Estates were to be carry'd away by Comprisings for small sums it wast just that till the Comprising expir'd the poor Debitor should be favour'd Nor was the Creditor a loser since a Comprysing being a legal Pledge only for his Money he got the Annualrent duly pay'd him and a Ratification of his Possession even during the Legal and if his Money was not pay'd cum omni causa with annualrent for his very Expense he got the whole Land though the sum were never so small upon which Debate the Lordâ— adher'd to the former Decision though it seems very strange to the best Lawyers The Lords likewise found upon the 28 of July 1671. That this Power granted to them was only in favours of the Debitor from whom the Lands were Comprysed and could not be extended in favours of posteriour Comprysers who could not upon this Clause crave that the first Compryser should be restricted to his Annualrent for the priviledge is granted to the first Compryser in contemplation of his being oblig'd to Ratifie Nor are the second Comprysers prejudged by the first Comprysers Possession since it will extinguish his Comprysing pro tanto and make way for them By this Act also all Comprysings led since the first of January 1652. before the first effectual Compryser or after but within year and day of the same shall come in pari passu as if one Comprysing had been led for all the Sums Upon which Clause it is observable 1. That Comprysings led since 1652. come not in with Comprysings led before that year though
compleating Dispositions and Rights made by the Party where the Granter refuses to compleat the Right himself in that case such Adjudications come not in pari passu upon this Clause July 16 1675. Campbel of Riddoch contra Stuart December 2. 1676. Lady Frazer contra Creditors of the Lord Frazer BY this Act also it is Declared That if the appearand Heir or any person to his behove shall buy in any expyred Comprysings the said Comprysings shall be Redeemable by posterior Comprisers from the appearand Heir or his Confident for payment of the true sums pay'd out by them and that within ten years after the said Right was acquired Observ. 1. That though this be a correctory Law and so ought not to be extended Yet it is so favourable that the Lords extended the same to Rights bought in by Eldest Sons whilst their Father lives though the eldest Son cannot be properly call'd in that case an appearand Heir since an appearand Heir is only he who can succeed in haereditatem jacenâ—em but the Lords would not extend it to the Right of an Apprising bought by the Husband where his Wife was appearand Heir For though the Lords found this reasonable yet they found the Act to be stricti juris and so would not extend it to this Case except it could be alleadged that the sums were truly pay'd for the Wifes behove and the Lands provided to her Heirs and some doubt whether Comprisings bought in by the Tutors and Curators of appearand Heirs be Redeemable upon this Act and since their Pupils may oblige them to Dispone the saids Rights to them though the Comprisings were bought in in the Tutors and Curators own name if they had as much of the Pupils means in their hands It seems that by the same Reason the Pupils Creditors who Comprise omne jus that was standing in their person should have the same priviledge Observ. 2. Though this Clause runs only in favours of Apprysers from which it may seem that they are only allow'd to Redeem Yet the Lords Decided January 9. 1677. Hay contra Gregory That a Creditor having an Infeftment of Annualrent might Redeem from a Compryser who excluded him and it seems by that Decision that any Creditor may have this Benefit as well as Comprisers since they may Comprise Nor are the strict words of the Act to be considered for else Adjudgers could not Redeem since they are not nam'd in the Act. By this Act also not only the Apprising is Redeemable but even Bonds granted for the Sum thereafter Comprised for are null if the Apprising be satisfi'd as said is so that appearand Heirs cannot make use of the Bond or Inhibition upon it and though a Disposition was bought in by the appearand Heir before the Act of Parliament yet if the Infeftment was taken after the Act the Comprising was found Redeemable by the Act for it is the Infestment and not the Disposition which gives the Right because if a third party had been first Infest he had been preferr'd to the appearand Heir notwithstanding of this Disposition July 21. 1671. Maxwel contra Maxwel In which case it was also found that thogh the Act bears that expired Comprisings bought in by the appearand Heir should be redeemable Yet if the appearand Heir buy in a Comprising in cursu the same will be Redeemable if it expire whilst he had Right to it so that upon the whole matter it is observable that even Correctory Laws with us are to be extended in favourable cases so far as to make them answer the Design of the Legislator which is to help the ill that was to be Corrected Observ. 3. That this Priviledge is allowed to the second Compriser not only by way of Order of Redemption but even by raising an ordinary Action so that if he raise that Action within ten years the Lords will find the same sufficient providing he has rais'd a Declarator concluding Compt and Reckoning within the ten years which the Lords will sustain by way of Reply being propon'd upon incidenter in the ordinary action for payment June 26. 1677. Kincaid contra Laird Abergeldie Observ. 4. That these ten years run from the Infeftment taken by the appearand Heir or some other publick Deed as Decreets c. Done upon the Right so bought in else the appearand Heir might keep his Rights latent for ten years and consequently the Creditors could not Redeem because they could not know them It is fit to know that by our Law Wodsets are either proper or improper A proper Wodset is where Lands being impignorated for a sum the Rents of the Land are accepted in satisfaction of the Annualrents of the Money and that without any Restriction upon either side and as to these Wodsets it is by this Act ordain'd that the Wodsetter shall be oblig'd upon offer of sufficient surety by the Lender either to quite his Possession or Restrict himself in his Possession to his Annualrent counting for the superplus But this Act innovating the privat Paction of Parties was found only to oblige the Wodsetter to be countable from the Date of the Offer of Surety and not from the Date of the Act of Parliament February 21. 1666 Lord Borthwick contra his Wodsetters But in this Computation the Wodsetter is to get Defalcation of what he hath depursed upon Reparations or hath lost by Quarterings or any other manner of way Improper Wodsets are these whereby it is expresly Declar'd That the Wodsetter shall not be lyable to any hazard of the Fruits Tennents Wars or Troubles so that the Wodsetter is to have Re-payment of these by and attour the Rents of the Lands which are Declared to be Usurary in time coming and the Wodsetter in all such Wodsets taken since the year 1649. is obliged to count for the superplus more than pays his Annualrent and to impute the same pro tanto in payment of his principal Sum. NOta This Act of Adjournment is the first that I find in all the present Impression of the Acts of Parliament For Parliaments were of old Dissolv'd but now they are ordinarly Adjourned and the Act of Adjournment is neither touched with the Scepter because it is an Act of the Kings and He needs not touch His own Acts nor is it Read in Parliament because by the very Adjournment the Parliament is dissolv'd and it being no more a Judicature nothing can be Read in it But by the 12 Par. Ja. 1. By the black Acts I find that de mandato domini Regis Parliamentum suit continuatum usque ad sestum beati Joannis Babtistae sub praemonitione 15. dierum Whereas though our Adjournments bear now no dayes upon which Premonition is to be made yet when the King Adjourns Parliaments by Proclamations beyond the days to which it was Adjourned by Act of Parliament He uses to Adjourn them upon the Premonition of fourty dayes and fifteen was too short It was doubted whether if the Day to which the
Judges inclined to think that these Regulations extend to Justice-airs as well as Justice-Courts as to all the Articles here exprest since Orders are given by the Parliament for regulating Justice in these Regulations which shew the Parliament design'd to extend them to both From these words in the ninth Article That the Chancellour of the Assize mark how every individual Assizer shall Vote whether he Condemns or AsseilÈies it clearly follows that no Assyzer in Criminals may be non liquet and if this were allow'd in one it might be in all because this was not necessary formerly Therefore by the 63 Act Par. 8. Ja. 3. It was ordain'd that when a Summons of Error was rais'd each Assizer was to set down who assoilÈed and who Condemned but because they might forget or for fear of punishment might be unfaithful in this Therefore this Act appoints That in the first Verdict it shall be marked who Condemned and who assoilÈed Albeit this Act appoints that the Chancellor shall mark whether every man assoilÈes or Condemns Yet it is thought the omission of this would not annul a Verdict in favours of the King that being only introduc'd in favours of the King to the end that His Majesties Advocat may be instructed whom to pursue in a Summons of Error when a party is wrongously assoilÈed By the 11 Article it is appointed That when any Summons of Exculpation is Executed against any party that at the same time the Names of the Witnesses and Inquest should be given to the end the party may know what to object against the Witnesses Upon which Article it was alleadged that when an Exculpation was rais'd against the King the Witnesses Names should be given to his Advocat likewise and which the Justices found to be necessary in March 1680. For the Act being general as to all and there being as great reason that the King should know those who are to be led against Him as any privat party He ought to have the same measure and whereas it was objected that it were a very severe thing that a poor Pannal might not lead any Witness even during the Debate though his Name had not been given in List yet this has no weight since the Act is so clear in general Terms as to all and it may seem as unreasonable that the King should not be allow'd to lead any Witness to prove a Crime if he find him in the Court the time of the Debate for the Pannal may much better know who can prove his Defence since he behov'd to know them if they were present than the Kings Advocat can know who were present when the Crime was committed and though there may be some inconvenience in this for one particular Pannal yet in the general there is great advantage in this to Pannals the King being thereby forc'd to give in the Names of his Witnesses so that the Pannal may not only know how to object against them but even how to practise them and whereas it may be objected that by this procedure there behov'd to be progressus in infinitum since the King might Cite Witnesses to cast the Pannals Witnesses and the Pannal behov'd therefore to be allow'd to cast the Kings Witnesses and to have Citation for that effect It is answered that this might as well be urg'd against all Reprobators nor does this hold here for the Judge should not allow such Citations save one to each party Because Messengers in Executing Criminal Letters gave sometimes only copies of the Libel it self and yet returned Executions to His Majesties Advocat that they had likwise given Lists of Assizers and Witnesses Therefore the Justices declar'd in February 1681. by an Act of their Sederunt that if the Pannal should produce a Copy under the Messengers hand of the Libel except the List of the Assizers and Witnesses Names were upon the same Paper with it they would not sustain the Execution though bearing That Lists of Witnesses and Assizers were given THis Act is Explain'd in the 1 Act 1 Par. Sess. 3. and 7 Act Sess. 2 Par. 2 Ch. 2. COmprisings were at first Invented to pay Debt with a suitable proportion of Land and the Sheriff was to adjust the sums due with the Lands Comprised but thereafter great Estates being Comprised for small Debts the Parliament thought fit by this Act to Ordain that for the future not a Messenger who was Judge in Comprisings but the Lords of Session should by a Process before them Adjudge as much of the Debitors Lands to the Creditor as would satisfie his principal Sum and Annualrent with a fifth part more because the Creditor was forc'd to take Land for Money whereas by the Common Law aliud pro alio invito creditore solvi nequit And albeit this Act expresses only that this fifth part shall be beside the Composition to the Superiour and Expenses of Infeftment yet certainly the Creditor must likewise have all the Expenses bestow'd upon the Process for as this is reasonable in it self so that expenses tends to the procuring of the Infeftment Observ. 1. This Act came in to the Parliament simply in these Terms and the equity of it was prest from the Custom of other Nations and particularly the Common Law where the Praetor did adjudge the Debitors Land proportionally to the Debt but it being strongly urg'd by the Lawyers Burgesses and other Members who were Moneyed Men that it was most unreasonable to force the Creditor to take Land except the Debitor should produce to him a good Progress and Security for both to be forced to take Land and yet to want a sufficient Right thereto was altogether unreasonable Therefore the Parliament ordain'd that if the Debitor did not compear and produce a sufficient progress and Renunce the Possession the Debitor might Adjudge the whole Estate as formerly he Comprised it and this has almost Evacuated the whole Act for the most of Debitors are unwilling to produce a Progresâ— and renunce Possession and therefore most Lands are now adjudg'd as they were formerly apprised and in December 6. 1681. It was found that an Adjudication led for a fifth part more in absence of the Debitor was null since the fifth part more was only to be given where the Creditor compeared produced a Progress and Renunced albeit it seems that this alternative being introduced in favours of the Creditor it ought to be optional to him to choose either Observ. 2. That the Legal in these Adjudications is only five years whereas it was seven in Comprisings for the danger being less because of the said Commensuration it was just that the time for Redemption should be shorter and though it be not exprest that the foresaid five year shall not run against Minors and that it may seem it should not run against them in respect of the short commensuration and that it seems unreasonable that a Creditor being forc'd to take so little Land and should yet be forced to be
or Son in Law to him which is most just since these may have an equal influence upon him and sometimes greater then those formerly Discharged It may be doubted whether this Act should extend to Cases caryed on in the Names of Confidents and Trusties for the behove of the Persons Comprehended in this Act and it seems rational to extend it for a Cause cannot so much be said to be his in whose name it is pursued as the persons to whose behove it is pursued and if this were otherwise the design of this excellent Act might be altogether evacuated But yet I remember that the Earl of Rothes in Exchequer gave by his vote the gift of Non-entry of the Estate of Levin to Sir William Bruce though it was alleaged that it being to his own behove he could not jus sibi dicere To which it was answered that he did not Vote for himself but that he was necessitat to sit to make up a quorum because there behoved still to be such a number of Commissioners of the Thesaury present in Exchequer as sine quibus non AS Laws do ordinarly show the Genius of the Nation so do they likewise show the Genius of the Time wherein they are made and this Law was occasion'd by a dreadful Principle whereby the Fanaticks had declar'd That it was lawful to Kill all who Serv'd the King and though none were punish'd in Scotland for meer principles of Religion Yet it is very lawful to punish those who maintain Principles which tend necessarly and naturally to the raising of Rebellion or committing of Crimes Whereof this and the 2 Act 2 Sess. Par. 1 Ch. 2. are just Instances It may be doubted whether Judges may be declined where their Relation is equal to the Pursuer and Defender or in Cases of Affinity where the Affinity has ceased by the Dissolution of the Mariage Item It may be doubted if a Judge can be declined where he is related only to one who is a Member of a Society which is Pursuer or Defender as for instance if the Process be against a Colledge and the Judge be Brother to one of the Masters of the Colledge Observ. From these words The Exchequer and other Judicatures That the Exchequer is a Judicature in our Law BY this Act It is declared That the high Court of Admirality is a Soveraign Judicature in it self and imports summar Execution by which last words is meant only that execution of Horning may pass upon their Decreets immediatly without seeking a Decreet conform before the Lords as of old conform to the 15 Act Par. 20. Ja. 6. which is here wrong cited and call'd the 12 Par. But this summar execution is no mark of its being a Soveraign Court for Sheriff and Bailiff Courts have the same priviledge But that which makes this Court a Soveraign Court is that by this Act it is declar'd that they may not only review the Decreets of inferiour Admirals but their own and the reason why they are allow'd to review their own is because it is their custom to grant oft-times Decreets summarly for not finding Caution and it were hard not to allow the persons concern'd to be heard upon an offer to find Caution as also It is declar'd by this Act that no Advocations shall be granted from them to the Session but even this is not observ'd tho it was the great design of this Act for this Act restricting this Priviledge to maritim and Sea-affairs the Lords Advocat Causes from that Court as not maritim it not being determin'd what Cases are maritim and so can be comprehended under that Term. The Lords are still allow'd to Suspend the Decreets of the Admiral in praesentia or by three Lords in the Vacance which is hardly to be reconciled with its being a Soveraign Court And yet in some Cases the Lords Suspend the Decreets of the Justice-Court and of the Commission of the Kirk which are certainly Soveraign Courts The Admiral Court has got also power by this Act to apply the Fines and Amerciaments of their own Courts to their own use which formerly belong'd to the King and they have also the sole power to grant Passes and safe Conducts to Ships which by a special priviledge was granted immediatly before this Act very irregularly to Magistrats of Burghs Royal and in the time of the late Dutch War it was granted to a particular person named by His Majesty who was called Surveyer-general and was bound by his Instructions not to grant a Pass to any Ship till he was aboard and Surveyed all that was in it only he had power to make a Deput for Aâ—erdeen and beyond it BY this Act because common things are neglected and Creditors are disappointed of all the Rents where the same are controverted amongst them therefore they are allow'd to roup the Lands of the common Creditors when become Bankrupts which is now done by Summons Narrating this Statute in which all the real Creditors are Cited and thereupon the Lords grant a Commission for trying the value of the Estate and then they determine what shall be the least price and they name a Lord before whom the Roup is to be made and Letters are raised Charging Creditors to appear on twenty one dayes at such an hour at the New-Session-House to offer before such a Lord at which Day he comes to the Outter-House and the Clerk Reads the Acts and Commission to that Lord and the Macer offers the Lands at the price put on them by the Lords three several times and if none offer more he who raised the Summons gets them at that price After all this the Creditors go on in their multiple poinding and being rank'd according to their due preference the price is distributed amongst them accordingly tho it may be Debated that this preference should be first determined since till then Creditors will not willingly offer It seems more reasonable that Roups should be in the Shires where the Lands to be sold do ly for there will be more buyers found there than at Edinburgh I could likewise wish that where any of the Lords of the Session are Pursuers they would name Commissioners in the Countrey to make the Roup for Societies should shun sibi jus dicere where the same can be supply'd by others I think also that it were fit that Roups were made three several dayes and not all at one time as is required by the Doctors for this would give all persons concerned time and opportunity to appear and consider what is fit to be offered for men may be surprised or be sick or busie at one hour or time I conceive also that the Lord who makes the Roup should stay all the two hours allow'd not only to the last moment but from the first as we see the Judges do in Roups abroad and before our Admirals where the Roups are therefore appointed to be made ad candelam or clepsidram and in Orders of Redemption we
might scruple to pursue a Reduction of a Writ that they themselves had granted upon Oath and albeit this Act Declares only such Contracts to be null yet it will certainly extend to Bands Dispositions and other Writs for as the Reason is the same so both the Narrative and the last words of the Act has the word Writs which comprehends all these and I conceive the Remedy of this Act will extend likewise to promises though these be not comprehended under the word Writs for if it were otherwise the Act might be eluded by taking of Promises upon Oath from Minors As also albeit the Narrative Relates only to Writs of Importance by which are only mean'd in our Law such wherein the sum exceeds an hundred pounds Scots yet since the Statutory part is general and that an hundred pounds may ruine poor people nor should men of Substance Lasâ—le an Oath by interposing it to mean matters therefore I think that this Remedy should be extended to all cases whatsoever BY this Act for facilitating the course of Trade Bills of Exchange are ordain'd to be Registrated within six moneths after they are due and tho the Bill bear no consent to the Registration as Bands do yet they are registrated by vertue of this Act which is Narrated in the beginning of the Paper that is Registrated but this is of no great use and therefore Merchants choose rather to pursue summarly before the Dean of Gilds Court who is with us le consul des Merchans and even these Pursuits are disappointed by Advocations nor have they so much as the priviledge of being Discust summarly without attending the course of the Roll as was crav'd by the draught of the Act that was first under consideration It was also crav'd that Compensation should not be receiv'd against Bills of Exchange as is Customary abroad and a Bill is in effect in the construction of Law a bagg of Money trusted by the Drawer and to be redelivered in another place and Compensation is not even by the Common Law received against Depositations The reason why this Act was only extended to Bills drawn from abroad or in favours of persons abroad and not to Bills drawn from one place within the Kingdom to another was because if that had been allow'd all Debts had still been constituted by Bills and not by Bands and so had been priviledged by too summar execution BEfore Parliaments can proceed to publick Affairs all the controverted Elections must first be cleared and determined which being the occasion of great delayes in the dispatch of business gave the rise to this Act whereby it is ordain'd that none shall have vote in the Elections of Commissioners for Shires or Stewartries except those who are publickly Infeft in Property or Superiority Life-rent or proper Wodset and in possession of a 40 shilling Land of old Extent holden of the King or Prince or in Lands of 400 Pounds Valuation whether Kirk-lands or other Blench Few or Ward-lands and that appearand Heirs being in possession by vertue of their Predecessors Rights and Husbands for the free-holds of their Wives or as Life-renters by the courtesie of Scotland of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have right to Vote The Shire of Berwick having made cross Elections of Commissioners to the late Parliament the Committee for controverted Elections decided these points for clearing this Act which report was approven in Parliament 1. That a Charter confirmed by the King of a 40 shilling Land does not give a party right to vote except his Seasin thereupon be produced and that the Confirmation be of the Seasin since the Confirmation of a Charter imports no more but the Confirmation of a personal obligment 2. Vassals of Kirk-lands of the Extent and Valuation foresaid have no vote unless they hold their Lands of the King as their immediat Superiour for since it is optional to them either to hold of the King or Lord of Erection by the 53 Act 1 Parl. Ch. 2. it is presumed they still hold of the Lord of Erection unless they instruct that they hold of His Majesty 3. Where Vassals produce Rights to a part of a Barony that will give them no right to vote except they can instruct that their Lands are Retour'd to such a proportion as put them in the terms of the Act of Parliament 4. Life-rents not constitute by Infeftments but by personal obligments give not the Life-renters right to vote 5. Persons Interdicted seem to be debarr'd from voting since they who were not fit for managing their own affairs ought not to be trusted to vote for Commissioners to Parliaments but this I think should only hold in Interdictions causa cognita very judicious men consenting to voluntar Interdictions 6. If the King be only Superiour supplendo vices of the immediat Superior by his not entering to the Superiority this will not give the Vassal a vote since the immediat Superior retains all the casualities and consequently remains still Superiour albeit pro hac vice the King supplies the defect of the Immediat Superiours lying out by infefting the Vassal 7. Appearand Heirs albeit in the terms of this Act have no right to vote if they have renounced or if their Predecessors were denuded albeit they were in possession the famine being only by a tollerance from the Party in whose favours the Predecessor was denuded 8. Appearand Heirs by the Mothers side gives not a Title to vote except they be actually entered Heirs since it is presumed there are Heirs Male except the contrair be proven by a Service 9. Vassals who have expired Apprisings or Adjudications have liberty to vote albeit by an Act of the Lords of Session the Lands are declared to be redeemable for the Sums truly due since by this Act Apprisings Adjudications and proper Wodsetts are not to be questioned upon pretence of any order of redemption payment or satisfaction unless a Decreet of Declarator voluntar Redemption Resignation or Renunciation be produced 10. It was found in the Election of the Commissioners of East Lothian that no votes are sustained but these who voted and signed before the Meeting was dissolved and the votes of those who came immediatly after were not sustain'd tho the Preses return'd with some of the number But in the Elections for the Mers it was found that a person was capable to vote albeit he was detained Prisoner by a mis-information from one of the Competitors he having given an account of the way and manner of his Imprisonment to the Meeting and declared his vote to them and after his enlargement did immediatly take the Test and sign the Commission FINIS Several Additions and Supplements to the Observations on the Acts of Parliament BY this Act the Wardens are discharged to judge which is here called very odly to intromet with any thing that pertains to the Dittay of the Justice-Air saving the points that are needful for conservation of the Trews or Truce that is to say
the Jurisdiction of the Wardens by this Act is prorogated to the cognition of all Crimes which were necessary to be judged by them for preservation of the peace betwixt the Kingdoms and so the first part of the Act specifying Treason was unnecessary for it was comprehended under the general but now the Commissioners of the Borders who are come in place of the Wardens have power directly and so not only incidenter to judge Thefts and many other points of Dittay TO add after these words The King may make any man a Lord of Parliament yet by the constant course of posterior Acts of Parliament concerning elections and representatives of Shires in Parliament and by the constant custome acknowledg'd both by King and Parliament none can represent Shires in Parliament but such as are actually chosen by the Shires whom they represent AFter these words That a Registrat Extract will not stop a Certification when a Horning and its Executions are called for but the Principal must be produced It is fit to add That though this hold against the User of the Horning yet the Kings Donator is not oblig'd to produce the Principal Horning for else by collusion betwixt the Debitor and the Creditor the Kings Donator might be easily prejudg'd WHereas it is said that decimae inclusae are to be burdened with no part of the Ministers Stipend for clearing whereof it may be added that this was so decided before the Commission in January 26. 1675. Heretors of Tulliallan contra Colvill but afterwards in March 1684. the same Case being heard in Praesentia before the Lords by a reference from the High Commission it was found that conform to this Clause in the Act of Annexation reserving the tenth penny to the Ecclesiastick person that therefore the Heretor having right to his Lands cum decimis inclusis should be lyable to the Minister for the tenth part of his Feu-duty with relief to him against the Titular pro tanto AFter these words The Earl Marshal contra Brae add this Decreet was in foro And Stairs asserts that competent and omitted before Baron-Courts is not considered THe answer to this doubt is that the Act of the Convention Anno 1665. doth not make either Stipendiary Ministers or Ministers having modified Stipends lyable to Impositions but only ordains Beneficed Persons to be Taxt And the Convention 1667. having ordained the Impositions then laid on to be Levied according to the Valuation led in Anno 1660. and not according to the retoured Duty which was the old way did ordain that Benefices should be valued and pay in so far as these Benefices exceeded the modified Stipend and so they are burdened in both these Acts as Beneficed persons and not as Stipendiary Ministers of whom this Act only speaks IN the second Observation upon the said Act it is said that the Lords will allow the user of a Writ to condescend who was the Writer albeit his name be not insert nor condescended on in the Writ But now by the 5 th Act Parl. 3. Ch. 2. all Writs not condescending upon the Writers in the Body are absolutely null and not suppliable by a condescendence ex post facto THis Observation should be thus worded The Act here related to is the 34. Act Par. 6. Q. Mary and the Acts dispensed with both in this and the said 34. Act is the 77. Act Par. 6. Ja. 5. WE have this custome of Morning-gift from the Germans which is called in their Language Morgengab and is learnedly treated by Milerus in his Gamologia personarum illustrium cap. 6. Where he defines Morgennatica to be donum matutinale quod olim apud Germanos Francos una cum doâ—e proprium patrimonium erat uxoris vid. pag. 160. WHereas it is said there that a Band wanting Witnesses is null if the same exceed an hundred pounds and is valid if restricted to 100 pounds It is fit to add that this seems to be somewhat dubious in respect of the 175 Act Par. 13. K. Ja. 6. and 5. Act Par. 3. Ch. 2. which declare all Writts without exception null that are not subscribed before Witnesses IT being asserted in the Observations upon this Act that the reservation of the Act extends as well to the Patronage of Mensal Kirks as those that are of the Bishops representation this Caution should be subjoyned that notwithstanding of the Decision there mentioned March 25. 1631. It may be contended that Mensal Kirks are not contained in the said exception and that because that exception mentions only Patronage of Kirks pertaining to Bishopricks whereas a Mensal Kirk is not Patronate being a part of the Benefice and the disponing a Mensal Kirk is a formal Dilapidation of the Benefice and so contrary to other Acts of Parliament NOtwithstanding of the decision I have there cited it seeâ—s that this Act of Parliament is designed to make all Retours even at the instance of the nearest of Kin irreduceable after 20 years and that even where competition is betwixt Heirs of the same kind as if a second Brother had served himself Heir to his Father during the life of the elder Brother or his Descendents in lineà recta and it seems this has been the opinion of the Lords in the case Younger contra Johnstoun 22. Novemb. 1665. Likeas the Act of Parliament makes no distinction but on the contrary having extended the Prescription of Retours from 3. yearâ— to 20. and that only in favours of the righteous Heir and nearest of Kin it declares generally that after the said 20 years no party shall be heard but yet it seems very hard that if a second Brother himself who knew he had an elder Brother or yet more if he were keeping daily correspondence with him whilst he wâ—re abroad should serve himself Heir to their Father that thereafter this Service might not be reduced notwithstanding of this Prescription of 20 years but it would likewise seem that there might be a speciality in this case because the Dole or it may be the knowledge of the second Brother without any Dole in some cases might hinder Prescription which requires in Law bona fides as one of its essential requisits and yet if a third party bought or comprised that Estate the Prescription might be valid because the impediment being personal could not prejudge him and it is fit to observe that what I said in general in my Observations upon that Act concerning singular Successors was only meanâ— of singular Successors acquiring Rights before that Act for they having bought bona fide before that Act a supervenient Law could not prejudge them FOr clearing the 4. Observation upon the said Act it is fit to take notice that albeit it be there insinuated that Lords of Erection pay only a Blench Duty for the Lands Feued out to them the time of the Erection yet it appears both by the Surrender and Decreet Arbitral following therâ—on
that they still pay a Feu-duty for the Lands Feued out to them since the Erection Nota After a solemn debate before the Exchequer upon the 22. of January 1686. It was decided in a Case betwixt Bellhaven and the Cash-keeper that the King has right to the Feu-duties which anciently were due to Abbots or Church-men before the Annexation or to K. Ja. 6. before the Erection and that these Feu-duties need not be redeemed as the Feu-duties of the Superiorities which were holden of the Lords and Titulars of Erection and whereof they had not acquired the Property before the Surrender and that notwithstanding that for 5â— years together there was a Blench-duty payed for the saids Lands and Aeques made â—n Exchequer conform THe diligence mentioned in the said Act of Parliament must be a compleat not an Inchoat diligence for else it would run not for three years as it is designed but for fourty ALbeit by the 10. Act Par. 1. Ch. 1. It was declared that all Rights and Deeds made prior to that Act which might prejudge his Majesty as to the Superiorities and Feu-farms of Kirk-lands should be null yet to elude that Act there were Commissions procured from the King to serve the Kings Vassals in Kirk-lands Heirs and to receive Resignations c. with right to apply the Compositions and Casualities to their own behove as also they procured long Tacks both of the Feu-duties and Casualities of the Superiorities for payment of inconsiderable Tack-duties to furnish a pretext that the King was still kept in possession that they might not seem to contraveen the Act as also others than the proper Vassals of Kirk-lands procur'd from the King Rights of the Feu-duties after the King had redeem'd the same from the Titulars of Erection or procur'd a Right from his Majesty to redeem them and so did in effect interpose themselves betwixt the King and his Vassals of Kirk-lands therefore by this Act all these indirect courses are discharg'd and the Earl of Dumfermling having procur'd a long Tack of the casualities of the Vassals of the Abbacie of Dumfermling containing a Commission to enter the Vassals ut supra the Exchequer would not allow the same albeit he had procured a Ratification of that Right in Parliament and a Letter from King Charles the 2 d. declaring that it fell not under his Revocation ACT. 1. ACT. 2. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 9· ACT. 10. ACT. 11. ACT. 12. ACT. 23. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 30. ACT. 31. ACT. 32. ACT. 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 45. ACT 46. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACT 50. ACT 51. ACT 52. ACT 54. ACT 57 and 58. ACT 59. ACT 65. ACT 67. ACTS 68 69. ACT 75. ACT 77. ACT 80. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 88. ACT 89. ACT 90. ACT 91. ACT 92. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 98. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 108. ACT 110. ACT 112. ACT 112. ACT 113. ACT 114. ACT 115. ACT 116. ACT 117. ACT 118. ACT 124. ACT 125. ACT 126 and 127. ACT 128. ACT 129. ACT 130. ACT. 131. ACT 132. ACT 133. ACT 134. ACT 137. ACT 138. ACT 139. ACT 140. ACT 141. ACT 142. ACT 143. ACT 144. ACT 145. ACT 146. ACT 1. ACT 2. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 15. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACT 18. ACT 19. ACT 21. ACT 22. ACT 23. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 30. ACT 31. ACT 36. ACT 37 38. ACT 39. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 45. ACT 46. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACTS 50 51 52 53 ACT. 53. ACT 54. ACT 56. ACT 57. ACT 59. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 72. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 78. ACT 2. ACT 3. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 11. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACTS 18 19 ACT 20. ACT 23. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29· ACT 30. ACT 31. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 49. ACT 50. ACT 52. ACT 54. ACT 55. ACT 56. ACT 57· ACT 58. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68 69 ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 80. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT 84. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 88. ACT 89. ACT 90. ACTS 91 92. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 95. ACT 96. ACT 98. ACT 99. ACT 100. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 103. ACT 104. ACT 105. ACT 106. ACT 107. ACT 108. ACT 111. ACT 112. ACT 113. ACT 114. ACT 115. ACT 1. ACT 3. ACT 4. ACT 7. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11 ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 15. ACT 16. ACTS 18 19 ACT 20. ACT 21. ACT 23. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACTS 30 31 32. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38. ACT 39. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 47. ACT 48 ACT 50. ACT 51. ACT 54. ACT 57. ACT 58. ACTS 59 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 74. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT 85. ACT 86. ACT 87. ACT 89. ACTS 90 91. ACT 93. ACT 94. ACT 95. ACT 96. ACT 97. ACT 98. ACT 99. ACT 100. ACT 101. ACT 102. ACT 2. ACTS 3 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 12. ACT 13. ACT 14. ACT 15. ACT 21. ACT 22. ACT 26. ACT 27. ACT 29. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 43. ACT 44. ACT 45. ACT 49. ACT 51 ACT 52. ACT 53. ACT 57. ACT 59. ACT 61. ACT 64. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 71. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75· ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 8â— ACT â—â— ACT 93. ACT 96. ACT 104. ACT 105. ACT 106. ACT 111. ACT 116. ACT 117. ACT 118. ACT 122. ACT 127. ACT 4. ACT 5. ACT 6. ACT 7. ACT 8. ACT 9. ACT 10. ACT 11. ACT 16. ACT 17. ACT 19. ACT 20. ACT 22. ACT 24. ACT 25. ACT 27. ACT 28. ACT 29. ACT 31. ACT 32. ACT 33. ACT 34. ACT 35. ACT 36. ACT 37. ACT 38 ACT 39. ACT 40. ACT 41. ACT 42. ACT 43. ACT 47. ACT 48. ACT 52. ACT 53. ACT 56. ACT 57. ACT 58. ACT 60. ACT 61. ACT 62. ACT 63. ACT 64. ACT 65. ACT 66. ACT 67. ACT 68. ACT 69. ACT 70. ACT 72. ACT 73. ACT 74. ACT 75. ACT 76. ACT 77. ACT 78. ACT 79. ACT 80. ACT 81. ACT 82. ACT 83. ACT
Members the advantage they had over others is taken away and which advantage was the reason inductive of this Act nor should the punishment be extended beyond the Cause which is also conform to the opinion of the Civilians vid. vin select Quest. jur cap. 1. But it may be doubted if he who takes such Assignations should not be lyable to resound the damnages which are occasion'd by taking such an Assignation since it is a principle that Damnage is still due where the injury is done to any man against a positive Law though that Law ordain not Damnage and Interest to be repay'd and in this case the taking such Assignations is declar'd unlawful and so an injury is done against a positive Law 2. Without this the party injur'd is not repair'd for though the publick Interest vel vindicta publica be repair'd by the Deprivation yet the interest of the person les'd which is chiefly to be considered is not 3. Deprivation is oft-times no punishment and seldom a Commensurable Punishment for many Members of the Colledge of Justice lose nothing by Deprivation and a Plea may be worth a great sum and their Imployment worth nothing whereas Damnage as it is a natural so it is a most Commensurable Punishment Because this Act Discharges only Members of the Colledge of Justice to buy Plea's Therefore it is still lawful for them to take Assignations to Plea's gratis as a Donation July 30. 1678. for as this falls not under the express prohibition of the Act so it is noâ— presumable that they will be as keen in pursuing such Processes as these for which they have pay'd out Money nor were it just to make the Members of the Colledge of Justice incapable of their Friends and Relations Liberality By this Act Advocats Servants do pretend they are Members of the Colledge of Justice because this Act says their Servants and other Members Though this Act and the Rubrick Discharges only the buying Debateable Lands Teinds or Possessions and speaks nothing of Moveables nor even Heretable Bonds mobilia being ordinarly accounted vilioris naturae yet the Lords do now ob paritatem rationis extend this Act to such as take Assignations to Moveable Debts or any other debateable Rights This Act uses to be so Interpreted as to be extended only to the Members of the respective Courts who take Assignation to Plead before the Court where they serve and thus if an Advocat should take an assignation to a Plea depending before an Inferiour Court it may be urg'd that this Act should not reach them because he has not influence before that Court but if he should go and Plead before that Court as an Advocat may before any Court then the Act would reach him also Item Though this Act does not speak of Procurators before Inferiour Courts yet the word Advocats seems to comprehend them BY this Act Caution is to be found in actions of Ejections for the violent profits and though cautio juratoria be ordinarly sustain'd where persons cannot find other Cautioners yet it is not sustain'd in this case July 17. 1630. Because this Act says that by the proponing of these Defences against Ejections delays are granted therefore the Defender either in Removings or Ejections is not oblig'd to find Caution where the Defence can be instantly verifi'd and although it has been doubted whether this Caution is to be found at the proponing of the Defence or at the first Term assign'd by the Act yet it is clear that the Caution should be found at the first Term assigned by the Act both because this Act says that the Caution shall be found at the first Dyet of â—itis contestation and because there must be some time given to find Caution Nota That in the Brieves of Dissasine which was the same thing of old that Ejection is now Caution was to be found as here by the Defender Quon Attach cap. 53. num 2. For clearing some mistake in the Printing of my Criminals pag. 294. my meaning was that there may be Perjury in cautione juratoria as for instance if a person should Depone that he could not find Caution for the violent Profits and yet it could be prov'd that such a person who was very responsal offer'd to be Caution this I think would infer Perjury BY this Act it is appointed that twenty dayes after the Parliament is proclaim'd and before it meet four of every Estate should meet to receive Articles to be presented to the Parliament but this is now in Desuetude for no State can now meet except the Burrows and yet sometimes the King writs down to call whom He pleases to name to meet and consult previously what Laws are fit to be made in the future Parliament By this Act also it seems that nothing can be presented in plain Parliament by any of the Members of Parliament but that every thing must be first presented in the Articles for eviting confusion and this Act was made use of to that purpose in the Parliament 1674. against a proposal made then for having a Commitee of grivances To which it was then answered that the Articles being but a Committee of Parliament they could not restrict their own Constituents and this Act was rather directive than restrictive THis Act is fully Explain'd crim pract tit Jurisdiction of the Lords num 7. THis Act is explain'd crim pract tit Paricide THis Act is formerly Explain'd 15 Act 4 Par. Ja. 5. where Liferenters are to find Caution By this Act also a power is granted to the Magistrats of Burghs to cause repair Burnt and Waste Lands but yet ordinarly the Magistrats of Burrows use to give in Petitions to the Council craving liberty to force the Heretors of such Burnt Lands to repair their Burnt Lands themselves or else to sell their part and when there are many small Heretors concern'd the Council grants Warrand to the Magistrats to regulat their Venditions though I know it hath been alleadg'd that the Council could not do this because it was an Inversion of Property and that this was only competent to the Parliament and yet the Council have still been in use to do so for the common good of the people nor is any man a loser since he may repair by himself and if he will not he gets his just price This was granted to the Magistrats of Edinburgh in anno 1678. publice enim interest ne civitatis aspectus deformetur ideo constitutum est l. 4. C. de jur reipub aream collapsam posse a fisco distrahi si proprietarius monitus eam reficere non curaverit vid. l. 46. ff de dam. insect I have seen a Decreet in anno 1636. at the Town of Edinburghs instance against several Heretors before the Lords of Session for ordaining the Heretors of these Houses upon which the Trone-Church now stands to denude themselves of their Right in favours of the Town ob utilitatem publicam and to