BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you
consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it
will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free
access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
You are here:BAILII >>
Databases >>
Scottish Court of Session Decisions >>
Stuart v Bruce. [1625] Mor 6855 (4 February 1625)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1625/Mor1706855-010.html Cite as:
[1625] Mor 6855
Days, how computed. - Induciæ in a charge of horning. - Baron decrees. - Citations pro confesso. - Criminal sentences. - Induciæ before inferior courts. - Reductions and improbations. - Privileged summons. - Decree-arbitral. - Citation of tutors and curators.
Stuart v. Bruce
Date: 4 February 1625 Case No. No 10.
A charge of horning, on six days, given to a person benorth Dee, was found null, although it proceeded cm his bond, in which he consented that letters of horning on six days should pass. See No 6. and No 13.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a suspension at the instance of ——— Stuart of Currie in Orkney, against Andrew Bruce of Balwharg, for suspending of the charges executed against the said Stuart, whereby he was charged to pay a sum of money upon a simple charge of six days, conform to his bond, consenting that letters should be so directed; upon the which charge he was denounced to the horn; which letters were desired to be suspended; because, by the 25th act, 16th Parl. Ja. VI. anno 1600, it was redained, that no letters of horning be directed against persons dwelling benorth Dee, upon shorter space than 15 days; and which, if they are otherwise used, the hornings thereupon are declared null. Which reason being considered by the Lords, they found the horning null, because the charge of horning was not executed conform to the act of Parliament foresaid, upon 15 days, the party charged dwelling in Orkney; albeit it was answered by the charger, That the act of Parliament militated not in this case, which only was intended for charges to be given to parties for their compearance, and for citation and such other charges, which had no warrant of the party's own consent, as those which past upon obligations consenting to such charges, and authorized with sentence interponed thereto; for, it was alleged, that the preceding fact and deed of the party, whereupon these charges depended, ought to sustain the same, and that he might have dispensed with the said act of Parliament if the act had militated in this case, to which the said act could not extend, as might be evident by consideration of the narrative and intent thereof; notwithstanding whereof, the horning was found null, in respect of the said act of Parliament, which was found to extend to all charges of horning without exception.
Act. Ayton.Alt. ——.Clerk, Hay.
Fol. Dic. V. 1. p. 466. Durie, p. 161.
