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!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
Scottish Court of Session Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> Scottish Court of Session Decisions >> Raguel Bennet v William Davidson. [1628] 1 Brn 157 (2 June 1628) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1628/Brn010157-0353.html |
||
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION reported by SIR ROBERT SPOTISWOODE OF PENTLAND.
Subject_2 Such of the following Decision as are of a Date prior to about the year 1620, must have been taken by Spotiswoode from some of the more early Reporters. The Cases which immediately follow have no Date affixed to them by Spotiswoode.
Date: Raguel Bennet
v.
William Davidson
2 June 1628 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Raguel Bennet pursued William Davidson for twenty bolls of victual, as for the duty of certain lands yearly, 1620, 1621, 1622, 1623. The first three years were elided by the defender; as for the 1623, he denied his occupation of the said lands that year; whereupon there was probation led against him, and witnesses examined in the cause, but nothing further done. After this, the defender pursues Raguel before the sheriff of Selkirk, for twenty bolls of victual delivered by him to Raguel; which action being advocated before the Lords, Alleged the summons was not relevant, except he would condescend upon some cause of delivery of the said bolls to Raguel. Being forced to condescend, he affirmed it was for the duty of the former lands, 1623. Replied by Raguel, He could not be heard; because, that exception being competent in the cause pursued by him against Davidson, he had omitted it, and had denied his occupation of these lands that year. Duplied, It was but a mistake, and he, being rusticus et ignarus juris, should be reponed. Which the most part of the Lords granted.
Page 293.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting
