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 >>
Town of Linlithgow v Inhabitants of Borrowstoness. [1663] Mor 1904 (30 January 1663)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1663/Mor0501904-050.html Cite as:
[1663] Mor 1904
The Privileges of Burghs and Burgesses. - Monopolies.
Town of Linlithgow v. Inhabitants of Borrowstoness
Date: 30 January 1663 Case No. No 50.
Burghs-royal may summarily sieze upon staple ware of unfreemen, and judge regarding it; but cannot summarily incarcerate, having the privilege only of charging to find caution.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The town of Linlithgow having apprehended an inhabitant of Borrowstoness, in their town, being an unfreeman, and exercising the trade of merchandise, they put him in prison; he granted bond to forbear in all time-coming: Likeas they fined him in 100 merks; he suspended, and raised reduction, on this reason, that the bond was extorted, when so far as he was summarily taken, and put in prison, and could not get out till he promised to give the bond, and immediately after he was out, subscribed the same.—The charger alleged, There was no unjust force or fear, because, by the acts of Parliament in favour of free burghs, all unfreemen are discharged to exercise the trade of merchandise; whereupon they had obtained decreet against the same suspender to desist and cease therefrom. 2dly, They, and all other free burghs, had immemorially possessed this privilege, to apprehend persons found within their town; and forced them to find caution as law will, upon debt due to any in the town, and, particularly, to put them in prison till they give such bonds in surety as this.—The suspender answered to the first, There was no such warrant by the act of Parliament, but only to charge, with general letters, unfreemen to find caution; and for the privilege of burghs, to arrest unfree persons within their towns, it is only in case of debts, and other merchandises, due to burgesses, but cannot be extended to this case, where there is a special order set down by act of Parliament.
The Lords found that the burghs-royal (might seize) summarily upon staple ware of unfreemen, and might judge thereanent; but not summarily incarcerate their persons, but only to charge them; and found their custom and privilege not to extend to this case; and, therefore, found the reason of reduction relevant.
