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 >>
Patrick Hepburn v The Earl of Lothian. [1680] 3 Brn 341 (25 February 1680)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1680/Brn030341-0459.html
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
Patrick Hepburn v. The Earl of Lothian
Date: 25 February 1680
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The cause, Patrick Hepburn, apothecary, against the Earl of Lothian, was debated. Lothian had renewed his father's bond with this quality, If Patrick would procure him a new gift and confirmation for collecting the annuity; as also allowing and deducing to him, in the first end of his intromissions, the expenses he shall be at: in which account the Earl gives up 18,000 merks per annum, spent by him and his lady and family, by staying sometimes at Edinburgh and whiles in the country.
Replied,—He behoved to have lived in the rank and quality of a nobleman whether he had been collector of the king's annuity or not; and if all this were to come off the king, then it were the king's interest rather to commit the trust of collecting and in-gathering of his rents to meaner persons, who could live upon 3000 merks by year. 2 do, The clause anent the expenses must be only understood of the extraordinary expenses he is put to in pursuing for and collecting it.
Halton was declined by Lothian as one of the Lords of the Treasury, and this point dipped somewhat upon the king's interest. But the Lords found he sat and voted with them only as a Lord of the Session; and therefore they rejected it. He also gave in a declinator against the Register, and Harcours, who had married the pursuer's wife's aunt, and sister; but the declinator was not admitted. For declining of Newbyth, it was offered to be proven by his oath, that he had been verbally solicited, by Mr Patrick Home; conform to the late Act. The Lords waved this point, as being of a dangerous preparative.
