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 >>
Mr David Falconer v Sir James keith. [1668] Mor 344 (14 July 1668)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1668/Mor0100344-009.html Cite as:
[1668] Mor 344
A party fined and imprisoned, for reviling and threatening an advocate in the exercise of his office. See No 29.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Mr david falconer gave in a complaint against Sir James Keith of Caddam, that he being in the exercise of his office, informing the President to stop a bill of suspension, given in by Sir James Keith; Sir James did revile and threaten him, calling him a liar and knave, and saying if he found him in another place, he would make him repent what he said.
The lords having received witnesses in their own presence, and finding it proven, sent Sir James to the tolbooth, there to remain during their pleasure, and fined him in 500 merks.
Stair. v. 1. p. 552.
*** There had been much variance in opinion, relative to the competency of appealing to the Parliament of Scotland from the Court of Session; in consequence of which the king had directed a letter, dated 19th May 1674, to the Court, declaring his disapprobation of such appeals. By that letter, certain advocates, who had abbetted appeals, were required to disavow them. They having refused to do so, some of them were, by sentences of the Lords, 24th June and 24th November 1674, ‘debarred from their function.’ Forty other advocates deserted the house on this account. They were cited to return, and having failed to do so, were, by sentence of the Lords, 3d July 1674, likewise debarred from exercising the office of advocate.—The King, by a letter of the 14th July 1674, approved of what the Lords had done; and, by another letter of 12th December 1674, his Majesty did declare, in verbo principis, “That such of the said advocates as should not, betwixt and the 28th January 1675, make application to the Lords for re-entry, to be presented to his Majesty, in manner formerly prescribed, should never be re-admitted to that function thereafter; requiring the Lords forthwith to cause print and publish his royal pleasure thereon, by way of proclamation.” This proclamation gave occasion to the following case, reported by Lord Dirleton. The other proceedings in the matter are recorded in the Acts of Sederunt, p. 120. edit. 1790.
