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 >> David Edgar v Carnegie of Balnamoon. [1694] 4 Brn 223 (8 December 1694) URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1694/Brn040223-0504.html |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Date: David Edgar
v.
Carnegie of Balnamoon
8 December 1694 Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Lords advised the first article of falsehood in the improbation of a discharge pursued by David Edgar against Carnegie of Balnamoon, That Sym, the writer of it, was there designed, in 1658, servitor to Sir John Carnegie of Balnamoon; whereas they had adduced probation that he was then Commissary Nicolson's man, and was then come to Balnamoon. But a mutual probation being granted, the Lords found it more pregnant and positive that he was then Balnamoon's servant.
The next was, comparatione literarum of other subscriptions of Sym and Hercules Cramond, the granter of the discharge. But the Lords found, though there was some diversity, yet it is so lubrick a trial, that, per se, it is not illative of falsehood; seeing men's hand-writ will vary in a short time, even by the change of a pen, or the temper of the body, or through carelessness and inadvertency. The Lords sustained the discharge, and assoilyied from the improbation.
Some witnesses' testimonies, that had been adduced by the pursuer, were amissing; but as they were related, by their informations, it was thought they would not alter the case.
Then they pleaded the writ was null, by the 175th act, 1593; because the writer of it was not right designed. The Lords found this was not the case of the Act of Parliament.
The electronic version of the text was provided by the Scottish Council of Law Reporting