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 >>
The Procurator-Fiscal of the Regality of Coupar v Simpson. [1715] Mor 12242 (19 July 1715)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1715/Mor2912242-387.html Cite as:
[1715] Mor 12242
The Procurator-Fiscal of the Regality of Coupar v. Simpson
Date: 19 July 1715 Case No. No 387.
Proof of a crime cannot be led in absence.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Simpson being charged upon a decreet obtained at the instance of the Procurator-fiscal, for the penalties imposed by law in using lime in bleaching of linen cloth, and for a bloodwit; he suspended on these reasons; 1mo, The transgression in bleaching the cloth was his wife's fault, and not his, for which he could not be liable; 2do, As to the bloodwit, the sentence was pronounced upon a probation led in absence; whereas, in complaints for crimes, the Bailie could only have fined him for contumacy, and granted warrant to apprehend him till he should find caution to appear personally.
It was answered to the first; That whatever defence may be competent to husbands, that they cannot be liable for penalties incurred by their wives in other cases, yet if husbands were not liable for their wives' transgressions, by undue bleaching of linen cloth, the law would be altogether eluded; because women only are employed in bleaching, whereof their husbands have the benefit, whether for sale, or for their proper use, and in effect wives are trusted by their husbands, and præpositæ for that particular management. And as to the second, It is the ordinary practice to lead probation, even in absence of the parties, in small scuffles where bloodwits happen.
“The Lords found the husband liable; but suspended the decreet for the bloodwit; and found that probation ought not to be led in absence; and that the Bailie ought only to have unlawed the suspender, and granted a warrant to apprehend him until he found caution.”
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 210. Dalrymple, No 149. p. 205.
