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 >>
William Maxwell of Dalswinton v Alexander Blair of Dunrod, and the Trustees appointed by the deceased Hugh Blair of Dunrod, Father to the said Alexander. [1774] Mor 9522 (14 July 1774)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1774/Mor2309522-065.html Cite as:
[1774] Mor 9522
Sponsiones ludicræ. - Game Debt. - Premium for procuring a Wife. - Private Lotteries.
William Maxwell of Dalswinton v. Alexander Blair of Dunrod, and the Trustees appointed by the deceased Hugh Blair of Dunrod, Father to the said Alexander
Date: 14 July 1774 Case No. No 65.
In a question relative to the validity of a bill, granted as the amount of a wager lost upon a horserace, the Lords found, that the 14th act, Parliament 1621, relative to game debts, was not in desuetude.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The statute 14th, Parliament 1621, inter alia, enacts, That, wherever any person wins above 100 merks, within 24 hours, upon cards, dice, or horseracing, the surplus shall, within 24 hours thereafter, be consigned in the hands of the Kirk-Treasurer, if in Edinburgh, or of the Kirk-Session in the country, to be applied for the use of the poor.
In a question between these parties, relative to the payment of a bill that was granted to the pursuer, by the deceased Hugh Blair, in consequence of his having lost a bett of L. 200 Sterling upon this feat of horsemanship, which of them should ride in the shortest time from Dumfries to Kirkcudbright?—the pursuer having contended, That betts of this kind were not illegal, the point deliberated upon by the Court was, Whether or not the act 1621 was in desuetude? And, for showing that it was not, reference was made to the decision in the case of Sir Scipio Hill, 9th February 1711, voce Poor.
The Court “found, that the 14th act, Parliament 1621, is not in desuetude; and ordain the Clerk of this process to intimate to the Kirk-Sessions of Dumfries, Kirkcudbright, and Kelton, that they may appear for their interest in this cause; and, this intimation being made, remit to the Lord Ordinary to proceed in the cause, and to do therein as he shall see just.”
Act. Crosbie.Alt. Wight.Clerk, Kirkpatrick.
Fol. Dic. v. 4. p. 34. Fac. Col. No 126. p. 338.
*** See the competition between the Kirk Sessions, decided 15th June 1775, in favour of the poor of the parish of Dumfries, voce Poor.
