Found that the King's Advocate cannot pursue an improbation by himself, but must have an informer.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The King's Advocate pursued one Bernard Ferguson for the production of an infeftment, containing into it a bond and obligation for delivering of a reversion, the which infeftment was under the note of Mr James Colvil; and thereafter the said James was summoned to hear and see the same to be improven. It was alleged by the said Bernard, and the Laird of Balgony, who had interest in the said matter, That the Advocate had no interest, by himself only, to pursue any person for the production of his evidents, and improbation of the same, except he had some party to concur with him, and to be his instructor, and who was interested and damnified. To which was answered, That the King's Advocate had sufficient interest, by himself only, and needed no informer quia interest reipublicæ ne crimina maneant impunita, and the action of falset fuit crimen publicum et publici judicii et actio popularis, and so the Advocate had sufficient interest by himself only. To this was answered, That the action of falset was civilly intented before the Lords, and concluded and contained in itself interesse et damnum partis, quia falsitas et dolus non est sine damno, and so it must follow of necessity, that there is ay some party civilly hurt and prejudged, and interested; for otherways, if it came to the King's Advocate only, he might ay compel all men to produce their writings and evidents, at his instance, and pick at them as he pleased; and also there was alleged a late practique betwixt the Laird of Essilmont, and the L. of Straloch, No 2. p. 7895. into an improbation, in the whilk it was found by the Lords, that the Advocate had no place to improve without the informer.——The Lords, after long reasoning found, by voting, for the most part, that the Advocate ought to have an informer, and to cause him to be notified to the Lords.
