The Lords refused to sustain improbation of a writ, at the instance of the King's Advocate alone, when the parties concerned were agreed about it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
There was a contract into the books of Council betwixt two brethren called Chapmans, sons to umquhil———Chapman, who was a writer in Edinburgh. The King's Advocate compeared, and desired to be admitted to improve the said contract. It was alleged, That, in respect the parties had consented to the registration of the same, and that there was no person hurt by the same, et dolus non fit sine damno, nor yet was it a contract contra bonos mores, aut contra utilitatem regis aut regni, that the King's Advocate could on no manner of way be heard to improve. It was answered, That crimen falsi fuit actio popularis et de publicis judiciis, et interest reipublicæ ne hujusmodi crimina maneant impunita; and therefore, albeit the parties would make collusion among themselves, by invention and forging of falsets, yet the King's Advocate ought to be heard ay to improve.——The Lords pronounced, by interlocutor, that they would not hear the King's Advocate to improve.
