Days, how computed. - Induciæ in a charge of horning. - Baron decrees. - Citations pro confesso. - Criminal sentences. - Induciæ before inferior courts. - Reductions and improbations. - Privileged summons. - Decree-arbitral. - Citation of tutors and curators.
Hamilton v. Harvie
Date: 8 March 1605 Case No. No 6.
A horning executed on shorter induciæ than required by act of Parliament, was sustained, because agreed to by the parties. See No 10.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
David Hamilton, donatar to the escheat of Andrew Harvie, pursued for declarator thereof; it was alleged, That the horning was null, because it is prescribed by act 25th, made in the Parliament 1600, that all charges of horning against persons dwelling benorth Dee, the same shall be upon 15 days warning, otherwise to be null; and true it is that Andrew Harvie dwelt in Aberdeen, and was charged only upon ten days. It was answered, That the charge was lawful, because the act of Parliament was only made for personal charges requiring the compearance of parties; but this charge being directed upon a registered contract made since the said act of Parliament, and bearing registration and execution upon a simple charge of ten days, the same was lawful, and it is of verity that there intervened six weeks betwixt the charge and denunciation; in respect of the which answer, the Lords repelled the allegeance. It was farther alleged, That the horning was null, because Andrew Harvie dwelt within the regality of the College of Aberdeen, where there was a clerk and writer, and use of denunciation at the market-cross of Old Aberdeen.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 466. Haddington, MS. v. 1. No 755.
