Whether one is liable for the malversation of those under his authority? - Complaint raised in name of another without his authority.
Murislaw v. Halyburton
Date: 28 March 1623 Case No. No 70.
Contravention sustained against a master upon a deed of his household servants, though it was not proved, that the servants had authority from his master.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a contravention pursued by Murislaw against Halyburton of Pendicle and John Trew of Lamington, the Lords found, That the deed of two of John Trew's domestic servants in taking away all the clipped wool, being in the pursuer's tenant's houses, was a sufficient cause to decern the said John Trew in the pain of the contravention; for seeing, that if it were otherways decerned, powerful men might secretly direct their household servants to oppress their neighbours who had charged them with law-burrows, and eschew the pain, because the pursuer could not prove the secret command given by the master to his servant.
