Administrator's Oath, if relevant against his Constituent?
Barclay v. Binnie
Date: 6 March 1630 Case No. No 327.
Furnishing of ale, &c. to one who kept a tavern, and prices thereof, relevant to be proved by his wife's oath.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Alexander Barclay charging William Binnie and Mr Robert Livingston for 500 merks, conform to their bond, and they suspending, because the charger's wife (he and she keeping an open change-house in Edinburgh) had received as much beer and ale in their house since the date of their bond, as in price extended to the sum acclaimed, which they referred to her oath of verity; and the charger alleging, That this reason ought not to be admitted to take away his registered bond, the debt neither being declared, nor yet liquid, neither could his wife's oath be taken to his prejudice;—the Lords, nevertheless, found the reason relevant to be proved by the wife's oath, in respect both the debt and the price was referred to her oath, whereby it would be declared, if it was true debt, and also she was to declare the prices; and whereupon the Lords found, That the wife might depone, albeit having an husband, seeing they kept an open change-house, and the wife might receive ale and drinking-beer therein as she did before, the husband never disallowing thereof.
Act. King.Alt. ——.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 238. Durie, p. 501.
