Where the hand writing is denied, of a writing without witnesses, the party founding on it must prove it.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
John M'Cubine by his ticket being bound to John Inglis, to pay to him 300 merks, and being pursued for payment, he alleged the ticket to be null, because it wanted witnesses; and the pursuer replying the same to be holograph, and so there was no necessity of witnesses, the defender alleged, that it behoved to be proved, that it was his hand-writ: And the pursuer answering, that there was no necessity to prove the same, seeing the ticket bore it all to be written with his own hand, and subscribed by him, so that he needed not to approve the same; but in respect of the foresaid tenor thereof, the defender ought to improve the same, or else it should have full faith and force; the Lords found, that where the defender, or his procuratory for him being so informed (if the defenders self be not present) denies the hand-writ in that writ, whereupon pursuit is moved against him, and where there are no witnesses therein insert (which is a necessary circumstance required to the validity thereof, and the ordinary mean whereby to improve) the pursuer ought to prove the writ to be holograph, albeit it purported to be written all with the party's hand-writ, and subscribed by him.
Clerk, Scot.
Durie, p. 592.
*** The same found, same day, Elliot against Ellies, No. 114. p. 2649. voce Compensation.
