The Privileges of Burghs and Burgesses. - Monopolies.
M'Korinoch v. Johnston
Date: 31 July 1632 Case No. No 49.
Burgesses may convene one another before the Sheriff of the county.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
One M'Korinoch, burgess and indweller in Kirkcudbrght, pursues the relict of umquhile————, who was also burgess, and died in that town, the relict also being still dwelling in that town, before the Sheriff of the sheriffdom, to make payment to him of certain prices for particulars furnished to her, extending to six or seven score pounds, and whereof she promised him payment; whereupon having obtained sentence before the Sheriff, and thereupon charging her, she suspends upon this reason, That she being a burgess' wife of the King's burgh royal, and still residenter there, as the pursuer also was, and a burgess of that town, she could not be convened but before the provost and bailies of their own burgh, they being both concives, and the Sheriff was not judge to her, nor she holden to answer to that court. This reason was not respected, but the letters were found orderly proceeded notwithstanding thereof; in respect the Lords found, That the burgesses of burghs royal might be convened by con-burgesses before the Sheriff, as well as before their own magistrates of burgh, albeit the burghs were also sheriffs within themselves; for they were not privative, but cumulative judges.
Upon the last day of March 1636, this was controverted in a cause betwixt Gouts and Couts, cook in Edinburgh, where the master being pursued by the servant for his fees, before the Sheriff of Edinburgh; and the master desiring advocation, because he was a burgess of Edinburgh, and therefore ought either to be judged in their court, as their, burgesses, especially seeing they were sheriffs within themselves, or else advocated to the Lords; which reason the Lords inclined to sustain, but delayed to decide it until June next thereafter.
