One employed as a hand, presumed to have accompted.
Couts v. Couts
Date: 21 January 1636 Case No. No 91.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
A master pursuing his servant for payment of the prices of beer and ale which he laid in in his house and cellars, and which was vented and run by the defender, and which was libelled to be resting and owing for the space of a year together, at least so much was owing as extended to 500 merks; and it being questioned, if this should be proved by writ, or oath of the defender, or, if it was probable, by witnesses; the Lords found, That the libel being taken together, viz. ‘that it was resting owing,’ should be proved only by writ or oath of party; for albeit the laying in of drink by the pursuer, and the defender's venting of it, might be proved by witnesses, yet, that it was so long owing unpaid, was found ought to be referred to the defender's oath; for, in cases of this nature betwixt the master and taverner, it is presumed that they make their counts weekly or nightly, and so they are in use to do; neither is it likely that the master would have suffered his servant to go out of his service, and to stay still in the town of Edinburgh, where she remained ever since, and not all this time to have craved her therefor, there being three quarters of an year since she left her service, during which space he never challenged her, till now that he intented this action, to meet a pursuit which she had before moved against him for her fees; in respect whereof, it was found probable, as said is.
Act. Craig.Alt. Gray.Clerk, Gibson.
Fol. Dic. v. 2. p. 140. Durie, p. 789.
