Jurisdiction of Proprietors who are not the King's Vassals. - Jurisdiction of those who are infeft cum curiis.
Pringle v. Cranston
Date: 12 December 1665 Case No. No 264.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the case Pringle of Greenknow against Cranston, found that a sub-vassal being infeft by a baron cum curiis et bloodwitis, may hold courts and unlaw for blood.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 504. Dirleton, No 5. p. 4.*** Stair reports same case:
William Cranstoun being vassal to Greenknow, he was amerciated in his court for a blood committed upon Walter Pringle; and being charged, suspends upon this reason, That Greenknow not being a baron, or the King's immediate tenant, had no power of blood-wits, unless he had an express deputation from his superior, the Marquis of Huntly, who is baron, only having the jurisdiction. It was answered, That Greenknow was infeft, cum curiis et bloodwitis.
Which the Lords found sufficient.
Stair, v. 1. p. 324.*** This case is also reported by Newbyth:
Walter Cranstoun being unlawed in Greenknow's baron court for a blood and bloodwit upon James Fairholm, and for a riot committed on Robert Fairholm, suspends upon this reason, That Greenknow being sub-vassal to the Marquis of Huntly, has no power to cognosce upon unlaws for blood; to which it was answered, That the charger being infeft cum curiis bluid et bluidwit, and his infeftment being ratified by act of parliament, and by virtue thereof he and his predecessors in possession, past all memory, to hold courts and judge anent bloods, his jurisdiction cannot be now questioned. The Lords found the letters orderly proceeded, and found that Greenknow's right could not be quarrelled, especially by the suspender, who is his sub-vassal.
Newbyth, MS. p. 46.*** Gilmour also reports this case:
1666. January.—In a suspension pursued by William Cranstoun against Walter Pringle of Stitchel, as commissioner for Walter Pringle of Greenknow, for a bloodwit, wherein the said William Cranstoun was amerciated by an inquest of Greenknow's tenants; compeared the Sheriff of Berwick, and alleged. That Greenkow had no power to hold courts for bloods, because he was not the King's free baron of the lands where the blood was committed, being only a feuer to the Marquis of Huntly. It was answered, That he was infeft by the superior, the King's baron, cum curiis et bloodwitis, which was equivalent as if he had been heritable bailie constituted by the superior, and which clause gave him a liberty of courts, and a right to bloods, when he was the first attacher, before the superior or sheriff.
