Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL Subject_2 SUMMER SESSION.
The Pewterers of Edinburgh v. The Plumbers
Date: 4 February 1679
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
The Pewterers of Edinburgh raise a declarator against the Plumbers, that they have as good right to work in lead, as making pipes, thatching platforms, &c. as the Plumbers. Alleged, 1mo,—The Lords have found the Plumbers a distinct trade. (See Feb. 1676, No. 469.) 2do, It is for the good of the kingdom, to have sundry different trades. 3tio, By Act of Parliament 1663, the Pewterers should not meddle with lead. 4to, The whole deacons have given a decreet in favours of the Plumbers. Answered,—The decreet of the other deacons is given a judicibus pedaneis, and is of no moment. Some lead is always necessary to make tin work, in ley metal, such as stoups, chamberpots, &c, the standard and quantity of which mixture is decerned by an Act of the Burrows. The Act 1663 hinders them not to work in lead, but only to mix it with foreign tin. There is no mystery in plumbing, but easily any pewterer may do it; yet stannum et plumbum are different. The Pewterers are in the seal of cause with the Hammermen; the Plumbers are in none, but have a wheel-barrow for their essay. Different trades, where they are able to subsist, are useful; but, in Scotland, plumbers cannot subsist upon their work, as a distinct trade, there being little to do; only our curiosity is increasing daily.
This being reported, the Lords, before answer, ordained the Plumbers to condescend and prove, that, since their admission and incorporating of them with the Wrights and Masons, they were used, by and of themselves, to work in lead as a distinct trade and employment, and were in use to admit of apprentices, and to do such other things as are proper for a distinct trade and employment; and to condescend, and prove the time of their assumption and incorporation to be a distinct trade.
Vol. I. Page 40.
Anent Proof by Witnesses.
Intromission with moveable goods, or with maills and duties, maybe proven by witnesses, though they be of never so great a value; but not intromission with sums of money, which require a more exact probation, scripto et juramento, that the Judge may exactly know quo animo it was uplifted, and whether the uplifter had any right thereto or not.
Vol. I. Page 40.
Anent Bonds of Provision and Testaments.
One makes a testament, and leaves legacies, and afterwards grants a bond of provision to his children: the bond of provision will affect the moveables preferably to the legatars, because ambulatoria est hominis voluntas; and here posterius derogat prioribus; and a testament is sua naturd revocable, vel tacite vel expresse, and is only sententia de eo quod quis post mortem suam fieri velit. But, if the bond of provision be on death-bed, it only affects the dead's part.
