Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a spuilzie for violent profits, at the instance of the owners of horses seized by some persons at the first rise of the western rebellion,
Alleged for the defenders: That they were secured by the indemnity, and could not be liable in a spuilzie, which is penal; nor yet in simple restitution, seeing the horses were lost, and the defenders made no benefit by them.
Answered for the pursuer: This process being neither vindicta publica, nor privata, but only pretiosa, for damage and interest to a party lesed, it cannot fall under the indemnity. 2do, The horses being robbed, without special warrant of officers, and before they were formed into any companies, the deed must be considered as a private depredation.
The Lords did not sustain the spuilzie as to all the violent profits contained in the decreet; but allowed to the pursuer the prices, with the annual-rent from the time the horses were taken away, and large expenses; and found all the defenders liable in solidum.
