Circumstances inferring Convalescence, whether equivalent to going to Kirk and Market.
Keirie v. Craigengelt
Date: 25 November 1687 Case No. No 102.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the case between John Keirie of Gogar and Craigengelt, in a reduction ex capite lecti, the Lords refused to sustain these acts as equipollent to his going to kirk and market, that after the disposition he came down a very rugged way beside Stirling, without any help, and there took coach and went to Alloway, where he died.
Fol. Dic. v. 1. p. 219. Fountainhall, v. 1. p. 483.*** Harcarse reports the same case:
In a reduction ex capite lecti, of a disposition made by one Craigengelt to John Keirie's son, at the instance of the disponer's heir;
It was alleged for the defender; That the defunct did posterior acts of health equivalent to the going to kirk aud market, viz. he came a pair of butts out of his house unsupported to a coach, wherein he travelled six miles to Alloway, and walked up two pair of stairs to John Keirie's house, and did several other domestic acts.
Answered; The qualified defence is not relevant to import health, nor equivalent to the going to kirk or market: For, 1. The defunct's going in coach, contrary to his former custom, is an argument of great weakness; and the reason of the law's pitching on kirk and market is, because there indifferent and unsuspected witnesses will be found; and a person will not willingly expose himself in public. But if men were allowed to perform the indicia sanitatis before picked out witnesses and confidents, heirs could have no security against death-bed deeds.
