Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Found that inhibitions relative to lands in the barony of Brughton, should be executed at the cross of the Canongate, as the burgh of regality; and therefore found an inhibition as to the foresaid lands executed at the cross of Edinburgh, null and void.
Harcarse, (Inhibition.) No 642. p. 177.*** Fountainhall reports this case:
1695. February 26.—The> Lords having considered the bill and answers, between James Watson of Saughton and Sir Robert Baird of Saughtonhall; they reduced the said James's inhibition, because not executed at the market-cross of the Canongate; in regard they found it proved, that the lands of Dalry-mills lay in that regality. It was argued by some of the Lords, that it was evident the Abbot had dismembered them from his regality, and that they had always answered by suit and presence in the shire, being called in the suit rolls; and did serve heir in the sheriff-court, and not in the regality. But it was replied, That in heritable bailiaries, the Abbot could not disjoin; and in services, any of these jurisdictions were competent and cumulative. Saughton judging himself grieved by this interlocutor, gave in an appeal and protestation for remeid of law to the Parliament.
