Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
The Earl of Haddington and his Tutors v. Thomas Campbell, Deacon of the Fleshers in Edinburgh
1693.
January25;and
Feb.4 and 28.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
[See the first part of this Case, supra, page 55.]
February 24.—The Earl of Haddington and his Curators, against Thomas Campbell, about his removing from the park of Holyroodhouse.—The Lords thought his oath did not prove any overgiving, nor yet any homologation of the placard and new tack set to Alexander Ramsay; and, therefore, were ready to have assoilyied; but referred it to some, to try if he would remove at Whitsunday, (but then he would overlay the grass till that time,) or that Ramsay would buy his stocking of sheep, &c. he had grazing in the park. But the President and severals thought that an overgiving was not sufficient without a renunciation in writ, and that the tenant might resile, or the master not accept it till then. But within burghs there are no such renunciations.
Vol. I. Page 565.
February 28.—The Lords advised Deacon Thomas Campbell's bill of suspension, against the Earl of Haddington and his Tutors, anent his removal from the King's Park, mentioned 24th current. And the Lords having read his oath, by plurality they found he could not be removed, unless either he had been warned forty days before the term, or else had given a renunciation of his tack in writ under his hand: albeit he acknowledged he had declared that he would not keep it unless he got an ease of the rent, and knew of the placards affixed for a new set; and that, the tack being expired, and he only now bruiking per tacitam relocationem, there was no need of a formal renunciation in writ; and that it was evident that he acted fraudulently, at least craftily, to get down his tack-duty.
