Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL.
Dr Stirling v. Sir Robert Stewart of Allanbank
Date: 11 November 1697
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Doctor Stirling, son to George Stirling, apothecary, pursues Sir Robert Stewart of Allanbank, for an account of drugs, extending to £5 sterling; and, referring the same to his oath, Sir Robert depones,.—That George was indeed his ordinary chirurgeon and apothecary at that time, and thinks there might have been drugs furnished to his family, but can say nothing upon his own knowledge of the particulars whereof” the account was made up, whether they came to their use or not; but depones he gave his deceased wife money to pay his accounts in town, and particularly this among the rest; and that his wife said she accordingly paid them, and he believes this was so paid among the rest.
The Lords were perplexed what to make of this oath; for he did not say that his wife told him she had paid this account in particular, neither had she any discharge of it; so the money destínate to pay George Stirling might have been applied another way. Yet the Lords considering it was not pursued within the three years, (as the Act of Parliament 1579 bears,) and that he did not confess it was resting owing, therefore they found his oath did not prove the debt; and assoilyied: for they thought gentlemen had little more security of the payment of most of their accounts than that they gave their ladies or servants money to pay them, and had their assurance it was so applied; and if this was insecure for artificers, they had a remedy, either to get their account subscribed within the three years, or else pursue within that time.
