Subject_1 DECISIONS of the LORDS OF COUNCIL AND SESSION, reported by SIR JOHN LAUDER OF FOUNTAINHALL. Subject_2 I sat in the Outer-House this week.
Grizel Kininmount of that ilk v. Colonel Forbes of Pittencrieff
17021704.
December3
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
1702. December 3.—Grizel Kininmount of that ilk gives in a petition against Colonel Forbes of Pittencrieff, showing that her lands of Urquhart, lying contigue with the said lands of Pittencrieff, the Colonel, under pretence of working his own coal, had invaded hers, and made use of her workmen's sinks: and craved he might be stopped.
The Lords would stop no work unheard; but allowing him to see, he had complained that they had taken the start of him, though he had more just reason to complain than she: for one Robertson, the Lady Kininmount's tacksman in her coal of Urquhart, had, under pretence of working her coal, entered far within PittencriefFs march, and, under ground, wasted and embezzled his coal; for remedy whereof he had applied to the Justices of Peace at Dunfermline, and obtained their warrant to skilful men to try the matter of fact; upon whose report the Justices found Robertson's encroachment, and discharged his farther working; which act the lady had suspended.
The Lords saw a necessity for a new visitation; and named some of their number for that effect, who declined it at this season of the year; and, it requiring dispatch, they appointed Mr Alexander Gibson of Dury, one of their clerks, to go on Saturday next, and cause visit it, and bring back his report on Tuesday thereafter, without further delay: for though the Lords usually name some of their own number, or country gentlemen, in such cases, and use not to burden their clerks with such commission, they serving the lieges in another capacity, yet, in this case, they employed him, which seldom uses to fall out. But the Lords would invert neither of their possessions, novi operis nunciatione, till the matter were tried.
Vol. II. Page 163.
1704. January 28.—In the mutual declarators of property, pursued betwixt Colonel Forbes of Pittencrieff and the heiress of Kininmount, (mentioned 3d December 1702,) for her lands of Urquhart, lying contigue with Pittencrieff; the Lords having advised the indenture of marches, being a decreet-arbitral of division in 1578, with the testimonies of the witnesses, they found the gushet in controversy belonged in property to the Colonel, as a part of his lands of Pittencrieff, conform to the probation of the march-stones. The value of which ground, being a moor, was inconsiderable; but having a coal, Robertson of Gladney, the lady's tacksman, had wrought under it, for which the Colonel had a process of damages depending. And the Lords having refused a new visitation to perambulate the ground, in this process, it having been done twice already, Alexander Murray of Melgum, for himself, and in name of the heiress of Kinninmount, his lady, protested this day, for remedy of law, to the Parliament.
