Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
At this same time a process of this kind was pursued by Alexander Robertson, taylor, against Rory Pedison shoemaker. They having adjacent tenements lying at the head of the Canongate, Rory alleged, That Alexander had encroached upon a too-fall of his, and caused pare it four inches, and put sundry joists in it, whereby his wall was much weakened; and having obtained a decreet against him for repairing the too-fell, and putting it into its pristine condition, he did imprison him. Robertson suspended, and also raised a process of wrongous imprisonment against the said Roderick, for incarcerating him for doing a fact which was implemented and done before; and so he having given full obedience to the decreet, he could not be legally incarcerated on the same decreet, and therefore claimed £2000 of damages; which process the Lords sustained, and admitted to his probation, though it does not fall under the compass of the act 1701, but is only founded on the common law. The English are very exact in their pursuits on false imprisonments, determining in what cases it is lawful, and in what not, and how remediable; and modifying so much expense for every hour they are unjustly detained. As to the putting in my joists to rest in my neighbour's wall, Robertson was ordered to take them out, because he had not a servitude; for law says, non licet lignum in alienum parietem immittere sine jure servitutis L. 2. et L. 33. D. De servitut. urb. præd.
