Elizabeth Butler and Lieutenant John Gordon, her Husband, for his Interest, v. Alexander Ragg
Date: 31 July 1708 Case No. No 23.
An advocate may demand to see the process, for a defender out of the kingdom, without a mandate, though he cannot give in defences.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In a poinding of the ground, at the instance of Elizabeth Butler and her husband, against Alexander Ragg, as heir to Margaret Williamson, an advocate having compeared, and craved to see the process for the defender, who was out of the kingdom: It was alleged for the pursuers, That no advocate's compearance, for a person out of the kingdom, could be sustained without a special mandate, as was decided, February 3, 1681, ———against Stuart of Archattan, No 17. supra.
Answered for the defender: Though an advocate would not be allowed, without a special mandate, to plead for one out of the kingdom, he may, by the privilege of his gown, crave to see any process against such an one, that, in the mean time, before it come in by the course of the roll, he may acquaint his friend abroad, and get a mandate, with instructions about what defences should be made. The cited decision is alien to the point; for an advocate's craving there to have one out of the kingdom reponed, against a decree in absence, could not be sustained, because it resolved into a defence.
The Lords found, That an advocate might, by the warrant of his gown, be allowed to see the process for the defender; though he could not be allowed to plead for him and make defences, without a special mandate.
