Arthur Temple v. Alexander Cunningham, Writer to the Signet
Date: 2 July 1708 Case No. No 12.
A writer to the signet, in a dying condition, was found not obliged summarily to depone upon a petition, regarding his having writs belonging to the petitioner, who could not say that the writer had received these writs from him ratione officii.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
Arthur Temple having represented by bill, that several papers belonging to him were in the custody of Alexander Cunningham, writer to the signet, and craved a warrant for taking his oath anent his having thereof; in respect he, Mr Cunningham, was a member of the College of Justice, and a-dying, by whose death, without deponing, the supplicant would lose his mean of probation; The Lords refused the desire of the bill; because, though members of the College of Justice be obliged to answer summarily, as to any thing that concerns their employment or trust from their clients; in other cases they cannot be more summarily convened as havers of writs, than the rest of the lieges, but must be insisted against via ordinaria, and allowed the common induciæ legales.
