That a bill was blank in the receiver's name at the time of accepting, found relevant to be proved only by his oath or writ.
Click here to view a pdf copy of this documet : PDF Copy
In the suspension raised by the Tenants of Riccartoun of a charge upon their accepted bill of exchange, at the instance of Sir Alexander Brand, the Lords having, No 21. p. 1679, found it relevant to annul the bill, that it was blank the time of accepting, and after it was out of the accepter's hand; they now found, that the bills being so blank, behoved to be proved scripto vel juramento of Sir Alexander Brand; in respect no person's written evident can be taken away otherwise than by his own oath or writ; and it were easy to pretend on all occasions that the writ quarrelled was originally blank. So this rule, that writ should not be taken away by witnesses, is most necessary to be observed in bills, where no instrumentary witnesses use to be adhibited, and, consequently, extraneous witnesses behoved to be relied on. Albeit, it was alleged for the suspenders, That if it were not allowed to prove the bill's being blank by witnesses, the design of the act of Parliament would be frustrated, since it is not to be imagined that the receiver of a blank writ will declare under his hand that it was blank; and it is the act of Parliament in this case that annuls the writ; for the testimony of witnesses does but prove the nullity, which is fact.
